Bionic Square Movement « Honour Forums

Honour Forums » Lasalle » Rules Questions

Bionic Square Movement

(52 posts) (13 voices)

Started 2 years ago by Alan Charlesworth
Latest reply from Tomster

Tags:

« Previous 12

Otherdave
Member

Yeah, Sam, he hit me at a slightly oblique angle (like 15 degrees or so), so that his rightmost base's right front corner was in contact with my left front base's front edge.

By changing to Abreast formation, marked on my left front base so that it became the rightmost base in the formation, I was able to remain in contact, with most of his formation facing open air.

I don't know if introducing a base-depth ZOC would be worth it to prevent that kind of close-in agility, or if it would be too other-game-esque ;)

Posted 2 years ago #
cam_millar
Member

"Because you would not have been allowed to change formation and move any of your bases that he'd contacted."

Where does it say that? The formation reaction change section says:

"A unit may not use this reaction to break contact with an enemy unit attacking it. The reacting unit must form up on a base that contacts that enemy, or by forming up, does not break contact with the enemy."

I read this as saying the UNIT must still be in contact after the formation change - not that each BASE in contact must remain in contact. So that does not seem to prevent someone moving a base out of contact as long as another base remains in contact.

If you can't move any BASES in contact, how can a line form square if all bases were contacted by cavalry? You have to move at least one of the bases out of contact.

Cam

Posted 2 years ago #
seldon
Member

Interesting the case Otherdave mentions, however once you've seen this done next time you'll simply make sure that the projection of the first rank already covers over your half unit.
Given that it is easy to avoid at least in concept maybe no need for a fix for that case at least.

If I am playing a rookie I would point this as they charge so that they can prevent it.

But nevertheless, interesting point, and a good caveat for me to consider as a player. And my interpretation of the rule on changing formation is the same as Cam's

Francisco

Posted 2 years ago #
cam_millar
Member

Is it easy to avoid? Unit A in line charges enemy unit 1 in line.

AAAA
1111

Unit 1 passes a test to change formation. It goes to column on its right most element:

AAAA
___11
___11

Unit A now halves dice.

Unit 1 can wheel in the charge, but there looks to me to be a pretty specific positioning it needs to get to if it wants to ensure the enemy can't wriggle out - and it is not obvious that it is desirable that units have to hit in certain configurations rather than just frontally.

One possible solution may be that halving dice for an attacker not covering half the defender is decided BEFORE any defender formation change. You hit with half the defender in front of you, you fight at full effect.

Cam

Posted 2 years ago #
seldon
Member

Cam in your example the attacker still gets full dice.
In that case the defending unit (after changing to column ) is fully inside the projection of the attacking unit ( defending unit fully inside of attackers front ), so as per page 57 third paragraph the attacker will not get half dice but full dice ( although the example shows a unit attacked on the flank in the book, the rule is more general. If it was not the case line would normally get half dice against column when attacking frontally and that is not the case in the rules as they stand today ).

Hence as long as a unit is attacking center to center frontally then you couldn't play the trick effectively.

That being said Cam, I really like your idea that the condition for half dice should be evaluated before the reaction as what the rule really try to prevent is a clipping move by the attacker so I like your idea !

Francisco

Posted 2 years ago #
Sam Mustafa
Le Grand Fromage

Well, the Change Formation reaction is also intended to enable a defender, with a bit of luck and the help of good quality troops and commanders, to do something unexpected and advantageous.

In the case of CAV-vs-CAV combat, I think you guys are excessively worried. The stakes just aren't that high. If an attacker loses decisively, the worst that will happen to him is that he loses 1 DISR - exactly the same as the defender, and exactly what he would have lost in any outcome.

Posted 2 years ago #
cam_millar
Member

Sorry, my ASCI art has not come out properly. I will try again:
Unit A charges unit B. AAAA BBBB Unit B changes formation on its rightmost base. This base now becomes the leftmost base of a column. _ is empty space. AAAA_ ___BB ___BB So Unit A now only faces one frontal base (two in total) of Unit B. Half of Unit B is now completely outside of unit A's arc. From memory you need more than half of the enemy in front of you. I think you can do a similar trick if you are a column being charged by another column. If you change formation to line on the rightmost base, you can put three of your bases outside the attacker's arc and only leave one base in their arc. AA AA BB BB After formation change: AA AA _BBBB
Cam

Posted 2 years ago #
seldon
Member

Ok, clear this time. Not sure it is really a winning tactic in most cases but that doesn't matter, it looks like an undesired consequence of an otherwise very reasonable rule.

I still think that your recommended rule is very simple and effective and that it is valid to say that they should cover half the enemy before any reactions from the enemy. I like that little mod since it doesn't really change anything in the rules, just a simple clarification which seems to go in favor of the original intent of the rule.

Francisco

Posted 2 years ago #
cam_millar
Member

"In the case of CAV-vs-CAV combat, I think you guys are excessively worried. The stakes just aren't that high. If an attacker loses decisively, the worst that will happen to him is that he loses 1 DISR - exactly the same as the defender, and exactly what he would have lost in any outcome."

Before I give a response on behalf of the excessively worried, I will stress I have no view if this is a game problem or not. I just like thinking about these sorts of things.

While the impact on the attacker is not really affected, it makes a big difference to the odds of the defender being destroyed.

Take a cav unit in line that charges a cav unit in column (covering at more than half its bases). All things else equal this is 10 v 8 dice. I think this gives a 33% chance that the defender will be destroyed. Otherwise one side bounces and both end up with a DISR.

If the defender is able to form line, but stays in front of the attacker it becomes 8 dice v 8 dice. This reduces the chance of the defender being destroyed to 25%. Otherwise one side bounces and both end up with a DISR.

If the defender can form line in such a way that half or less of their bases remain in front of the attacker, it becomes 4 v 8 dice. The chance of the defender breaking is now 10%. Otherwise one side bounces and both end up with a DISR.

So a formation change that gets out of the path of the charge drops the odds of being destroyed by 2/3rds.

If a unit in line is charged by another unit in line (8 v 8 dice) there is a 25% chance that the defender breaks. But if the defender can change into column and not have more than half its bases in front of the enemy it becomes 6 v 8 dice. This gives about a 17% chance of the defender being destroyed.

Note there is no penalty for cavalry trying to change formation and failing - so it is a good/same outcome for the defender.

Now this may be totally intended and a good reflection of the swirling nature of combat in open spaces. But it is not immediately intuitive. Would newbie players think that when charged, a formation change (sometimes even from line to column) is the best response, or will it be a shock when it is done to them the first time?

Cam

Posted 2 years ago #
EagleSixFive
Member

I suspect it would be a shock to s newbie and experienced players alike. Just the sort of thing in a tournament environment that make people say crap and not come back. Same goes for the bionic move cheese.

Personally, I just don't play it like that. I find it distasteful and gives the impression of desperation. It turns new players off and Napoleonic veterans start looking for the next rule set, hoping it is the set to rule them all. Lasalle deserves a better fate than that.

Posted 2 years ago #
Watts
Member

I agree with EagleSixFive. The "Don't be a Turd" rule should be sufficient to cover these situations ;)

Posted 2 years ago #
Sam Mustafa
Le Grand Fromage

"While the impact on the attacker is not really affected, it makes a big difference to the odds of the defender being destroyed"

No, I do understand that, but I'm saying that in general, that's exactly what the Reaction Phase is for: To try to salvage something out of what would otherwise be a devastating enemy attack, through a little luck, enhanced by good troops and commanders, and a tactical opportunity.

Posted 2 years ago #
Alan Charlesworth
Member

When one unit charges another and the defender reacts in the real world these things are happening simultaneausly. So if the defender starts to shape shift to the right or left the attacker could easily respond to that by altering the line of their charge right or left. I can't see that they would charge forward into thin air. Are there examples of this happening?

So it seems visually very odd to allow these shape shifts to take place by a lucky defender, with no response from the attacker as occurs with the rules, allowing the defender to significantly reduce their chance of being destroyed.

The effect is that the skillful player who has positioned his unit for a good attack can be countered by the less able player who has positioned his unit poorly rolling a lucky die. The able attacker has no corresponding lucky die to roll. Seems like a rough outcome for the more competant player.

Posted 2 years ago #
EagleSixFive
Member

Agreed Alan.

Did this cheese reveal itself during play testing Sam?

Posted 2 years ago #
Sam Mustafa
Le Grand Fromage

Not really. I mean, yes, there were occasions when a defending unit was isolated enough that it had lots of space to morph without running into other units, AND passed the Disc test AND for whatever reason didn't want to shoot, or fall-back, instead.

But in general we found that units were often attacking and defending in conjunction with others, making wild changes in position unlikely or undesirable.

Posted 2 years ago #
Pickton
Member

I could be wrong, but wasn't the point of having the 'centre' company, with its stand of colours, to use it as the pivot, or basis, for all battalion movement in battle?

There seems little point in basing drill on Grenadier or Light Companies which might not be present when the battalion goes into battle.

Surely, most of the problems vanish if the centre company has to remain stationary while the formation change occurs.
Since the colours would move into the centre of the square any face can be the designated centre company when the square breaks formation.

Posted 2 years ago #
Sam Mustafa
Le Grand Fromage

"Surely, most of the problems vanish if the centre company has to remain stationary while the formation change occurs."

Easier said than done. In many cases that would result in the new Square formation no longer being in base-contact with the enemy cavalry that charged it. That would, in turn, require the cavalry unit to scoot up to contact, which raises the possibility of the Cav bumping into other units first, or moving through impassable or rough terrain, or whatever.

Posted 2 years ago #
Tomster
Member

Sorry to be so slow and spoil the party but is this a case of simple rule lawyering?

Whatever you do or write if people want to there will always be holes or ambiguities. Please do not follow down the DBM path of sticking bandages on the holes.

The rules should be played in the right spirit and if there are any question settle these in a gentlemanly manner ... outside at 10 paces with pistols.... with a nice pull of snuff to finish!

Posted 2 years ago #
Pickton
Member

Sam I am not sure how allowing the square to form right at the other end of a unit would be a better thing. It's easy to say in this case it is wrong for a unit to vanish out of the charge line of another unit (I find it deplorable too), but then again, I read a recent mail where such a thing was okayed for different reasons in the move sequence.

There are other ways to look at this. If the cavalry are not near enough to hit more than half the line in their move (which means contacting the command unit) perhaps THEY are poorly placed.

Posted 2 years ago #
buttridi
Member

Sorry to be so slow and spoil the party but is this a case of simple rule lawyering?
-------------------

Tom,

The problem is what is reasonable to one player can very well be seen as Le Fromage to another...esp in a tournament setting and in particular when players are meeting from different clubs / areas.

The challenge of a miniatures rule set is to get these kind of things right - board games don't have the visual appeal however they also don't have this problem. I have a friend who only plays boardgames due to this kind of issue. Anyway, I hope that there are some official clarifications on this, as so far I like the rules and hope that it "sticks" with players in our area.

Ian

Posted 2 years ago #
Sam Mustafa
Le Grand Fromage

Aside from the new Optional Rule, I haven't considered any additional clarifications.

Posted 2 years ago #
Tomster
Member

Thanks Ian.

I realise this is an issue, especially with cons and inter-club meets but it is not just a little cheese in terms of rules. If we try and cater for all sorts of rules lawyering the hobby is doomed to belly button gazing and desperate analism.

I palyed in a con a few years ago when my opponent had allthe factors "memorised" and just kept spitting out numbers incredibly fast and just rolling his dice. At the end of the game he had lost. Then 10 minutes later he came back and told me he had miscalculated a factor from the middle of one the combats that was critical and could we amend. We referred it to the convention ref who said whatever we were happy with. I decided that if it was that important to the other guy to get a few picky points back then fine my me. I was never going to see his face again.

Anyway... my point is that there will be any amount of rules lawyering and cheese if people are that way inclined. If you have to sticky tape up rules sets to stop this the problem is not in the rules sets but with the psyche of the players, eg DBMM and its plethora of exceptions and fixes what actually make it a poorer set of rules.

As they say in football... play the ball not the man.

Posted 1 year ago #

RSS feed for this topic

« Previous 12

Reply

You must log in to post.