Rules re-write suggestion thread

[ajax98]

I'll just steal the scene & line from Jurassic Park,
"Clever girl."

[Kevin]

Chad's response.  "Niko is correct," in this context means that spearmen (or others) who have an order of "Hold" with a location target modifier are considered holding if an enemy unit engages them, even if they are still in the process of moving toward their location target.

Niko is correct.

Probably the key point in how we wrote the rules is that the standing orders give a unit instructions about how it relates to enemy units.  A unit on Close is seeking enemy units out to fight and kill them.  Thus, when an enemy moves towards they essentially final rush each other (although in a turn-based system only one unit actually moves).  A unit on Hold -- even if it has a SOM causing it to move -- is not seeking combat.  When an enemy approaches it, it stops and braces for impact but doesn't engage.

Thus, from a game perspective the behavior of a unit on hold with a SOM differs from one on Close, even if their movement on the prior turn is identical.  If an enemy unit final rushes the unit on hold, it is presumed to have stopped moving as the enemy got close and prepared to receive the charge.  If an enemy unit final rushes the unit on Close, it is presumed to have "rushed" as well, charging into the fray.  The former gets holding bonuses (if any) and the latter gets the charge bonus (and penalty, for spearmen).

How long does it take to brace your spears?  Seconds?  Under nearly all battle situations, a unit will have enough time to do that even when rushed by cavalry -- and the Hold command indicates that that's what they will do.

[ajax98]

There's no risk of hitting your own units unless you're playing with a house rule.  You just get (-0) -1/-0 for shooting into an engagement.

If you're playing with those normal rules, a unit on S or R or L won't factor engagement into account when shooting.  (Ie, if the nearest unit is engaged, it will still shoot it unless it has an objective.)

If you're playing with a house rule that makes shooting into a melee dangerous, I think it is very reasonable to give the player who controls the archers a choice about whether they want to take the risk.

R 2.4, p58
Shooting into Engagements (Optional Rule)
When shooting at an enemy unit that is engaged with friendly units, there is a chance that some of the missiles will strike the friendly unit.
After all command cards have been played, each to hit roll of “6” causes one hit to the friendly unit (roll to damage normally). If more then one friendly unit is engaged with the target, for each “6” randomly determine which friendly unit is hit.

There has been some comment in our group about the ability for Choice in determining "Closest Enemy" for Shooting purposes when there are Engaged units and unengaged enemy.

If using the Optional rule above wherein you have the possibility to take damage to your own units I would add in determining "Closest Enemy" the ability to Choose to Not to Fire into Engagement, Find another "Closest Enemy".

There have several times I have regretted doing so as my units where much easier to Damage than  the enemy.

I would consider adding it as an Option to Shooting modifiers in general.

[ajax98]

What Niko said.  With the introduction of pila-wielding Hastati (and Principes, and Libyan Foot, and, etc.) as well as javelin-wielding skirmishers, we decided that we needed to turn javelins into a key-word with an entry in the rulebook.  We tweaked some things (e.g. changing the idea that they get a free attack if they're charged from further than L away to being charged from out of range, since the goal was to make sure that they didn't normally miss out on a chance to shoot) and tidied up the wording on others, but basically there's no real change to the Umenzi and the rule only touches on that one unit in their army.

[ajax98]

Clarification- Reform unit (-2MC) does not conflict with Unit Front edge maneuvering. As long as unit can be placed on play surface observing all other placing rules.

[ajax98]

It does, however, only work for engaged attacks, and you get only one extra die no matter how many Triarii are backing you up.

Where does it specify the thing about engaged attacks? I understand that this is the spirit of the rule, but the letter of the rule is that the unit gets (+1)+0/+0. It doesn't specify. Perhaps a FAQ/Errata is in order... 

[ajax98]

Addressing specifics for a Back Up unit being determined/declared and keeping its status when the front unit is drawn off in a Final Rush. The keep up movement is during the player's C&M phase and should have little problem to doing so without any special accommodation, observing regular rules. (Playtest note- Of course this may be problematic with some Dark Elf abilities and should be reviewed. I think that any effect for DE situation should break any BU continuity that may be derived through non-player turn.)

Thanx ajacks98. We will use your interpretation and see how that works. I believe that we will find it works pretty well, but if we have a further hang up I'll be sure and mention it here. I don't know if this should be clarified in the rules rewrite. Actually, some sentence in the rules regarding back up units should make mention of final rushing and back up units.

Example-
[15.5.1.0.1] (If a front unit is not affected by Imposed Movement) A unit meeting "Back Up" requirements at the end of the owning player's last movement, in a declared Back Up position with the same or greater MC actually moved by the unit to its front, is permitted at the beginning of the owning player's C&M phase to move immediately after Final Rush movement, before other regular movement, to place itself in a Back Up position with its front facing redline abutted to rear of the same front unit based upon the BU's normal movements. If this falls short under one inch, the BU unit is to be permitted straight line adjustment (yet accommodating terrain when practicable) to place redline on the nearest rear edge, including corners, of declared unit.

[ajax98]

Pinching - examples & clarifications

Actually, both Andrew and I were right, we were talking about different things.

In order to count as pinching, two things must be true of a unit:
-That unit must be engaged with an enemy unit that is engaged on another side
-That unit must itself be engaged only with said unit.
The pinching bonus increases for each additional side the enemy unit is engaged on.  Basically, the bonus is +1/+1 for each side beyond the first.  So if a unit is engaged on two sides, all units involved get +1/+1.  If it is engaged on three sides, +2/+2.  The max, which I actually achieved in a playtest game once, is a face-melting +3/+3 stacking bonus.  (I say stacking because you also get other bonuses like charge, flank, rear attack, whatever.)

What Andrew was clarifying was the first point: in a pinch situation, every unit gets the bonus if able.  What I was saying was that you can't get the pinching bonus if you are yourself pinched by some other unit.

In your second example, where A and B are engaging X on the front while C engages it on the flank, the units get the following bonuses:

A: +1/+1 for pinching (only one pinch bonus, because what matters is how many sides you are engaged on, not how many units are engaging you)
B: +1/+1 for pinching
C: +2/+1 for pinching, flanking
X: No bonuses (or a penalty if attacking C)

If C then became engaged by Y (say from the rear since that is most likely) the bonuses would be:

A: +1/+1 for pinching (X is still engaged on another side)
B: +1/+1 for pinching
C: +1/+0 for flanking (if attacking X) or -1/-1 for attacking to your rear (if attacking Y).  No pinch bonus now that it is itself pinched.
X: No bonuses (or a penalty if attacking C); it can't get the pinch bonus vs C because it is itself pinched.
Y: +2/+3 for pinching, rear attacking, charging (even though X is pinched, it still contributes to the pinch)

[ajax98]

From recent rules questions-

be more specific on Indirect Path; rewrite

Specify and condense procedures for Final Rush & Routing; elaborate in the associated rule sections.

If there is a game function / process that is a requirement, use the words "mandatory" or "must".
If there is something that provokes a choice, specify if it is optional or not.

...Now, here is where is gets complicated.

The Knights are abutted behind the Spearmen by the measure of 0.5" on the left side.  Therefore, 3" of the forward face of the Knights is exposed - there is nothing in front of it.  The rules state that if you can draw a line from the facing centre point of the unit to any point on the enemy, and this line has a 2.5" gap (1.25" either side) then it is eligible to final rush.  As only 0.5" of the Knights is blocked by the Spearmen there is a line of 1.25" either side of its centre point with no obstruction.

My question, therefore, is whether the indirect path rule is eligible here (the enemy unit is the nearest enemy to the Knights) and the player can choose whether to final rush or whether the final rush rule overrides this requiring a charge.

Essentially, my question is can the indirect rule negate the need to final rush when a unit meets all other requirements?

Is that clearer?

I believe that the question is clearer.
The Indirect Path rule is used when the unit's Front red Center Point is Masked or when that central determining point is blocked for what is "visible" to the unit.

The Knights (5") must charge the enemy.
It will engage most of the front of the enemy unit, as per example, except the 0.5" is masked by Spearmen.

The enemy is Clearly Visible.
The enemy is within Final Rush range. The measure from the Front Center Point of the Knights will be traced as not to overlap the Spearmen.
There is an open path.

p.9
Close C
The unit will move its maximum movement toward the nearest enemy unit.

p.18
Facing Side
Nearest Enemy

p.21
Clearly Visible
A unit may only engage an enemy unit if the enemy unit was clearly visible at the start of the turn.
If you can draw a line from the front center point of your unit to any part of an enemy unit (that is in your unit’s front arc) without passing through any other units or line of sight blocking terrain, then the enemy unit is clearly visible.

p.22 Final Rush
• A unit is near enough to final rush if its front center point is within its MC of an open side center point of the nearest enemy unit (taking into account all non-maneuvering MC modifiers).
When a unit final rushes, move its front center point to the center point on the enemy’s facing side (or the nearest open side if the facing side is not open). No maneuvering is necessary—just pick up the unit and place it in its new position.

p23 FR
If an obstacle or another unit prevents the units from being lined up center point to center point, simply line the unit up as much as possible.
Note: To be engaged, each unit must have at least half of a side in contact with the opposing unit.

p.24 Open Path
There is an open path if:
• A straight line can be drawn from the front center point of the final rushing (or routing) unit to any point on the enemy unit (or the point the unit is routing to) and

• A 2.5” wide path can be found which is clear of other units or impassable obstacles and though which that line goes.

That's cleared it up.  All these years and I missed that bit. Thanks - much appreciated.

Ah, so. One of those Implied concepts, now needing to be made clear. As such it is easy to miss.

I did that recently and had to go back and line out a lot of some answers as the correct little bit I missed made sections of the answers wrong.
 

R2.4, p.16
Indirect Path
Sometimes a unit’s standing orders would cause it to move on an indirect and convoluted path towards the enemy due to other units in its path. When this happens, you may either move the unit on the indirect path, or you may move it on a direct path, stopping when it reaches the obstructing unit.

In this situation, the key phrase "path towards the enemy" denotes the two "visibility" rule sections.

A unit that is being movement masked/obstructed is guided by the player's consideration of 1st-Clearly Visible and 2nd-Nearest Enemy.
Line of Sight considerations enter into the equation when there is a difference in size and / or elevation.

This is being cleaned up in v.3.

[RushAss]

Suggestion for flanking rules change taken from another thread:

A unit that has been flanked may chose to reform to face the attacker on the flanked players turn for 1 command action.  If the change is made, the reforming unit still pays for the (-1) 0/0 penalty for attacking to it's flank on the turn it is reforming.  So the flanked unit still pays the penalty for 2 turns of combat (more if he chooses not to reform) and it burns a command action to fix it.  I feel this is fair and still provides a reasonable reward to the flanking unit for making that flank attack.  I think the same thing should be available for rear-attacks, just swap the rear attack penalty of (-0) -1/-1 for the flanking penalty.

I keep thinking of instances where large or colossal units are flanked in an open field.  Don't you think that a Treant or T-Rex would eventually turn to face it's attackers?  Why would they just sit there and let the little jerks attack his side?

[ajax98]

You be fast - I was just copying to do this.

[RushAss]

We can't let you have all the fun now, can we?

[gull2112]

I wrote about this very issue in one of my first posts ever. In fact, I used the Treants as my example because a friend and I who were trying the game out were doing orcs v. wood elves and he couldn't believe that his treant couldn't turn to face.

Chad's reply was that the initial attack put the defender off balance and left him at a disadvantage for the entire combat. So Chad hath spoken and woe be tidings to any and all who dare question further.

[ajax98]

Yes, one on my initial observations and complaints. Just sucked it up, was never a big problem - just annoying.
But now a rewrite is afoot!

[Niko White]

I'm really not inclined to change the rules for being attacked at an odd angle, for a few reasons.

First and most importantly, in terms of gameplay and balance, getting those bonuses is your reward for good maneuvering.  It is pretty hard to get a flank or rear on an enemy, and we (intentionally) made the bonuses small enough that in the most common situation (one on one attacking a flank) the battle won't end quickly enough that you can't bring up reinforcements to help out, and a way better unit will still be able to deal.  (I recently killed a Ghoul Pack with a Celestial Guard despite it flanking me, for example.)  If you can reform out of it while in combat, then the bonus for the attacker is decreased (especially of the flank, because it is a bonus that is designed to be gradual, not immediately crushing,) and more importantly your incentive to somehow mitigate the situation is decreased.

There's also, for me, a flavor issue.  We try to make it such that you don't have to spend command actions on things that smart unit commanders would just do.  If it is easy to mitigate a flank attack, why in the world would you have to order the unit commander to do that?  Surely they'd do it themselves.  The lingering confusion explanation works well for me here, as does another: in most cases (though granted not all) there are other enemy units nearby when your unit is engaged.  If they're all big lines clashing together, then no one has to worry about the enemy being somewhere unexpected; their friends are there.  If the enemy engages you on the flank, though, there are usually other enemies near where you were facing.  Even if everyone moves in to attack, they're no longer as secure in knowing where the enemies aren't, so they're able to fight less as a formation, and more as individuals, which tends to be problematic for most.

That said, I do agree that giant monsters getting a persistent flank bonus is a bit odd.  But any rule to fix that is going to be hacky and a small corner case, and the "having to worry about enemies from other directions" point still holds.  Regardless, Battleground is a game that works on the idea that the rules should be relatively straightforward in virtually all cases, and that we shouldn't need strange corner case rules, which reforms for single combatants certainly would be.

Finally, I like the statement we make by having the penalty persist.  Basically it says "you don't want this to happen" far more elegantly than some long rule about how you can get out of it if you do X and Y and Z.  (By the way, I also think I'd basically never use that reform option because it is almost never going to warrant the command action; another reason not to have it.)  Even if, as here, doing it is a bad idea, just saying "nope you get it for the whole fight" says it very eloquently.  Whenever I do a demo and tell that to a newbie, they "get" that they should avoid those situations immediately.  (Obviously they'll later figure out it is sometimes worth it, but that's fine; what you want is to make it clear that in this game, maneuver and positioning are really important, which this rule does in a simple and understandable manner.)