Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => Age of Myths, Gods and Empires => Topic started by: guitarheroandy on December 09, 2021, 09:36:58 PM
-
I just bought these rules and am hoping to get a few games in over the next month or two. The rules themselves are really well written so I suspect there won't be much to query but I thought I'd start a thread in case anyone has anything. Hopefully Eric will find this a good and useful thread too.
My first query/discussion point is as follows:
I plan on using units of 10 in the main, as per the games on Eric's blog. This looks like it'll be perfect for my Republican Romans, Caesarian Romans and Samnites. But the question is this: Would it matter if I altered unit sizes for the 'look' of the thing? E.g. a Phalanx of pikemen needs to look big and imposing and, well...like a phalanx. 10 models won't really cut that visually. Would it make a massive difference to game play if my pike units were of, say 15 models to give me more depth and more of the look of a phalanx, while the Roman opponent maniples/cohorts were in 10s?
Similarly, simply due to models I currently have available, my Republican Leves/Velites are mounted on 25mm bases and I only have 10 of them. Could I get away with using two units of 5 even though all my maniples have 10 figures? Similarly, my Republican Equites are currently only 6 strong. Could I use them (or better still only 5) while maintaining maniples in 10s? In theory it'll make no difference to mechanics as the unit's stats are what they are regardless of the number of models fielded, but would the reduced footprint mess up anything with regard to movement, etc?
Thanks in advance...
-
It will make no difference at all. The game is unit vs unit, so as long as both sides use the same general conventions it will all be great!
I suspect many people will want to use smaller sized units of cavalry and Light Troops to better fit their collections instead of 10 cavalry/lights per unit I use. It works just fine.
I tend to use 15 man units of Pikes, and 10 man units of Legion and it works fine and dandy. I have also played with 6 man units of lights and cavalry with no issues.
-
It will make no difference at all. The game is unit vs unit, so as long as both sides use the same general conventions it will all be great!
I suspect many people will want to use smaller sized units of cavalry and Light Troops to better fit their collections instead of 10 cavalry/lights per unit I use. It works just fine.
I tend to use 15 man units of Pikes, and 10 man units of Legion and it works fine and dandy. I have also played with 6 man units of lights and cavalry with no issues.
Ah, excellent! Thought so! That'll make life easier on the painting front as I hate painting horses in particular and simply having fewer figures to paint is always helpful anyway!
Thank you very much for the swift response...
-
These questions came up elsewhere, so I thought I would post them here and answer them....
1) Open order troops can move anywhere - does this mean they can interpenetrate other units? Can formed (I.e. phalanx) units interpenetrate?
2) Units within 6 MU of a unit in contact can provide support by moving sideways or forwards. Can a unit in Phalanx do this, given the formation is only allowed to move directly forward? If a unit is in Legion Formation it can only move directly left, right and forwards, so can it provide support to a unit that is diagonal to it?
The answer was....
I do not have a copy of the book handy to quote page numbers, but here are your answers.
1. All units must stay 1 MU away from any other unit, including friendly units unless they are in support or coming into contact.
2. Yes the Phalanx or Legion formation can make this "support" move, but to be clear the 6MU is measured from the Officer/Point of Focus for the unit. In practice this means the units themselves are probably only 2 or less MU from each other, and relatively close to each other in the battle line.
This represents units simply forming up into a single unit by extending their line or other similar in-the-weeds tactical movement rather than movement to cover ground.
I am composing a living FAQ to post up in the future and I will be sure to put these questions on the FAQ! Let me know if you have further questions.
You can see the source of the question here: https://bloodandspectacles.proboards.com/thread/151/wars-republic
-
So I have my first game in a week or so - 56pts of Sulla's Romans (Mithridatic War, so a mix of legions, light infantry, archers/slingers and Gallic cavalry [which I've classed as light cavalry even though I suspect most Roman allied/mercenary Gallic horse in the period 100BC - 40BC might be better classed as Lancer cavalry under the rules]) against either Gauls/Britons or some Eastern Pontic type horde - my opponent hasn't decided yet.
Anyway - a query about combat. So, Andy has initiative: he activates his regular legion to charge Pontic imitation legionaries. He successfully uses commander's gaze to do so.
Let's say Grahame attempts to counter charge but fails. Andy's unit successfully reaches the enemy. Now, because Andy used a 'move' activation to charge, do I presume that melee waits til Grahame's turn (because Andy's legion cannot both move and fight in one activation), at which point, in Grahame's turn Grahame activates his imitation legion to 'fight' at which point Andy's unit gets to fight back and hurl its pila and generally kick ass in the melee?
However, what if Grahame had successfully counter-charged? That would be his unit's activation for that turn (a 'move' action so no fighting can be done) so would the melee then wait til Andy's next turn at which point both units pile in with pila and make a royal mess of each other? (that seems clunky to me as it'd be ages after initial contact til the combat is fought - but perhaps it feels better in the playing than in the thinking about it...)
Or is all that complete tosh and have I completely misread everything and thus does the melee happen when contact is made, i.e. in Andy's turn in this example?
Thanks in advance...
-
Let's break this down shall we?
1. Imitation Legion activates and moves
1. Legionaries charge the Imitation Legions
2. Imitation Legion does not have the Commander's Gaze to counter-charge
3. Legionaries charge successfully into the Imitation Legions
4. Movement Phase ends
5. Melee Phase begins, and the Legion wants to fight the imitation legions
6. Legion charged so gets to move and fight in the activation and rolls attack dice as normal
7. Imitation Legion moved, but failed to counter-charge. Therefore, they do NOT roll attack dice as they had previously activated.
8. Resolve results of melee normally
Now, what if the Imitation Legion had successfully counter-charged? A charge allows you to move and fight in a turn. The Counter-charge uses Commander's Gaze so allows the movement outside of the normal activation flow. It would look like this:
1. Imitation Legion activates and moves
1. Legionaries charge the Imitation Legions
2. Imitation Legion does has the Commander's Gaze to counter-charge
3. Legionaries and Imitiation Legion are moved into contact half way between the starting location of each unit. They have come into contact and both sides count as charged.
4. Movement Phase ends
5. Melee Phase begins, and the Legion wants to fight the Imitation Legions
6. Both sides calculate Attack dice and roll for results
8. Resolve results of melee normally
Make sense? The key thing is that a charge (including a counter-charge) allows you to move and fight in the same turn which is an exception of the normal one-action per activation.
-
Superb! Thank you for such a detailed and easy to follow explanation. Couple of things if I may?
In the example 1 that you give, therefore the legion rolls attack dice and the imitation legionaries just shut and take it because they can't roll any attack dice? So on another hand, if the imitation legion hadn't activated to move in your example 1, they could roll attack dice in the melee?
So in example 2, even though they have already activated to move, the imitation legion can still try to counter charge with commander's gaze? That means they activate twice in a turn doesn't it with two movement activations and they fight as well?
(Sorry, I'm just kinda 'saying this aloud' by typing it in order to help me understand it all)
-
Superb! Thank you for such a detailed and easy to follow explanation. Couple of things if I may?
In the example 1 that you give, therefore the legion rolls attack dice and the imitation legionaries just stand and take it because they can't roll any attack dice? So on another hand, if the imitation legion hadn't activated to move in your example 1, they could roll attack dice in the melee?
So in example 2, even though they have already activated to move, the imitation legion can still try to counter charge with commander's gaze? That means they activate twice in a turn doesn't it with two movement activations and they fight as well?
(Sorry, I'm just kinda 'saying this aloud' by typing it in order to help me understand it all)
-
Superb! Thank you for such a detailed and easy to follow explanation. Couple of things if I may?
In the example 1 that you give, therefore the legion rolls attack dice and the imitation legionaries just shut and take it because they can't roll any attack dice? So on another hand, if the imitation legion hadn't activated to move in your example 1, they could roll attack dice in the melee?
Yes, exactly.
Also, if the Legion unit 'Comes in to contact" with an enemy unit that has not moved, and the Legion did not charge, then the Legion would not be able to roll attack dice. If the Imitation Legion had not activated, they could fight in melee while the Legion could not. A bit of a reversal, but it happened in playtesting when forces started running out of Commander's Gaze.
So in example 2, even though they have already activated to move, the imitation legion can still try to counter charge with commander's gaze? That means they activate twice in a turn doesn't it with two movement activations and they fight as well?
(Sorry, I'm just kinda 'saying this aloud' by typing it in order to help me understand it all)
Yes, you have it here as well.
Commander's Gaze can be used at anytime to complete the Gaze action. Some timing is more obvious than others. However, Commander's Gaze actions are an exception tot eh normal one action per activation. However, Commander's Gaze actions are much shorter or limited actions than a full move, shoot, combat.
For example, counter-charge gives you a limited ability to move straight forward in response to the enemy action, and then fight as normal. Move and Shoot gives you the ability to shoot after moving. Skirmisher allows you to move through difficult terrain without a movement penalty. Uses of Commander's Gaze are exceptions to the normal rules.
Does that make sense?
-
It does. I think what confused me was where the rules state that counter charge counts as the unit's activation for that turn. I guess what that must mean is that once a unit has countercharged, it can't do anything else as a 'main activation' action?
I also guess that this must mean that multiple commander's gaze could be used on one unit - e.g. legionaries could use commander's gaze to charge and another to change formation to Legion while they pile in? (although whether you'd want to blow two precious CG tokens on one unit in one turn is always the question...)
Thank you very much for your patience with these queries.
-
It does. I think what confused me was where the rules state that counter charge counts as the unit's activation for that turn. I guess what that must mean is that once a unit has countercharged, it can't do anything else as a 'main activation' action?
Exactly. Also, once you counter-charge you are generally stuck in combat. Nothing else to really do, even if you had not activated before. :)
I also guess that this must mean that multiple commander's gaze could be used on one unit - e.g. legionaries could use commander's gaze to charge and another to change formation to Legion while they pile in? (although whether you'd want to blow two precious CG tokens on one unit in one turn is always the question...)
Thank you very much for your patience with these queries.
Yes you can. I have seen folks have a unit break into open order, maneuver for position, spend a Commander's Gaze to reform, and then spend another Commander's Gaze to charge home. I have also seen unit spend a Commander's Gaze to skirmish, move close to the enemy, and then spend a Commander's Gaze to move and shoot too.
-
Thank you so much for those examples. It's really starting to make sense now.
I hadn't realised that the Commander's Gaze bits and pieces were so separate (well, 'in addition to' really) to the actions undertaken in the main activation. It's really brought home to me the huge importance of Commander's Gaze in the rules and how each player must use it throughout the battle. And of course, one will never have enough Commander's Gaze when the armies get close to each other and all hell breaks loose, so tough decisions must be made. I like that concept very much!
I'm looking forward to my first game even more now!
-
This comment came up on one of my battle reports, and I think it is pretty important and want to talk about it further here:
Luca Marini wrote:
Interesting but... where is the triple acie of the Romans?
They usually deployed in three avies with hastati in the first rank, Principes in the second and triarii in the third, so to exchange ranks as the battle goes on.. (not to speak abouh velites who skirmished in front of the Hastati...) No way to reproduct this manouvre with this rules because no unit can move through another unit... Am I wrong?
First off, the game has all the units you need for a Triplex Acies formation. You have Velites, Hastati, Principes, and Triarri. However, you will notice that there is no "special rule" for Triplex Acies. Indeed, Luca is correct pointing out that units can not move through other units.
However, you can easily reproduce a Triplex Acies formation as the rules have all the tools you need to make an effective Triplex Acies. These rules include deployment, units, pushback, support, etc. It is not a push button special rule though, instead you actually need to tactically deploy your troops in a Triplex Acies formation and then use it. It is not as easy as a "special rule" and boom, you get the advantage. Therefore, a Roman commander can choose to use a Triplex Acies, or something else based on the scenario, opponent, etc.
In some of the posted Battle Reports, you can see the Romans using a Triplex Acies to various degrees of success. In the Book Launch battle report, the Roman commanders who were all new to wargaming and Roman tactics; naturally and intuitively pulled it off to defeat the Greeks.
Now, how a designer decides to implement a Triplex Acies in their rules depends a lot on a couple of key decisions:
1. How an Ancient wargame designer sees the nature of ancient battle. Is is a sustained one time effort, it is a series of scrums along a general line, is it short and sharp engagements, is it a long drawn out grind, is all action unified, or is it packets of troops fighting at a time? There are still a lot of open questions on what ancient battle actual was, so a designer has to choose how they imagine it or what they want to recreate.
2. The Triplex Acies itself is very interesting. We know it was a thing, but we really do not know how it works in practice. The simplest interpretation is that it was simply a three line battle line as opposed to one line. The most complex interpretation is that it was a rotation of soldiers at the front line during an ongoing melee. The reality is, we really do not know. Therefore, as a wargame designer you have to make a choice about how you want to portray it in the game you are making.
This choice is intrinsically linked to how you envision ancient battle and what you are trying to represent on the table. Sadly, there is no "best way" to portray it, there is only the way a designer chooses and way the player prefers. Hopefully, those choices and preferences line up more often than not.
I find both 1 and 2 very interesting topics, so if you want to talk about them feel free to do so here, on my social media, or connect with me via my website.
-
Great points! I personally imagine ancient warfare in the Republican Roman era as a series of intermittent violent scrums interspersed with periods where forces draw apart and rest, throwing missiles to test the enemy if they can be bothered or if any enemy are getting a bit too keen to fight on. I doubt that concerted action took place along the whole line all at once all the time as individual units would tire and pull back at different times. Maintaining hand-to-hand combat wielding a scutum would be very physically tiring, not to mention the mental stress involved, hence my belief that longer battles would contain quite lengthy 'pauses' along the line at various times while soldiers/warriors got their breath back.
I also imagine the Triplex Acies as simply a three-line formation that allows tired troops to be replaced. I subscribe to the 'dense clouds' theory whereby the individual units expanded and contracted on the battlefield. Roman legionaries needed room to throw pila and fight effectively with scutum and hand weapon (I'm not convinced that all legionaries were the classic image of the gladius-wielding swordsmen we all know and love prior to the first Punic War due to lack of time to train effectively with the proto-gladius. I suspect that many hastati and principles used short spears, hand axes and a range of sword-type weapons alongside proto-pila and other thrown weapons during the 4th and early 3rd centuries BC, with the gladius becoming more common after the first Punic War when legionaries were recruited for longer to serve abroad - and thus have time to train properly.) As a result of this, I personally suspect that Roman maniples expanded into fairly open order to fight, thus filling up the space afforded by the chequerboard formation upon deployment. Contracting the formation during a mutual pause in the hand-to-hand would allow the line exchange to happen, as the principes could advance through the gaps created by the contracted front line units which would have withdrawn in good open order facing the enemy (who would probably also be pausing for breath) Any enemy individuals or small groups attempting to exploit such a withdrawal could easily be dissuaded by a volley of pila from those hastati who still hadn't thrown them. The principes could then expand to open order and kick it all off again.
I also suspect that melee was a misshapen mess rather than the well ordered lines we get on the war-games table and even within units, individuals or small groups would fight and hang back at different times.
All of this is very difficult to portray on a tabletop!!
-
Interesting discussion, Andy. I agree with Eric in that I think the most important thing is to represent triplex acies in some way, but not necessarily in precise detail. As Andy said, it was probably all a bit messier and more chaotic than our neat little roes of toy soldiers.
-
Are there any rules differences between phalanx units and pike block units? As far as I can see, the stat lines are identical for equivalent grades (ex. Elite hoplites and Silver shields), and the special abilities are the same. I also can’t find any rules in the rest of the book that indicate those troop types behave differently.
-
I am going off memory as my book is not handy, but I believe the Pike Blocks have 1 more courage than the Hoplite unit.
However, the real difference is in the lists. I do not think anyone in this period has elite Hoplite units, but I left it in for that "toolbox" approach. The Elite Pike Block is also very limited, but some of the Diadochi/Successors have them in the lists.
Of course, always remember page 5 if that is not to your liking. lol
-
Thanks for the info. I completely agree with your rationale, but it didn’t end up reflected in the stat-lines printed in the book. I just checked and the Courage levels are the same (5) for all of the phalanx and pike block troop types, except for the White Shield pike blocks, which are Courage 4 (a point lower than Militia Phalanx!).
I wonder if some errors slipped in at some point and didn’t get caught before printing. I understand that the rules are a toolbox and players can tweak them (totally agree with that philosophy), but it might be worth double-checking the stat lines and releasing an errata page if some don’t fit what you intended. The rules look very solid to me (and I’m looking at retrofitting some in Men of Bronze), so it would be a shame if anyone was put off due to printing mistakes!
-
Any mistake is on me and not a printing mistake. I am amazed how I can read something like, a gazillion times; and other folks see it on read 1. Gah! Most likely a version control issue on my end more than anything.
However, it never really came up as a problem in playtesting, so I will see how it plays out with more outstanding feedback like yours. I keep track of all of it, and try to correct as we go.
For example, Warband Infantry point costs in Men of Bronze. They are 6, while Peltasts are 4, but they have identical stats but fewer special rules. In playtesting, the Peltasts kept getting stomped into the floor, while the warband infantry were winning games. 6 seems like the right points, but the readers were rightly quick to point out the flaws in that thinking. I posted an errata about it on my blog soon after based on the feedback.
-
I write for a living and know what you mean about not seeing mistakes in a draft - I do it all the time! I’m always grateful to colleagues when they point out little details that slip by me.
It’s interesting what you said about the peltasts and war band infantry performing so differently. It certainly highlights how important feedback from playtesters is!
I’m hoping to test the rules out soon. I’ll be sure to post in this thread if I notice any unexpected interactions between rules.
-
Hello
I’m considering these rules for a fledgling Republican Roman army. Can I ask if the army lists or unit types will enable fighting with Germanic tribes?
Many thanks
Simon
-
Played my first game yesterday - Sulla's Romans vs Pontics. I went with a mixed force with 1 x veteran, 1 x regular and 2 x militia legions, 1 x light infantry, 1 x light cavalry and 2 x archers and slingers. the Pontic player went a bit more 'elite' - two bronze shield phalanxes, 2 x heavy armoured cavalry and 2 x skirmishers.
We didn't use any of the advanced rules or complications for this first game. We made some errors, notably making a right mess of what units can and can't do when wavering (we corrected that halfway through) and I forgot that Legion adds +2 not +1 to armour! ::) Overall, the Romans scraped a win, but only just...
We really liked the rules and are playing again on Monday (this time Grahame is bringing Celts and I've altered my Roman list to be more Julius Caesar-ish)
Couple of queries: Is there any bonus for fighting uphill of an enemy? We couldn't find it and felt that there should be something... Did we just miss it?
Also (and I acknowledge that this could be a hangover from my days playing Warhammer Ancient Battles) there were a couple of occasions where feeble skirmishing units routed and then they panicked legionaries and other equally 'hard' troops into Wavering. Was it a specific decision to allow 'proper' troops to be affected by the withdrawal of troops they'd in reality expect to run away from trouble anyway?
I fully realise we could 'house-rule' both of these if required and it may be that the latter isn't required anyway as it's possibly just an old WAB thing...
Finally, a question about Rallying:
The book states 'This can only be done when the units have been activated. A player using Commander's Gaze to rally a unit from wavering counts as the unit's activation.'
The last bit I get - they can't be activated to move or fight if they've rallied in that turn. But what does the first bit mean? Do you have to activate all other non-wavering units first before the wavering ones?
I presume that a unit that has rallied using Commander's Gaze can then use Commander's Gaze again to do other stuff, i.e. counter charge someone charging them? We played it like that when Grahame's phalanx used Commander's Gaze to rally, then used another to counter-charge my legionaries when charged by them when I activated them (of course, they weren't actually a phalanx at this point as they'd rallied to open order and he hadn't any more Commander's Gaze to reform phalanx as well as counter-charge.)
Thanks in advance.
-
Hello
I’m considering these rules for a fledgling Republican Roman army. Can I ask if the army lists or unit types will enable fighting with Germanic tribes?
Many thanks
Simon
You can easily create an early German list for these rules as barbarian warriors can be created from a number of unit types depending on how you see them (e.g. heedless charging irregular infantry sound very 'Early Germanic' to me!)
-
That’s great - many thanks
-
Finally, a question about Rallying:
The book states 'This can only be done when the units have been activated. A player using Commander's Gaze to rally a unit from wavering counts as the unit's activation.'
The last bit I get - they can't be activated to move or fight if they've rallied in that turn. But what does the first bit mean? Do you have to activate all other non-wavering units first before the wavering ones?
I presume that a unit that has rallied using Commander's Gaze can then use Commander's Gaze again to do other stuff, i.e. counter charge someone charging them? We played it like that when Grahame's phalanx used Commander's Gaze to rally, then used another to counter-charge my legionaries when charged by them when I activated them (of course, they weren't actually a phalanx at this point as they'd rallied to open order and he hadn't any more Commander's Gaze to reform phalanx as well as counter-charge.)
Yes to both.
If you Rally a unit, it counts as them being activated.
However, you can use a Commander's Gaze at any time, so they could use a Commander's Gaze to do other actions outside of normal activation.
Now, onto your WAB-esque questions:
As for fighting uphill, there is no inherent advantage UNLESS you have decided that the hill itself is difficult or dangerous terrain. Then the rules for those terrain types apply. Otherwise, there are no "additional" benefits. Terrain is intentionally very broad and simple.
Regarding wavering, it is INTENDED that harder units could be forced to waver by other, lighter troops being routed. Sure, you expect the light troops to fall back, but seeing fellow soldiers getting butchered and running away makes many a soldier start to wonder what the hell you are doing here in the first place! Typically, the higher Discipline rating troops manage to get the single success they need, BUT not always. Plus, wavering troops lose formation benefits and becomes much squishier! In practice, no unit is expendable and you have to make decisions about if the loss of the unit is worth the potential side effects in Morale/Command and Control.
This game is intended to be all about decisions, decisions, decisions!
I am super glad to hear you had a good time playing the game! :-* :-* :-* :-*
-
As for fighting uphill, there is no inherent advantage UNLESS you have decided that the hill itself is difficult or dangerous terrain. Then the rules for those terrain types apply. Otherwise, there are no "additional" benefits. Terrain is intentionally very broad and simple.
Regarding wavering, it is INTENDED that harder units could be forced to waver by other, lighter troops being routed. Sure, you expect the light troops to fall back, but seeing fellow soldiers getting butchered and running away makes many a soldier start to wonder what the hell you are doing here in the first place! Typically, the higher Discipline rating troops manage to get the single success they need, BUT not always. Plus, wavering troops lose formation benefits and becomes much squishier! In practice, no unit is expendable and you have to make decisions about if the loss of the unit is worth the potential side effects in Morale/Command and Control.
Thank you for the swift response.
I think we may adapt the terrain selection process a little - i.e. level 1 hill counts as 'open ground' whereas a level 2 hill counts as 'difficult' ground, as that might cover it more than adequately, (although it'd leave our beloved legionaries and phalangites (etc) stuck in open order.)
I like your explanation about skirmishers (etc) routing. It certainly makes you think about whether or not you select such units for your army and indeed what you do with them if you do select them. Decisions and choices certainly do dominate one's thinking from my experience of this first game and I do agree that this is a good thing.
I'll let you know how our foray into Gaul goes on Monday! :D
-
Hello
I’m considering these rules for a fledgling Republican Roman army. Can I ask if the army lists or unit types will enable fighting with Germanic tribes?
Many thanks
Simon
The rules are written for an earlier time period BUT the Romans were always facing Barbarian tribes so there is plenty of scope for barbarians of various styles and types. There is no specific list for Germanic Tribes in the rules though.
However, there are plenty of unit types and special rules that will allow you to easily make one.
-
Hi, a couple of queries from our second game last night (which was great fun - a bloody draw between Julius Caesar's Romans and British Celts - the 'Ancient British Panzer Division' of chariots (nasty things!!) did its work, but the legions just about held on, despite some shocking dice rolling.)
So, query 1: At what point in a game turn must you stop using Commander's Gaze? E.g. after combat, my Gallic Cavalry are down to 1 Courage. I had three CG left over. They have passed their discipline check, so can I use the remaining 3 CG to harangue them back up to 4 courage now, i.e. before the end phase, or do I have to waste those CG tokens now and try to harangue the cavalry next turn assuming I can spare the CG tokens to do so next turn?
Can I even use 3 tokens to, in effect, harangue the same unit 3 times in one turn?
Query 2: Also, I understand that the use of CG tokens is 'outside' the normal activations sequence and are separate to them, but can I just check I've got this right?
My cavalry are about 25 inches away from enemy horse. I can move 12 inches on a normal activation. But I can't now use a Commander's Gaze to order a charge to cover the remaining 13 inches can I, because a charge is basically in effect 'converting a move activation' isn't it, thereby adding a further 50% of your base move to enable you to move and fight in one activation? (Rather like 'Move & Shoot' is not activate to move, then move again and shoot, but rather is simply activate to move, then play your CG token so the skirmishers can shoot.) Do you see what I mean?
Anyway, it was a very enjoyable game (we really like the rules) and there were no more queries. I think I'm facing Parthians next time we play, although that won't be for a couple of weeks (my regular opponent basically owns pretty much every ancient army under the sun!)
-
So glad you are having fun! I also love the variety of armies that you are trying this out with.
Query 1:
Regarding Harangue your unit's Courage. Yes, you can as long as it is before the End Phase and when you lose Commander's Gaze. I am surprised you were engaged and had that much left!
Query 2:
Next, a close reading will indicate that you have to call the charge before you move as it converts a normal Move activation into a charge. A charge is a type of movement that allows movement AND combat in the same turn.
Regarding Cavalry and charging, it is important to note that cavalry would only charge 12 +6 for 18 total MU. A charge only adds half your movement rounding up.
-
So glad you are having fun! I also love the variety of armies that you are trying this out with.
Query 1:
Regarding Harangue your unit's Courage. Yes, you can as long as it is before the End Phase and when you lose Commander's Gaze. I am surprised you were engaged and had that much left!
Query 2:
Next, a close reading will indicate that you have to call the charge before you move as it converts a normal Move activation into a charge. A charge is a type of movement that allows movement AND combat in the same turn.
Regarding Cavalry and charging, it is important to note that cavalry would only charge 12 +6 for 18 total MU. A charge only adds half your movement rounding up.
The haranguing incident occurred because my opponent was being most 'un-Barbarian' and was having back trying to manouevre the chariots for a decisive charge ::) lol - my cavalry and his were the only units engaged at that point.
My wording of the charge question was rubbish but you've answered it anyway as we kinda figured out for ourselves what the rule means and i was just checking we got it right - and we did!
Thanks very much for the reply. And yes, my regular opponent likes to test me with a range of opposing forces! Gonna crack on with painting my Early Republican Romans and Samnites now as that's mainly what I bought the rules for (although I'm really enjoying dragging the Marian Romans out for a few games too!)
-
Hi Eric
Many thanks for sending me here to the LAF for questions after my query on your blog. Your responses to Andy's questions above have been very illuminating and ironed out a few queries my opponent David and I had. We certainly had the same question about hills (I'm an old WAB player too) and may adopt the same solution Andy did. Here, then, are the remainder of our questions:
1. This is just to make absolutely sure I'm on top of the turn sequence, and specifically so I can be confident I know when the melee phase is meant to take place. Do both I and David carry out all of our moving, shooting and charging before all the melees take place, or are melees decided individually, as the units make contact? I may be unwittingly porting over ideas from other rules as I assume the former, but then again, if this is the case I don't see how the order of melee resolution can be decided by the player who has initiative, as it seems that initiative is now irrelevant, or at least 'over'. If the latter, then there is no order for the Initiative-holding player to decide, as they are individually adjudicated.
2. You use the wording 'locked in melee'. Are we correct in interpreting this to mean that units cannot voluntarily leave a melee and the only way a melee can break up is if a unit routs, or it is pushed back and its opponent chooses not to follow up.
3. Two units are involved in melee and a third has the opportunity to charge in on the flank. Are we correct in assuming that while it can count +2 for charging and +2 for flank attack, it can only ever count +2 for a supporting unit and will not receive its full attack value in this particular fight, i.e. that the first unit to contact is always the primary melee unit and others will only ever count as supports?
4. You also answered the question originating in your Blood and Spectacles blog about Phalanx or Legion troops moving to support even if at an angle. Your reminder that it is the leader of the support unit that has to be within 6MU is appreciated. Our supplementary question is: does the support unit retain its Legion or Phalanx status even after the move?
Thanks again. I want to reiterate that we had a great game and are looking forward to more. There were some interested looks at our table from other members of the club during the evening too. I think people are looking for a new Ancients big battle game and Wars of the Republic may be it.
Cheers
Paul
-
Glad you found your way here! At the end of March, I will compile all of these questions and make an FAQ on my blog. Until then, this is the place!
1. You are correct. Complete all activations of Movement and shooting, once all units have been activated, then you move onto the Melee Phase. Once the Melee phase begins the only advantage to having Initiative is you get to choose which melees to resolve first. This can matter as people begin to run out of Commander's Gaze for re-rolls.
2. That is also correct. Other units can still choose to join the melee as support units later on.
3. You nailed it. Spot on. Therefore, it is best to use your heavy hitters as the main thrust of the attack with other units on the support side of things.
4. Yes, even though Legion and Phalanx can not normally move sideways or at an angle the direction of the support move is more like getting caught up in the general fighting and an exception to normal movement restrictions.
-
Thanks very much Eric. Really useful clarifications.
Cheers
Paul
-
Great questions and the one about the flank attacking support unit made me realise that we did something wrong in our last game, where my legion regulars were fighting British warriors to their front in an ongoing fight and were also flank charged by chariots. We treated both British units as primary units where according to what you've said, the chariots should have counted as a charging flank attacking supporting unit as they piled into an existing combat.
In other news, one of the very few things my regular opponent and I are not too keen on in these rules is the terrain generation chart - specifically the fact that you can end up with random stone walls or hedges on the table where, in reality, that kind of thing just doesn't really happen. (I know - we're really pedantic! lol lol) Anyway, we're toying with replacing 'stone wall (or other linear obstacle)' with 'walled/fenced enclosure/ruin' and treating it as difficult ground that also provides cover as that suits our idea of it better.
We're also considering creating some 'theatre-specific' terrain tables to tailor the terrain a little more to the theatre we're fighting in, as (for example) you'd not get swamps or ponds in Mesopotamia in a Roman vs Parthians battle (which is likely what we're going to fight next), but you might get areas of rocky ground that might be 'dangerous' to cavalry/chariots. similarly, in Gaul, you'd probably need some wooded hills (difficult ground.) My opponent has so many ancient armies that we feel this would give our games even more 'flavour'. Anyway, this is just a random idea at this stage but if we get anywhere with it, we'll post our thoughts up here...
-
I would love more flavorful terrain placement charts, but felt that was an area better left to players. I have no idea what they have in their collection so kept mine pretty generic in nature. For example, there is no River option!
-
Managed a couple of games at the weekend and became a little confused regarding Stealing the Initiative & a unit commander’s field of vision.
If both players have a force of 6 units and after I Activate my 3rd unit my opponent Steals the Initiative does he have the opportunity to Activate all 6 of his units before I have the opportunity to Activate my units 4-6, assuming I do not Steal the Initiative back?
Line of Sight for Shooting purposes is 360’ per P15. Does this apply to a unit in say Phalanx?
Is Line of Sight for Melee purposes 360’?
Cheers
-
Managed a couple of games at the weekend and became a little confused regarding Stealing the Initiative & a unit commander’s field of vision.
If both players have a force of 6 units and after I Activate my 3rd unit my opponent Steals the Initiative does he have the opportunity to Activate all 6 of his units before I have the opportunity to Activate my units 4-6, assuming I do not Steal the Initiative back?
Line of Sight for Shooting purposes is 360’ per P15. Does this apply to a unit in say Phalanx?
Is Line of Sight for Melee purposes 360’?
Cheers
Glad to hear you gave it a go!
Regarding Stealing the Initiative, once a player steals the initiative they can start to activate units. If you want to start activating units again you need to steal it back OR wait until all of their units have activated.
Player 1- I won initiative, so I activate a unit, decide to Move, and move it.
Player 2- I spend a Commander's Gaze to steal the initiative. The players roll off and Player 2 wins. They can activate a unit, and they choose to shoot with some archers. Shooting is resolved.
Player 1- Can then decide to try an steal initiative back OR let Player 2 keep activate units.
Make sense?
Regarding the Melee 360, I am not sure I understand the question? However, here is my take below.
Typically, the front is the forward of the base 180, the back is rear of the base 180, and the flanks are the sides of the base not in the front or rear. Therefore, you can use the Focal Point of the Unit (Unit leader) to determine if it is a charge to the receiving units front, flank, or rear.