Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10
61
Rules Questions / Re: Combat in Rivers
« Last post by LawrenceG1 on October 15, 2021, 08:07:47 PM »
Well, the second question is easily dealt with. The rule you cite is there to clarify what happens if you are in combat on your front edge and another edge (i.e. you fight only what is in front, with a negative modifier). As you noted, the -1 for flank contact applies whether or not there is front contact.

The river question: waders turn to face boats that contact their flank, so there is precedent for violating the 45-135 degree rule. It would not be unreasonable to permit turning to face and/or lining up in combat at any angle in any direction. I thought there was a rule allowing this explicitly, but I can't find it. What you did was also reasonable with the information you had available.

62
Rules Questions / Combat in Rivers
« Last post by Neil Williamson on October 15, 2021, 05:54:32 AM »
At a recent tournament I ran, this situation came up for a ruling.
(I did take photos but I cannot work out how to load them and there is a very restrictive file size limit).

A column of 5 light horse were crossing a navigable river close to a bend in the river (on their left). The leading 2 elements had cleared the river; the third had its front edge clear, and rear edge in, the river; the 4th and 5th elements front edges were completely in the river. The left flank edges of the leading two elements were clear of the water, the 3rd was partially in the water.

An opposing Blade element made a front edge to side edge contact on the 2nd light horse element, and partial contact on the third. It did not enter the water due to the bend in the river.

If the river was not there, the 2nd and 3rd element would have turned to face. With the river there however, if they turned to face, the 2nd element rear left hand corner would be in the river and the 3rd element's left flank would be in the river, facing into the flow of the river.
With the river there, by doing this, they would have contradicted the rule on page 20, Water Features, which states "Rivers can also be crossed with more difficulty off-road at between 45 and 135 degrees to the flow by wading,..." So I ruled they could not turn to face combat. This is in contradiction to page 35 where it states in the first paragraph that an element contacted on its flank edge turns into full front edge contact.

It could be argued that, as per the 2nd paragraph on page 35 of Turning to Face Flank or rear contact, "If an element or elements contacted in flank... have insufficient room to turn to face, the enemy must move back to make room." In this case, the 2 light horse elements would turn to face, move forward out of the river, and the enemy Blade would move back. There was sufficient room for this. They would then be at -1 in combat as they can't recoil into the river. However, this manoeuvre involves going against the flow of the river.

My ruling was that the light horse cannot turn to face due to the flow of the river. The light horse (2nd in the column) would be attacked as a front edge contact in contact with an enemy flank edge. This is unusual but not disallowed I think. Expendables and routers are specifically ruled that they do not turn to face when contacted on the flank. With the front edge being in contact with the flank edge, and the blade winning the combat, the light horse was destroyed.

Was my interpretation of the rules correct?

On another point as I re-read the rules of this section:
it is not clear if the light horse suffer a -1 combat penalty for the flank edge contact. Page 35 after the first two bullet points states "An element...in front edge contact with the flank or rear edge of an enemy element which is fighting to its front is subject to an adverse tactical factor." However the tactical factors on page 37 do not mention having to be in front edge combat for this tactical factor to apply. I certainly have never played a rear edge contact penalty can only be applied if the element attacked is also in front edge combat. My interpretation is that the light horse would suffer a -1 combat penalty for being attacked on the flank.

Thank you for your assistance in this.
63
Book 2 / Re: Winning with Late Imperial Romans
« Last post by LawrenceG1 on September 03, 2021, 11:16:08 AM »
How do you do it?

It's a list with tremendous variety and plenty of potential, but I've never worked out how to make a successful go of it.

Does anyone have any ideas, clues or suggestions? Has anyone had success with one in an open competition?

Cheers

Peter

Another way of looking at this is to ask : When you use armies that you do win with, how do you win?
64
Book 2 / Re: Winning with Late Imperial Romans
« Last post by LawrenceG1 on September 02, 2021, 04:17:24 PM »
The higher scoring players using it at the Milan ITC tend to win 1 game, sometimes 2 (out of  4 ) (based on the records I've kept). In 2018 Fabio Terpin scored 73 points off his 4 games, I don't know the separate results.

The army has so many options it may take a lot of experimentation to find the design that works for you.

One of the players in the UK has done very well with the inert version, with 4 Art(F) shooting over Bw. It's not unbeatable, though. Greg Russel used the inert version at CANCON a couple of years ago, I don't know if he won any games but he probably did.

You can extend your options by using mostly the same figures for Patrician Roman.
65
Book 2 / Winning with Late Imperial Romans
« Last post by Barritus on September 02, 2021, 10:51:35 AM »
How do you do it?

It's a list with tremendous variety and plenty of potential, but I've never worked out how to make a successful go of it.

Does anyone have any ideas, clues or suggestions? Has anyone had success with one in an open competition?

Cheers

Peter
66
Book 2 / Re: Some Book 2 errata
« Last post by Barritus on September 01, 2021, 10:25:54 AM »
Quick question
Planning on playing Polybians against Seleucids tomorrow and figured 190BC the best date historically
I note at Magnesia the Romans were allied with Pergamon
In the list in bk 2 however you cant get a Pergamene ally until after 171BC
Is this an errata? Certainly seems like it as it looks to me should read after 191BC!

Yes, it may well be a mistake.

I checked the first edition list books and in that book the Pergamene allies were available from 198BC. In fact everything currently available from 171BC was previously available from 198BC except the Macedonian volunteers.

It's not something I'd noticed before, and I don't know why it changed.
67
Book 2 / Re: Some Book 2 errata
« Last post by Toady on September 01, 2021, 03:46:25 AM »
Quick question
Planning on playing Polybians against Seleucids tomorrow and figured 190BC the best date historically
I note at Magnesia the Romans were allied with Pergamon
In the list in bk 2 however you cant get a Pergamene ally until after 171BC
Is this an errata? Certainly seems like it as it looks to me should read after 191BC!
68
Rules Questions / Re: Overlaps on rear support
« Last post by Neil Williamson on August 16, 2021, 03:53:35 AM »
Thanks Lawrence
69
Rules Questions / Re: Overlaps on rear support
« Last post by LawrenceG1 on August 15, 2021, 06:57:05 AM »
No.

But an enemy front edge in contact with a supporting element's flank counts as a flank contact on the front element.
70
Rules Questions / Overlaps on rear support
« Last post by Neil Williamson on August 14, 2021, 09:27:59 PM »
At a recent tournament in NZ I found that players play this situation differently.
If an element is in front edge combat and not overlapped, but an element behind providing rear support is overlapped, is there a -1 combat factor adjustment?
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10