Auteur |
Message |
Korik
Archer
Inscrit le: 19 Juil 2018 Messages: 58
|
Posté le: Lun Sep 24, 2018 3:39 pm Sujet du message: Exiting the ZOC of an enemy in the unit's rear |
|
Just an observation around the rule on page 34, right hand column, final bullet point and the example
As I read this, if my (non evading) units are in the ZOC of enemy units in their rear I can only exit the ZOC by about facing and then retreating whilst facing the enemy units, costing 2CP for each element so moved AND each element becomes disordered (presumably that means dropping a cohesion level unless they are already down by one or more)
Whereas units which can evade don't have to bother with this and can just gallop away from the enemy (in fact, if the enemy is to their front they turn their backs to them first)
I'm not sure if the intention is to penalise commanders for allowing enemy elements to gain their rear area but I would have thought that any troops looking over their shoulder and seeing a bunch of hostiles giving them the dead eye wouldn't mess about, they'd be off
The only exception I can think of is if the unit's movement isn't sufficient to outdistance the charge range of the guys behind them, and there are no friends who could be interposed, in which case they would naturally turn so they were at least taking it on the nose and not the back of their head _________________ Korik |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
madaxeman
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 01 Nov 2014 Messages: 1476
Localisation: Londres Centraal.
|
Posté le: Lun Sep 24, 2018 4:54 pm Sujet du message: |
|
Korik a écrit: | I'm not sure if the intention is to penalise commanders for allowing enemy elements to gain their rear area .. |
I think you've nailed it here.
If you want to rationalize it, I suspect the answer is not that "they'd walk away more quickly" - instead more that ZOCC'ing someone in the rear might well be so bad that it could be a reason for a source of immediate panic (in game terms immediate cohesion loss) as it would be just too damned scary to just "walk away" from !
ZOC's are an important part of how the game plays out, allowing you to force the enemy to stand and fight (rather than making it a game of flouncing about and avoiding combat). Without this mechanism it would also become advantageous to turn your rear to the enemy as they approached - as it would then be easier to walk away (as you'd not need to spend move distance turning around) with enemy in your rear than in your front. That wouldn't be a great look in-game either... _________________ www.madaxeman.com |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Korik
Archer
Inscrit le: 19 Juil 2018 Messages: 58
|
Posté le: Jeu Sep 27, 2018 8:02 pm Sujet du message: |
|
I seem to have managed to post this in the Army Lists section, so let's start with an apology for that
I'd agree that the ZOC considerations do turn what could be, if we're being honest, a dicefest, into something requiring some tactical thought
By unit and a 2 CP tariff does seem a tad harsh though, to be honest, given what groups of quite disparate troop types are capable - pike, for example, treat left/about face as a difficult manoeuvre but aren't penalised when they perform an expansion in a group
But, hey ho, thus say the rules and by the rules shall ye play _________________ Korik |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
lionelrus
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 21 Mar 2009 Messages: 4725
Localisation: paris
|
Posté le: Ven Sep 28, 2018 7:42 am Sujet du message: |
|
[quote="Korik"
By unit and a 2 CP tariff does seem a tad harsh though, to be honest, given what groups of quite disparate troop types are capable - pike, for example, treat left/about face as a difficult manoeuvre but aren't penalised when they perform an expansion in a group
[/quote]
they are drilled for that. _________________ "Quand on a pas de technique, faut y aller à la zob"
Perceval à Yvain et Gauvain. |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Korik
Archer
Inscrit le: 19 Juil 2018 Messages: 58
|
Posté le: Sam Sep 29, 2018 10:27 am Sujet du message: |
|
Any chance an admin could move this topic into the rules section please?
And sorry, don't mean to sound facetious, but pike are trained to expand from behind other troop types but not to turn 180', despite having file leaders at both ends of each file?
Which is slightly off topic because pike can't retreat from a ZOC in their rear because it costs them 2UD to turn 180', which means they don't have any movement left to retreat, which means it costs 2CP for the group rather than per element _________________ Korik |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
fdunadan
Tribun
Inscrit le: 12 Juin 2009 Messages: 978
|
Posté le: Sam Sep 29, 2018 3:56 pm Sujet du message: |
|
Basically, if you have any non-light unit behind your line of battle and you have ennemy in front of you, you're dead.
If it's a lone unit that came, you have to turn toward it (in the optic of fighjting). if you try to escape with unit that don't evade (and so are not trained to flee in good order) you take the risk of panic/disorder that the loss of cohesion represents.
If you have ennemy potentially ZoCing you on your rear, that's after one or two rounds of movement, and you had time to see them come. If you didn't react (be it for lack of CP or choice or poor reflexion) that's your fault. So penalized by the rules. _________________ Audentes fortuna iuvat. |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Korik
Archer
Inscrit le: 19 Juil 2018 Messages: 58
|
Posté le: Sam Sep 29, 2018 9:46 pm Sujet du message: |
|
I'm happy to accept that it's a penalty, it's just sometimes dangerous to try to explain this type of rule away by reference to troop capabilities, especially when the rules cover 4,500 years of military history
And with a +/-5 swing on the chance factor even rear attacks aren't cut and dried _________________ Korik |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Hazelbark
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 12 Nov 2014 Messages: 1550
|
Posté le: Dim Sep 30, 2018 6:03 pm Sujet du message: |
|
Korik a écrit: |
And with a +/-5 swing on the chance factor even rear attacks aren't cut and dried |
They are not and that uncertainty is a good thing. In games with more certainty, the stronger players develop a situation where they can manage a downside. It is much charge here.
In a big tournament I was encasing my opponent in a situation where he should not attack me as those odds were bad, but he was pinned. I was enveloping his flanks so that clock was ticking. He was utterly doomed.
So what did he do. He said, the only way through was forward and tossed HC impetuous at my HI sword. Bing-bang-boom and a pair of 6-1s and he tore through my center. I had to spend a lot of time plugging that gapping hole to squeak out a win. If there was less instability we could have stopped playing.
So even on rear attacks. There were times in history when the pursuers would over reach lose discipline, become a fox hunt. At the same time troops falling back would organize at the last moment and desperately give their foes a bloody nose. ~3% of the time (1 in 36) may be a bit high, but that is an acceptable chance. Maybe it is too often, but any chance that a simple victory is more complicated makes for a better game. |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
|