Triarii and "Replacement" Suggestions

[Chad_YMG]

OK, I think I'm ready to rule.  

The intent of the Roman ability was for heavy infantry soldiers to be able to replace tired troops in the front ranks.  We chose to represent this in a way that has the units change places but the intent is for the first unit to be engaged.  As for the Triarii, this was not meant to slingshot them.  The idea was simply that due to their experience the would anticipate breaks in the line and thus could reinforce where needed (i.e. the unit "really" moved on its own initiative ahead of the replacement event).

With that in mind, I propose that the Roman Replacement army ability may only be used before to have an unengaged unit replace a unit that was engaged at the start of the turn.  Neither unit may move or have moved this turn.  I think this addresses all problems that have been identified and brings us to the original intent.

Any objections?

[Niko White]

Seems good for Replacement, Chad.  What about the skirmisher auto-rout -> teleporting Triarii thing?  Just make the triarii extended backup only work on guys with the Roman army ability box?

[Chad_YMG]

And don't forget the "oh yeah and you're no longer charging" nonsense.

This is actually a perfect example of how developers and playtesters can take something for granted.  In all the games I played, watched or read reports on, everyone had the same assumption I did -- that replacement happened with units that were already engaged.  The "not charging" was intended to clarify that when my Hastati and your Ogres final rush and then the next turn I replace my Hastati with Veteran Principes, only my Principes are charging that turn.  It was never intended to take away a charge but rather to clarify that only the Romans were getting an extra charge out of the replacement.

[Chad_YMG]

Seems good for Replacement, Chad.  What about the skirmisher auto-rout -> teleporting Triarii thing?  Just make the triarii extended backup only work on guys with the Roman army ability box?

Either that or just not on skirmishers, which would be my preference.  Cavalry actually have to get into combat and rout/die to be replaced so I don't see that as such an issue, but I could be convinced.

[Hannibal]

This is actually a perfect example of how developers and playtesters can take something for granted.

If it makes you feel better, I've been playing the set for like a year now and it never occurred to me to even try that.  I simply didn't real the rule with that in mind.

I blame Kevin.

In fact, that's my new motto.

[Hamilcar]

With that in mind, I propose that the Roman Replacement army ability may only be used before to have an unengaged unit replace a unit that was engaged at the start of the turn.  Neither unit may move or have moved this turn.  I think this addresses all problems that have been identified and brings us to the original intent.

I feel you are correct and this is a very acceptable solution. 
(My comment about taking away the impact and charge of the Cav did not take into account things like Elephants of Triceratop which would be severely screwed!)
I think Chad's and Niko's suggestion of the Triarii fix being that it can't back-up Skirmishers makes total sense and I support this errata as well.

In neither case do I feel that the Romans will suffer or loose any battlefield strength or presence.
My $.02

[Chad_YMG]

I blame Kevin.

In fact, that's my new motto.

For what it's worth, the official YMG policy is to blame Humpherys.

[Kevin]

With that in mind, I propose that the Roman Replacement army ability may only be used before to have an unengaged unit replace a unit that was engaged at the start of the turn.  Neither unit may move or have moved this turn.  I think this addresses all problems that have been identified and brings us to the original intent.

Any objections?

None here.  The skirmishers thing should be dealt with, either by putting the official stamp Ajax's convincing interpretation of the rules that skirmishers don't technically "fail a rout check" when the auto-rout, though it's probably simpler all around if you just say that the 5" backup radius does not apply to skirmishers (or, as I'd prefer, say that it only applies to Roman non-skirmishers).

I'll do have one request, though.  That these new Replacement rules (plus previous Triarii rulings, such as their back up giving +1 die to engaged attacks only, and the requirements that they have to be unengaged & on close to back other units up) be put on the official errata page.

I blame Kevin.

In fact, that's my new motto.

 

[Hamilcar]

Ditto to Kevin's comments!

[ajax98]

...
With that in mind, I propose that the Roman Replacement army ability may only be used before to have an unengaged unit replace a unit that was engaged at the start of the turn.  Neither unit may move or have moved this turn.  I think this addresses all problems that have been identified and brings us to the original intent.

Any objections?

I believe the requirement "unit replace a unit that was engaged at the start of the turn", is too restrictive and addresses a non existent 'problem'.

1. The Romans were very good at rotating weary units back. If the front unit is presently unengaged, why the penalty? It would be so much easier to do the 'replacement'.

2. The present scrutiny and corrections are to prevent "unrealistic" events from occurring. The Restrictions for the two involved units, "Neither unit may move or have moved this turn" are succinct enough to curtail the problems outlined.

[gull2112]

2. The present scrutiny and corrections are to prevent "unrealistic" events from occurring. The Restrictions for the two involved units, "Neither unit may move or have moved this turn" are succinct enough to curtail the problems outlined.

At the risk of discrediting him, I'm on Ajax' side. 

[Torrg]

for the simplicity of adding only one sentence "Neither unit may move or have moved this turn" to the existing rule for replacement, this appears to correct the situation. I agree with Ajax.