Latest topics
» Why can Longbows Fire at Point Blank Range & Not Others?
Yesterday at 5:49 pm by Zippee

» "Long Spear" if not in a large unit
Yesterday at 3:35 pm by Eques

» What are the main Changes between Impetus & Baroque?
Yesterday at 3:29 pm by Zippee

» Looking for Players in the Midlands (UK)
Yesterday at 2:53 pm by Eques

» Improving Pilum?
Tue Dec 12, 2017 5:03 am by Tarty

» Help in making a errata/FAQ
Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:07 pm by prapor

» Dragons de Vaires 2017
Sun Dec 10, 2017 7:41 pm by Bobo

» What are the Benefits of being in a Group?
Fri Dec 08, 2017 4:25 pm by Tankred

» BI2-Samurai 'Big Battle'
Fri Dec 08, 2017 3:36 pm by Tankred

Vapnartak York Feb 2018- format options?

Wed Oct 18, 2017 8:26 am by Cyrus The Adequate

Hi everyone

I was pondering the options for the York competition and wondered …

Comments: 11

Basic Impetus 2 Comp, January 2018?

Mon Oct 30, 2017 10:03 am by Aurelius

Would anyone be interested in a 28mm Basic Impetus 2 tournament, Saturday …

Comments: 15

Impetus Competition Derby Worlds 2017

Sun Jul 02, 2017 4:42 pm by Cyrus The Adequate

There will be a 28mm Impetus Competition at Derby World Wargames on 7th …

Comments: 47

Impetus at Derby?

Thu Apr 27, 2017 9:29 am by Cyrus The Adequate

Anyone interested ? 7th & 8th October at a new venue - Bruntingthorpe …

Comments: 11

Wintercon '17 July 15-16th

Sat May 06, 2017 11:44 pm by Tarty

Canberra July 15th-16th

Basic Impetus 2
28mm
Game days are Saturday and Sunday


Comments: 0

BI2 tournament - 25 March 2017

Thu Jan 26, 2017 10:08 am by RogerC

Would anyone be interested in a 28mm Basic Impetus 2 tournament on 25 March …

Comments: 24

December 2017
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Calendar Calendar


General at Risk modifier

View previous topic View next topic Go down

General at Risk modifier

Post by Granicus Gaugamela on Thu Mar 10, 2016 4:15 am

Umpired a game last night and had a "first" come up.

A unit of cavalry gets around the flank of an army containing Large Units and undertakes a flank charge.

Hits are scored, attacking cavalry pass their cohesion test and are disorderd, large unit flank attacked rolls a 6 taking 2 losses (critical number was a 4 obviously).  They have thus lost the combat and are automatically routed.

Which is nasty.

Now, the Large Unit also contained the Commander.

So the 6 represents a threat to him.

What modifier should we have used for the losses the Large Unit took that melee?

Do we use the 2 that occurred because the cohesion test roll was 2 above the critical number

OR

Do we use 8 because that represents the total losses suffered because the Large Unit routed from fresh as a result of losing a Flank Attack melee?



We went with 2 but I can see an argument for the other case as well.  Your leader has just been rolled up from the flank, his brand new unit that was so confidently advancing just got smashed to oblivion and fled the first time they engaged in combat, so you get real shaky real fast.

Granicus Gaugamela
VBU 4
VBU 4

Posts : 440
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2014-05-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: General at Risk modifier

Post by starkadder on Thu Mar 10, 2016 9:12 am

Page 44: "+ Losses taken by the General's Unit calculated in the last Cohesion Test."

I would say eight ( 8 ), given that the losses would have been calculated as part of the cohesion test if it had been survivable. The cohesion test incorporates losses at the point of defeat, retreat or rout.

Interesting.

I understand why you went for two ( 2 ). 

Eight makes a more fun story though, doesn't it?
avatar
starkadder
VBU 4
VBU 4

Posts : 302
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-05-19
Age : 63
Location : Tahmoor, NSW, Oz

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: General at Risk modifier

Post by Granicus Gaugamela on Thu Mar 10, 2016 10:03 am

Heh heh Starkers, you know my propensity for attacking flanks so I'm all keen for 8 but it does fundamentally change the game based on a single poor dice roll....

Granicus Gaugamela
VBU 4
VBU 4

Posts : 440
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2014-05-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: General at Risk modifier

Post by starkadder on Thu Mar 10, 2016 11:09 am

I don't know about fundamentally changing things. It does reinforce the risks of large units with exposed flanks. And that's a Good Thing.
avatar
starkadder
VBU 4
VBU 4

Posts : 302
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-05-19
Age : 63
Location : Tahmoor, NSW, Oz

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: General at Risk modifier

Post by Granicus Gaugamela on Thu Mar 10, 2016 12:17 pm

starkadder wrote:I don't know about fundamentally changing things. It does reinforce the risks of large units with exposed flanks. And that's a Good Thing.

On the latter, not so sure, that should be reinforced by autodestruct anyway.

On the former - it makes it a whole heck of a lot easier to rout an entire army as the result of a single 6 being rolled at the wrong time.

Granicus Gaugamela
VBU 4
VBU 4

Posts : 440
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2014-05-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: General at Risk modifier

Post by Gaius Cassius on Sat Mar 12, 2016 1:43 pm

We would use 2. The actual loss is only 2 but because it is a flank attack the effect causes the unit to rout.
avatar
Gaius Cassius
VBU 7 h.c.
VBU 7 h.c.

Posts : 780
Reputation : 15
Join date : 2014-05-20
Location : Guelph, Ontario, Canada

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: General at Risk modifier

Post by Cyrus The Adequate on Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:02 pm

I'm with GC on this one - the losses are 2, the rout is an effect of the cohesion test not the result of the test itself
avatar
Cyrus The Adequate
VBU 5
VBU 5

Posts : 549
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-05-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: General at Risk modifier

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum