PIP allocation and unreliable allies

[landmeister]

Hi again,

I have two doubts more.
1) PIP allocation. Last para. "Allied commands...dice independently and are not CURRENTLY included in allocation or averaging. Capitals are mine. Why is so specified? Can it be changed in future bounds? Can an ally become subordinate? 
2) Unreliable allies. An ally is unreliable if hits first UNADJUSTED pip dice is 1. I'm sure it means you can adjust that dice but I can't find how and when  . Additionally, he becomes reliable when 4 more enemy than friendly elements are lost or broken. I can understand that you can kill 4 enemies more than they kill you, but how can you break 4 enemy elements more than friends?  You only break entire commands! 

Thank you again.

[Aloysius the Gaul]

1/ I don't see teh word "currently" on page 26 anywhere - what are you looking at?

2/ It can be adjusted -1 if he is inert, or doubled if he is brilliant.

And you count the elements of broken commands - if you've broken a command of 20 elements and he's broken a command of 16 elements, then you've broken 4 more elements than you have broken of your own.

[Optio]

1) PIP allocation. Last para. "Allied commands...dice independently and are not CURRENTLY included in allocation or averaging. Capitals are mine. Why is so specified? Can it be changed in future bounds? Can an ally become subordinate?

No - this word applies to all the others other than the ally. This bit needs to be read in conjunction with the para on PIP dicing on p26

2) Unreliable allies. An ally is unreliable if hits first UNADJUSTED pip dice is 1. I'm sure it means you can adjust that dice but I can't find how and when
Last para on p26?

Additionally, he becomes reliable when 4 more enemy than friendly elements are lost or broken. I can understand that you can kill 4 enemies more than they kill you, but how can you break 4 enemy elements more than friends?  You only break entire commands! 
Strictly true - I think the words "became broken" needs to be read as "became elements of a broken command" - or some such.

Hope this helps.

[landmeister]

1/ I don't see teh word "currently" on page 26 anywhere - what are you looking at?

2/ It can be adjusted -1 if he is inert, or doubled if he is brilliant.

And you count the elements of broken commands - if you've broken a command of 20 elements and he's broken a command of 16 elements, then you've broken 4 more elements than you have broken of your own.

1) It's not on page 26, but on page 14. Planning PIP Allocation. Last para.

2) Ok. Thank you. 

What a strange way to say that you must break an enemy command bigger than yours! 

Thank you very much after all.

[landmeister]

2) Unreliable allies. An ally is unreliable if hits first UNADJUSTED pip dice is 1. I'm sure it means you can adjust that dice but I can't find how and when
Last para on p26?

Additionally, he becomes reliable when 4 more enemy than friendly elements are lost or broken. I can understand that you can kill 4 enemies more than they kill you, but how can you break 4 enemy elements more than friends?  You only break entire commands! 
Strictly true - I think the words "became broken" needs to be read as "became elements of a broken command" - or some such.

Hope this helps.

a) No, on page 14. See message above.

b) I see. So I was no wrong. Phew! 

Thank you very much.

[Tim Child]

I don't think that it's that odd (at least for DBx-speak).  After all, the wording has to be wide enough to encompass for example breaking two small enemy commands that together add up to at least 4 more than your own broken command.

Tim Child

: Aloysius the Gaul on Today at 12:34:04 AM

And you count the elements of broken commands - if you've broken a command of 20 elements and he's broken a command of 16 elements, then you've broken 4 more elements than you have broken of your own.

Quote from: landmeister on August 05, 2007, 03:51:50 PM

What a strange way to say that you must break an enemy command bigger than yours!

Thank you very much after all.

[Aloysius the Gaul]

Ah...I see the "currently" on page 14 - thanks.

I see no problem with it tho.  The whole sentence applies to "Allied commands AND commands who's general is lost.... etc."

Allied commands are never included in allocation or averaging - so that's easy.  However otehr commands might be regular subordinates, who would be - unless this clause applies.  Eg a reg sub general may be flank marching - he is not currently included in allocation or averaging, but he will be when he arrives.

[landmeister]

Ah...I see the "currently" on page 14 - thanks.

I see no problem with it tho.  The whole sentence applies to "Allied commands AND commands who's general is lost.... etc."

Allied commands are never included in allocation or averaging - so that's easy.  However otehr commands might be regular subordinates, who would be - unless this clause applies.  Eg a reg sub general may be flank marching - he is not currently included in allocation or averaging, but he will be when he arrives.

I see. Thank you very much.

[Barritus]

With unreliable allies becoming reliable, the 4 or more element rule is clunky because of the various ways it can be achieved.

That is, you do it not just by breaking enemy commands, but also by simply destroying elements. It's the comparative sum of losses achieved by these various ways which determines whether the unreliable command becomes reliable. Here are some examples:

1. My reliable troops destroy 5 elements, and I lose 1 element in the process.

2. Your command of 12 elements breaks, and you destroy 8 elements of mine without breaking any commands.

3. I break your command of 12 elements, and you break a command of mine with 8 elements.

Does this make sense?

[landmeister]

2. Your command of 12 elements breaks, and you destroy 8 elements of mine without breaking any commands.

Does this make sense?

This is an interesting case. This is a combination of both 1st and 2nd bullet. Are you sure they can combine so?

Thanks

[Aloysius the Gaul]

There's no bullet for breaking commands - the only one that matters is having lost 4 more enemy than friendly elements.  Broken commands count all their elements as lost so this case is merely one way in which that can happen.

[landmeister]

Yes, you're roght. Impressive! 

Thank you.