1 per 2...

This forum is for any questions about the rules. Post here is you need feedback from the design team.

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

grahambriggs
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2983
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am

Re: 1 per 2...

Post by grahambriggs » Sun Nov 05, 2017 6:46 pm

terrys wrote:
Easy to apply but a bugger to remember. So much for simplicity.
I certainly can't remember this coming up in Beta testing....
Hitting 3 times against a BG that has only 7 bases remaining AND rolling a 1 on the death roll. - Fairly infrequent I think.

However, the rule says suffered 1HP2B "FROM" shooting or close combat..
It doesn't say 1HP2B "AFTER" combat or shooting - nor does that make sense.
In the same way that you wouldn't take a test on a 10-base BG if it took 3 hits from shooting - even if you failed the Death roll.
The rules covering this are:

Battle Group suffered at least 1HP2B from...close combat: -1
For each full 25% of its original bases that Battle Group has lost: -1

The first is past tense.

So, turn sequence on p163:

Resolve all melee combats. In which a BG initially of 8 bases but now of 7 loses melee, receiving 3 hits. So the BG did not suffer 1HP2B from close combat.

roll for commander losses - not applicable

death roll - lose a base, down to 6.

Post combat cohesion test:

BG suffered 1HP2B in close combat - no 3/7 is not 1 per 2.
Has the battle group lost a full 25% of bases? Yes, so -1

As Terry says, the testing didn't specifically bring this up, or we'd have made the wording clearer.

prb4
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 138
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 4:19 pm

Re: 1 per 2...

Post by prb4 » Mon Nov 06, 2017 12:42 pm

Thanks Graham for the clear sequence, but with all due respect, it's madness

grahambriggs
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2983
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am

Re: 1 per 2...

Post by grahambriggs » Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:55 pm

prb4 wrote:Thanks Graham for the clear sequence, but with all due respect, it's madness
Which particular bit do you find to be madness? The intention of the rule or the rubbishly opaque wording?

Just as background, we'd asked a few ex players why they'd drifted away from the game. A number said that they found that close combat frequently dragged on too long. We've all had the "3 feet of combat and it feels like all the files are on different factors" situation. We'd also had concerns expressed that having a POA at impact was less important in V2 than having a POA in melee. This led to us having more dice at impact. However, that does mean it's considerably more likely that bases will be lost at impact, so an 8 base unit could easily be 7 by the time the first melee starts.

One thing that we were keen to avoid is what I've seen in other rule sets doing version changes - trying to fix a known problem but overdoing the fix so that the new version is also unbalanced. We wanted to speed up combat but not to the extent that units fall apart immediately as that then upsets the timing between close combat and manoeuvre. Hence we made the change to taking the base loss earlier but felt that to do the same for hits per base would be a step too far.

prb4
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 138
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 4:19 pm

Re: 1 per 2...

Post by prb4 » Tue Nov 07, 2017 12:30 pm

Madness is the sequence of events as they are now.

7 base BG looses a melee.
Throw for base loss
Remove base
Now work out CT.
-1 for 25 % losses
Now put the base back that you removed, work out 1HP2
Now take the base off again
Now work out the result of the CT.

I understand the reasoning behind wanting to make the looser more likely to fail the CT but not too much. However as others have pointed out, it is confusing to treat the base loss in two different ways during the same test.

I would not like to try and explain the logic of why this is the correct way to calculate the CT to a new (or old) player with reference to the rules.

Peter

grahambriggs
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2983
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am

Re: 1 per 2...

Post by grahambriggs » Tue Nov 07, 2017 2:01 pm

prb4 wrote:Madness is the sequence of events as they are now.

7 base BG looses a melee.
Throw for base loss
Remove base
Now work out CT.
-1 for 25 % losses
Now put the base back that you removed, work out 1HP2
Now take the base off again
Now work out the result of the CT.

I understand the reasoning behind wanting to make the looser more likely to fail the CT but not too much. However as others have pointed out, it is confusing to treat the base loss in two different ways during the same test.

I would not like to try and explain the logic of why this is the correct way to calculate the CT to a new (or old) player with reference to the rules.

Peter
Yes, like I say Peter had this been spotted in play testing in could have been written more clearly.

vexillia

Re: 1 per 2...

Post by vexillia » Tue Nov 07, 2017 5:02 pm

grahambriggs wrote:Yes, like I say Peter had this been spotted in play testing in could have been written more clearly.
Damn those pesky play testers!

grahambriggs
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2983
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am

Re: 1 per 2...

Post by grahambriggs » Wed Nov 08, 2017 9:32 pm

vexillia wrote:
grahambriggs wrote:Yes, like I say Peter had this been spotted in play testing in could have been written more clearly.
Damn those pesky play testers!
There's almost as bad as proof readers!

pyruse
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 301
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 9:32 am

Re: 1 per 2...

Post by pyruse » Thu Nov 16, 2017 10:25 am

grahambriggs wrote:
Just as background, we'd asked a few ex players why they'd drifted away from the game. A number said that they found that close combat frequently dragged on too long. We've all had the "3 feet of combat and it feels like all the files are on different factors" situation.
This was certainly what made us change to faster rules. I have bad memories of a Plataea refight with about 5 feet of battle line with the units not quite lined up.
Not only did every file have a different factor, the combat then dragged on and on, and the factors kept changing.
Not fun. And not fixed by v3.
We struggled to finish a 650 point (28mm) game in 2.5 hours. Usually took nearer 3, which is longer than I'd like.
By contrast, we can finish a game of 'To the Strongest' easily in 2 hours.

grahambriggs
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2983
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am

Re: 1 per 2...

Post by grahambriggs » Thu Nov 16, 2017 6:00 pm

pyruse wrote:
grahambriggs wrote:
Just as background, we'd asked a few ex players why they'd drifted away from the game. A number said that they found that close combat frequently dragged on too long. We've all had the "3 feet of combat and it feels like all the files are on different factors" situation.
This was certainly what made us change to faster rules. I have bad memories of a Plataea refight with about 5 feet of battle line with the units not quite lined up.
Not only did every file have a different factor, the combat then dragged on and on, and the factors kept changing.
Not fun. And not fixed by v3.
We struggled to finish a 650 point (28mm) game in 2.5 hours. Usually took nearer 3, which is longer than I'd like.
By contrast, we can finish a game of 'To the Strongest' easily in 2 hours.
We've been finding in play testing that the games lasts about 2 and a half hours with 800 points in v3. Combat is quicker and armies break more easily.

Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions”