Version 3 Errata

General discussion forum for anything related to Field of Glory Ancients & Medieval.

Moderators: hammy, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Moderators, Field of Glory Design

petedalby
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2851
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:23 pm
Location: Fareham, UK

Re: Version 3 Errata

Post by petedalby » Mon Feb 12, 2018 9:26 pm

Super - thanks Terry - I'm only up to page 21 - haven't got as far as 97 yet!
Pete

dave_r
Lieutenant-General - Karl-Gerat 040
Lieutenant-General - Karl-Gerat 040
Posts: 3631
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 3:58 pm

Re: Version 3 Errata

Post by dave_r » Thu Feb 15, 2018 12:15 pm

Had an interesting situation come up in a game at Plymouth. Admittedly this was a v2 game, but I believe it is the same as in v3.

A unit broke and some foot pursued which meant they charged another BG of Cavalry in the melee phase. The foot were steady and therefore the Cavalry broke off in the Joint Action Phase without having fought either an impact or melee.

Just confirming that is the intention.
Evaluator of Supremacy

terrys
Panzer Corps Team
Panzer Corps Team
Posts: 4174
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 11:53 am

Re: Version 3 Errata

Post by terrys » Thu Feb 15, 2018 2:50 pm

Had an interesting situation come up in a game at Plymouth. Admittedly this was a v2 game, but I believe it is the same as in v3.

A unit broke and some foot pursued which meant they charged another BG of Cavalry in the melee phase. The foot were steady and therefore the Cavalry broke off in the Joint Action Phase without having fought either an impact or melee.

Just confirming that is the intention.
V2 and V3 are the same for this.
I agree with you that you made the correct move. (I doubt if this was the intention though).
Had it been the cavalry that pursued into infantry they wouldn't break off.
It's a bit of an anomaly, but not worth amending at this stage.
It could benefit either side depending on the situation.

dave_r
Lieutenant-General - Karl-Gerat 040
Lieutenant-General - Karl-Gerat 040
Posts: 3631
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 3:58 pm

Re: Version 3 Errata

Post by dave_r » Thu Feb 15, 2018 3:01 pm

terrys wrote:V2 and V3 are the same for this.
I agree with you that you made the correct move. (I doubt if this was the intention though).
Had it been the cavalry that pursued into infantry they wouldn't break off.
It's a bit of an anomaly, but not worth amending at this stage.
It could benefit either side depending on the situation.
Thanks Terry - I had seen this before, but these foot plodders aren't used to Cavalry armies and it caused some consternation at the time. Probably one for the FAQ's or Umpire Clarifications.

There are three bullett points where it specifically states where BG's don't break off, but the point of contention is that when it mentions contacting other BG's during a pursuit it states that the impact will happen in the following phase, but of course in this scenario the next impact phase is too late.
Evaluator of Supremacy

grahambriggs
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2932
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am

Re: Version 3 Errata

Post by grahambriggs » Sat Feb 17, 2018 1:53 pm

dave_r wrote:Had an interesting situation come up in a game at Plymouth. Admittedly this was a v2 game, but I believe it is the same as in v3.

A unit broke and some foot pursued which meant they charged another BG of Cavalry in the melee phase. The foot were steady and therefore the Cavalry broke off in the Joint Action Phase without having fought either an impact or melee.

Just confirming that is the intention.
I don't think that's what the rules are (no matter what the intention).

P106. Mounted troops break off if at least half their close combat opponents are steady foot.

They are steady foot, but are they close combat opponents? I would say not:

P109. If pursuers contact...this is treated as a charge... Combat is adjudicated in the next impact phase.

This implies there is no Combat until the impact phase, and so they don't have close combat opponents yet. So when exactly does close combat start?

P88 tells us two things:

P88 'close combat' is a general term for impact and melee combat.

so are they in impact combat then?

P88 gives the sequence for combat, which starts with: "The non-active player declares which of his commanders is fighting in combat".

P162 full turn sequence makes it clear that making charge moves is the step before Commit Commanders to combat.

So I think the way it works is:

Pursuers charge into the mounted.
Mounted do not break off because they do not yet have any close combat opponents.
An impact combat is fought next bound.

dave_r
Lieutenant-General - Karl-Gerat 040
Lieutenant-General - Karl-Gerat 040
Posts: 3631
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 3:58 pm

Re: Version 3 Errata

Post by dave_r » Sat Feb 17, 2018 10:32 pm

grahambriggs wrote:
dave_r wrote:Had an interesting situation come up in a game at Plymouth. Admittedly this was a v2 game, but I believe it is the same as in v3.

A unit broke and some foot pursued which meant they charged another BG of Cavalry in the melee phase. The foot were steady and therefore the Cavalry broke off in the Joint Action Phase without having fought either an impact or melee.

Just confirming that is the intention.
I don't think that's what the rules are (no matter what the intention).

P106. Mounted troops break off if at least half their close combat opponents are steady foot.

They are steady foot, but are they close combat opponents? I would say not:

P109. If pursuers contact...this is treated as a charge... Combat is adjudicated in the next impact phase.

This implies there is no Combat until the impact phase, and so they don't have close combat opponents yet. So when exactly does close combat start?

P88 tells us two things:

P88 'close combat' is a general term for impact and melee combat.

so are they in impact combat then?

P88 gives the sequence for combat, which starts with: "The non-active player declares which of his commanders is fighting in combat".

P162 full turn sequence makes it clear that making charge moves is the step before Commit Commanders to combat.

So I think the way it works is:

Pursuers charge into the mounted.
Mounted do not break off because they do not yet have any close combat opponents.
An impact combat is fought next bound.
Page 132 defines close combat:

"'Close Combat' is a general term for impact and melee combat. Once such a combat has been joined, battle groups are deemed to be in close combat until one side breaks off, breaks and routs, or is destroyed (or a battlegroup fighting only as an overlap moves away)."

Page 106 also gives some examples of when a battle group does not break off, namely:
- Elephants
- Any battle group with bases facing in more than one direction
- Any battle gropu which pursued into contact with fresh enemy but has not yet fought any combat with them

Therefore as a break off can be deemed to end close combat and it is not one of the specific examples then they must break off.
Evaluator of Supremacy

grahambriggs
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2932
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am

Re: Version 3 Errata

Post by grahambriggs » Sat Feb 17, 2018 10:50 pm

dave_r wrote:
grahambriggs wrote:
dave_r wrote:Had an interesting situation come up in a game at Plymouth. Admittedly this was a v2 game, but I believe it is the same as in v3.

A unit broke and some foot pursued which meant they charged another BG of Cavalry in the melee phase. The foot were steady and therefore the Cavalry broke off in the Joint Action Phase without having fought either an impact or melee.

Just confirming that is the intention.
I don't think that's what the rules are (no matter what the intention).

P106. Mounted troops break off if at least half their close combat opponents are steady foot.

They are steady foot, but are they close combat opponents? I would say not:

P109. If pursuers contact...this is treated as a charge... Combat is adjudicated in the next impact phase.

This implies there is no Combat until the impact phase, and so they don't have close combat opponents yet. So when exactly does close combat start?

P88 tells us two things:

P88 'close combat' is a general term for impact and melee combat.

so are they in impact combat then?

P88 gives the sequence for combat, which starts with: "The non-active player declares which of his commanders is fighting in combat".

P162 full turn sequence makes it clear that making charge moves is the step before Commit Commanders to combat.

So I think the way it works is:

Pursuers charge into the mounted.
Mounted do not break off because they do not yet have any close combat opponents.
An impact combat is fought next bound.
Page 132 defines close combat:

"'Close Combat' is a general term for impact and melee combat. Once such a combat has been joined, battle groups are deemed to be in close combat until one side breaks off, breaks and routs, or is destroyed (or a battlegroup fighting only as an overlap moves away)."

Page 106 also gives some examples of when a battle group does not break off, namely:
- Elephants
- Any battle group with bases facing in more than one direction
- Any battle gropu which pursued into contact with fresh enemy but has not yet fought any combat with them

Therefore as a break off can be deemed to end close combat and it is not one of the specific examples then they must break off.
I disagree. You only break off from close combat opponents. And they are not close combat opponents.

dave_r
Lieutenant-General - Karl-Gerat 040
Lieutenant-General - Karl-Gerat 040
Posts: 3631
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 3:58 pm

Re: Version 3 Errata

Post by dave_r » Sun Feb 18, 2018 1:44 am

grahambriggs wrote:I disagree. You only break off from close combat opponents. And they are not close combat opponents.
Any evidence to back up this opinion?
Evaluator of Supremacy

grahambriggs
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2932
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am

Re: Version 3 Errata

Post by grahambriggs » Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:10 am

dave_r wrote:
grahambriggs wrote:I disagree. You only break off from close combat opponents. And they are not close combat opponents.
Any evidence to back up this opinion?
It's not an opinion. See my post above. You break off only from close combat opponents. So to be able to break off, you must have a close combat opponent. Being in close combat is defined in the close mechanism section. In there it says:

"Combat between unbroken battle groups...uses the same combat mechanism. This always has the following sequence:" And then you are given the sequence which is essentially decide whether to commit commanders, work out dice and hits, death rolls, cohesion tests, etc. The one thing that is not in that sequence is charging. So to be in close combat you need to get further into the sequence than charging. And without that you don't break off.

If the breaking off rules didn't include the words "their close combat opponents" I'd agree with you. But they do. They have no close combat opponents yet, so they don't break off.

dave_r
Lieutenant-General - Karl-Gerat 040
Lieutenant-General - Karl-Gerat 040
Posts: 3631
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 3:58 pm

Re: Version 3 Errata

Post by dave_r » Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:55 am

grahambriggs wrote:
dave_r wrote:
grahambriggs wrote:I disagree. You only break off from close combat opponents. And they are not close combat opponents.
Any evidence to back up this opinion?
It's not an opinion. See my post above. You break off only from close combat opponents. So to be able to break off, you must have a close combat opponent. Being in close combat is defined in the close mechanism section. In there it says:

"Combat between unbroken battle groups...uses the same combat mechanism. This always has the following sequence:" And then you are given the sequence which is essentially decide whether to commit commanders, work out dice and hits, death rolls, cohesion tests, etc. The one thing that is not in that sequence is charging. So to be in close combat you need to get further into the sequence than charging. And without that you don't break off.

If the breaking off rules didn't include the words "their close combat opponents" I'd agree with you. But they do. They have no close combat opponents yet, so they don't break off.
Page 84 states:

"In the melee phase, all bases in front edge contact with unbroken enemy, or in overlap position, and who are not themselves broken, are eligible to fight in close combat"

Therefore, being in front edge contact with enemy is how close combat is defined - which is different to the combat mechanism. As soon as you make frontal contact with enemy you are deemed to be in close combat. Therefore there is a compulsory break off as being charged is not one of the conditions of not breaking off.
Evaluator of Supremacy

grahambriggs
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2932
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am

Re: Version 3 Errata

Post by grahambriggs » Sun Feb 18, 2018 2:33 pm

[/quote]Page 84 states:

"In the melee phase, all bases in front edge contact with unbroken enemy, or in overlap position, and who are not themselves broken, are eligible to fight in close combat"

Therefore, being in front edge contact with enemy is how close combat is defined - which is different to the combat mechanism. As soon as you make frontal contact with enemy you are deemed to be in close combat. Therefore there is a compulsory break off as being charged is not one of the conditions of not breaking off.[/quote]

No. That rule defines which bases are eligible to fight in close combat in the melee phase, not when those troops entered close combat. It doesn't say when close combat begins. I know you're not stupid, so I'm assuming that you are being deliberately obtuse.

MLB
Private First Class - Wehrmacht Inf
Private First Class - Wehrmacht Inf
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 7:49 pm

Re: Version 3 Errata

Post by MLB » Sun Feb 18, 2018 2:53 pm

Page 106 also gives some examples of when a battle group does not break off, namely:
- Elephants
- Any battle group with bases facing in more than one direction
- Any battle gropu which pursued into contact with fresh enemy but has not yet fought any combat with them



Surely if pursuers who contact fresh enemy have not fought any combat until the impact phase, then a unit contacted by pursuers will also have not fought any combat until that time. If they have not fought they cannot break off. If a unit is deemed to be in combat from the moment of contact then the last bullet point above is completely superfluous.

dave_r
Lieutenant-General - Karl-Gerat 040
Lieutenant-General - Karl-Gerat 040
Posts: 3631
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 3:58 pm

Re: Version 3 Errata

Post by dave_r » Sun Feb 18, 2018 4:46 pm

MLB wrote:Page 106 also gives some examples of when a battle group does not break off, namely:
- Elephants
- Any battle group with bases facing in more than one direction
- Any battle gropu which pursued into contact with fresh enemy but has not yet fought any combat with them

Surely if pursuers who contact fresh enemy have not fought any combat until the impact phase, then a unit contacted by pursuers will also have not fought any combat until that time. If they have not fought they cannot break off. If a unit is deemed to be in combat from the moment of contact then the last bullet point above is completely superfluous.
It's a good point and what ultimately swayed the original discussion.

Although I suspect we will never get full agreement.

So what _should_ happen?
Evaluator of Supremacy

grahambriggs
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2932
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am

Re: Version 3 Errata

Post by grahambriggs » Sun Feb 18, 2018 4:54 pm

dave_r wrote:
MLB wrote:Page 106 also gives some examples of when a battle group does not break off, namely:
- Elephants
- Any battle group with bases facing in more than one direction
- Any battle gropu which pursued into contact with fresh enemy but has not yet fought any combat with them

Surely if pursuers who contact fresh enemy have not fought any combat until the impact phase, then a unit contacted by pursuers will also have not fought any combat until that time. If they have not fought they cannot break off. If a unit is deemed to be in combat from the moment of contact then the last bullet point above is completely superfluous.
It's a good point and what ultimately swayed the original discussion.

Although I suspect we will never get full agreement.

So what _should_ happen?
Fight an impact next bound.

terrys
Panzer Corps Team
Panzer Corps Team
Posts: 4174
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 11:53 am

Re: Version 3 Errata

Post by terrys » Sun Feb 18, 2018 5:36 pm

While I can see Graham's point of view - it would change how we treat generals who fought with a BG that is now pursuing the enemy.

Assuming the pursuit into contact was made during the melee phase (and not the JAP) - Since, according to Graham, they are now not in combat - then they should be able to leave the BG during the JAP phase.

We currently don't allow them to leave the BG until it is no longer in contact with the enemy - although I think the wording in the rules is 'in combat'.

dave_r
Lieutenant-General - Karl-Gerat 040
Lieutenant-General - Karl-Gerat 040
Posts: 3631
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 3:58 pm

Re: Version 3 Errata

Post by dave_r » Sun Feb 18, 2018 6:15 pm

terrys wrote:While I can see Graham's point of view - it would change how we treat generals who fought with a BG that is now pursuing the enemy.

Assuming the pursuit into contact was made during the melee phase (and not the JAP) - Since, according to Graham, they are now not in combat - then they should be able to leave the BG during the JAP phase.

We currently don't allow them to leave the BG until it is no longer in contact with the enemy - although I think the wording in the rules is 'in combat'.
Another good point - so what you are saying is that the BG should break off.
Evaluator of Supremacy

terrys
Panzer Corps Team
Panzer Corps Team
Posts: 4174
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 11:53 am

Re: Version 3 Errata

Post by terrys » Sun Feb 18, 2018 7:15 pm

Another good point - so what you are saying is that the BG should break off.
My 'opinion' is that they should break off.
I'm surprised that this has only come up now. The rule has been the same since V1.
Which means one of 2 things:
1) It's extremely rare
2) When it has occurred players have agreed on what they 'assumed' was the correct interpretation. (whatever that was !).

grahambriggs
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2932
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am

Re: Version 3 Errata

Post by grahambriggs » Sun Feb 18, 2018 7:44 pm

terrys wrote:
Another good point - so what you are saying is that the BG should break off.
My 'opinion' is that they should break off.
I'm surprised that this has only come up now. The rule has been the same since V1.
Which means one of 2 things:
1) It's extremely rare
2) When it has occurred players have agreed on what they 'assumed' was the correct interpretation. (whatever that was !).
He's stuck with the BG until it is "no longer in close combat and no longer in contact with enemy routers". So, if it's a melee phase pursuit and the routers run fast then as currently written, he can move away in the JAP. You could resolve that by just deleting the "routers" at the end of that sentence.

It probably isn't that rare. It just needs steady foot to pursue into mounted in the melee phase. I think most players (it they come across it) would probably assume it's a charge and you fight an impact next bound. After all, it specifically says on P109 it's treated as a charge on the contacted enemy and that "Combat is adjudicated in the next impact phase", which does imply that no one is getting out without a fight.

It really depends what, as author, you want to happen in such circumstances and then make a change to fit that.

terrys
Panzer Corps Team
Panzer Corps Team
Posts: 4174
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 11:53 am

Re: Version 3 Errata

Post by terrys » Sun Feb 18, 2018 8:27 pm

the full text is:

"the commander cannot leave the front rank of that battle group until it is no longer in close combat and no longer in contact with enemy routers"

I think the assumption has always been that because he has contacted a fresh enemy, he is now (effectively) in close combat until the )new) combat is resolved. Which means that he cannot leave the BG during the JAP and must also remain in the front rank (and therefore cannot leave the BG).
It really depends what, as author, you want to happen in such circumstances and then make a change to fit that.
I quite agree. It's worth hearing all the arguments for either side though.

grahambriggs
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2932
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am

Re: Version 3 Errata

Post by grahambriggs » Sun Feb 18, 2018 9:22 pm

One of the issues in having the mounted break off is that it could be bad news for them. Frequently, for foot to pursue into the mounted, that will mean the routers have either burst through the mounted or shifted sideways a bit and run behind them. JAP break offs occur before JAP routs. Often this will mean that the mounted can't break off and drop a level, and then have to fight an impact next bound anyway at a further disadvantage.

Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory : Ancient & Medieval Era 3000 BC-1500 AD : General Discussion”