Honour Forums

Discuss the Honour system.

1. garyp
   Member

   Our first game - core plus 2 options using 15mm figures (40mm BW) on a 6x4 table using the harbour set up - game finished just a tad under 3.5 hours at the end of turn 17 - Russians had exceeded his break number of 11 in turn 16 but passed the test, we rolled low so never got to the Russian next turn - therefore a draw. French lost 9 points needing 12 to break. I completely forgot about my objective marker which was just 1 BW away from one of my infantry and a Hussar unit, albeit, sitting beneath a Russian infantry unit in square. We both had 16 bases of pursuit cavalry remaining!

   I enjoyed the game although there was a moment of "it's OK, just another game, pity about no command/control or morale rules (sounds familiar) or real skirmishers". I liked the simplicity and fast pace and lack of charts - full marks to SAM for that - we played quite a big game with minimal looking up and I think we go it mostly right. Most factors would be by memory after just a few games I would think.

   Set up worked well although my opponent took pity on me by leaving a hill I had placed in the centre of the table to shield me from his 20 starting guns - the Russians had home ground advantage so he could have removed my choice. He placed a hill on the flank of his deployement area instead - this actually hurt him in the end as he deployed on the hill and left himself very little room to manoeuvre. Just my own personnal thing, but I do not like rules that make one side set up completely first - this gives a big advantage to the opponent who can then line things up. Not that we did this as we were just getting to know the game but once players are over the initail learning curve one player will have a sizeable benefit im my view - i know, get over it!

   There seems to be some (or maybe a lot) of potential for niggly move surveying - lining up your units to get that advantageous charge contact, getting the desired unit as the target of artillery and bounce through, moving to a millimetere outside a shooting arc, putting a fresh unit in front of a damaged unit to shield it from shots and charges - far worse (ie - more impactful) than any other set of rules I have ever played in this respect - a comp would be a nightmare against intense players. Again, I know you need to measure in any game but it did appear that micro managing could be a factor for rules lawyer types.

   Shooting appears not particularly effective. You do get disruptions but needing 5-8 hits to do 2 disruptions at once is not that easy even with canister. Rolling off disruptions appears quite easy for experienced troops even when rolling 2 dice for having moved before the test. I would hesitate to take armature troops in a comp - so my Prussians will need to wait on friendly games. I liked the 3 hits to make artillery limber up - sort of a "silencing" effect as it takes them a full turn to unlimber again which meant some respite from the guns.

   Command was no problem with 4 sub commanders for me (3 standard plus the extra one for being attacker) plus the Commander. All my subs rolled up except one who was average so even easier to pass discipline tests. The Russians also rolled all up or evens - this is a real random item which went well for us today but could just as easily leave you with all average and poor subs - an unpaid for advantage/disadvantage a bit like deploying first once you get to comp situations. Works fine for friendlies.

   We used our subs in all the combats to see how it went - 4 out of 5 killed/wounded - kept rolling 5/6 for the officer casualty! - an aide takes over at one lower level so towards the end things got a little more difficult to manoeuvre although no change to recovery rolls where vigour does not count.

   Combat worked well - this is what the rules are all about and where they excel in my opinion - with my only hesitation being the potential for fiddly millimetre/angle measuring to max your factors. It is all about deciding to stop to recover disruptions or press on. SAM has said that corner to corner contact is not a combat contact unless there is some part of the defender in front of some part of the attacker - this is how we played but to be fair it was never a problem as we had a lot of action and units to shuffle so precise lining up was not that easy and my main concern was to eliminate the masses of Russian artillery. This ruling about corner to corner contact needs to be in the errata as it is not what it says in the written rules (page 10 under In contact with - "means that their bases physically touch each other in some way or at some point" and on page 32 under The Point of Contact - "....combat will be resolved between any two units whose bases touch at any point" - no mention of the defender needing to be at least partially in front of the attacker that I can see).

   I can rationalise our game end but for comp purposes I would be miffed to score a draw out of the result.

   Also I think perhaps players need to keep the game design in context - it seems to me that the game represents a localised fight within a bigger battle - maybe unit commanders have been briefed on the local objectives and the orders being given during the game represent local tactical considerations rather than grand tactical to therefore justify the use of the area command system and discipline tests for maneouvres rather than something more complex for "Fog of War". And, maybe units will fight until exhausted (represented by 1 disruption per base as per the shooting/combat mechanics). DBX uses overlaps and flanks within the combat system to represent morale other than the arbitrary one third ME break point - no real difference to Lasalle? - so no specific "morale" system may also be justifyable.

   Overall, I enjoyed the game and looking forward to another bash. Comps may be a problem due to the niggly measuring issues I highlighted above. This will depend on the attitude of you and your opponent which I guess applies to all games. Todays game was with a very easy going guy that makes the effort to learn the rules and plays them as written - so no problems. And it was our first bash so we may have missed some things despite my optimism.

   Also - someone mentioned to me about Cossack cavalry - on page 31 under Who May Charge -cavalry are allowed to charge everyone (except if in a town or hard cover) while iregulars may not charge a regular unit - which one governs Cossacks? I am guessing the later but I always worry about how the intense players will read it.

   Gary

   Posted 2 years ago #

2. John de Terre Neuve
   Member

   Very nice report, I have learned a lot by just reading through them.

   John

   Posted 2 years ago #

3. Sam Mustafa
   Le Grand Fromage

   [ This ruling about corner to corner contact needs to be in the errata as it is not what it says in the written rules (page 10 under In contact with - "means that their bases physically touch each other in some way or at some point" and on page 32 under The Point of Contact - "....combat will be resolved between any two units whose bases touch at any point" - no mention of the defender needing to be at least partially in front of the attacker that I can see).]

   I'll think about putting something in the "Clarifications" section, but I have to be very careful how I phrase it, because there are already two mechanisms designed to regulate this. The first is the "straight-ahead-only" charge move, which is combined with the Mandatory charge limitations. In our experience that meant that you had to charge the closest eligible target, and only with frontal movement, and...

   ...the second is the "Half Dice" rule that stipulates that you're halved if the defender doesn't cover at least half of your front. Among the more careful and competitive players, that tended to mitigate against cheesy "I'll clip you with my corner" attacks by simply making them undesirable.

   The other thing to consider is the placement of the defenders. If a defending unit has its flanks supported by other defenders, then it's physically impossible for an attacker to "brush-up" a second or third attacking unit up against his flank with a little clipping move like that. If the defenders are covering each other, then an attacker who gets a portion of his base into contact with one, will probably have the remainder of his base in contact with at least one other defender. Since you can't be sure which combat will be resolved first, the attacker runs the risk of fighting a lone action at Halved dice against the "other" defender he wasn't interested in, and then seeing his attacking unit fall back before it can participate in the attack he *was* interested in.

   Of course, if a defender has no support on an open flank, and the attacker has multiple units within charge range, then all bets are off.

   Posted 2 years ago #

4. rabbit
   Member

   ...the second is the "Half Dice" rule that stipulates that you're halved if the defender doesn't cover at least half of your front. Among the more careful and competitive players, that tended to mitigate against cheesy "I'll clip you with my corner" attacks by simply making them undesirable.

   it seems that if defender covers at least half of your front, the attacker get's full dice

   on p57

   an attacker halves combat dice

   - when the enemy covers half or less of his front

   which seems to imply that defender has to cover a bit more then just half of the attackers front to give the attacker full dice?

   raf

   Posted 2 years ago #

5. Sam Mustafa
   Le Grand Fromage

   [which seems to imply that defender has to cover a bit more then just half of the attackers front to give the attacker full dice?]

   Correct. I thought that's what I said, but perhaps I wasn't clear.

   Posted 2 years ago #

6. garyp
   Member

   Thanks for the replies guys. I actually do not have a game problem with the multiple columns hitting a line or corner to corner contact issues - I figure if they are effective then I will try to use them and try to impede my oponent from using them, AND I am sure my opponment will do just exactly the same! I think that is what competitive (but always friendly) play is all about.

   I would just like to be clear on a rule that I percieve is unclear - maybe just to me! The rules as written indicate (to me at least) that a corner to corner contact is a combat contact but SAM has said "no, you need some portion of the defender in front of the attacker" which I cannot readily see in the written rules.

   So, yes or no - one British line unit (of 4 bases) is opposed by 4 French units (of 4 bases each) in columns (so each French unit is 2 bases wide). They start 2 BW apart. The French are perfectly adjacent too each other and perfectly lined up and parallel such that the center 2 columns line up with the British line bases perfectly base to base and corner to corner. The two "outside" French columns line up to be perfectly overlapping the British line. It is the French turn so they move pefectly straight forward into contact to end as thusly:

   ..BBBB..
   FFSSFFSS
   FFSSFFSS
   (B are British bases. F & S are French bases. The dots are just to maintain the lining up)

   I am not interested in any tactical consideration of supporting or shooting or counter charging or falling back or how many dice anyone gets and I concede the scenario is extreme and contrived. Just tell me if the two outside French columns count as in combat contact with the British line in this situation.

   From my reading of the rules I would say yes. Thanks.

   Posted 2 years ago #

7. Nick the Lemming
   Member

   No, they don't. See p. 57: "In any combat matchup, some portion of the enemy unit will be in front (ie directly facing) your unit."

   Posted 2 years ago #

8. garyp
   Member

   Thanks Nick - that'll do me, particularly combined with SAM's very specific responses - obviously need to give the glasses a bit of a polish.

   Posted 2 years ago #

9. cam_millar
   Member

   "...I do not like rules that make one side set up completely first - this gives a big advantage to the opponent."

   DBMM went through this recently when this was introduced to speed play. It was regarded initially very unfavourably ... until players played it for a while. The strong concensus now is (a) results show there is no edge to the player deploying first or second and (b) it is much quicker and allows the other player some time to look at other games or chat. Hopefully Lasalle results will also show there is no advantage to attacking or defending.

   "All my subs rolled up ... an unpaid for advantage/disadvantage a bit like deploying first once you get to comp situations."

   I think that is a fair concern. Games may be fair on average but each individual game unfair - which I dislike in a competition game.

   "I can rationalise our game end but for comp purposes I would be miffed to score a draw out of the result."

   I suspect some finer scoring system may be needed. FOG for instance had rules for scoring games in the rulebook, but afterwards added a new scoring system on their website that gives finer gradations. No reason Lasalle cannot do the same thing. From memory FOGs problems came from very big competitons (100+ people) where you needed a way to separate players with the same win/draw/loss records. It also handles a game like yours where it is a "draw" but one side has an edge, so you can give players different scores. The FOG system may actually be fairly adaptable to Lasalle.

   "Comps may be a problem due to the niggly measuring issues I highlighted above."

   If fiddly moves were a deterant in competitions DBM would never have been a successful ruleset - there were not many rules as fiddly or as widely used in competitions.

   What happens is optimal micro moves tend to become widely known among competition players. They look for them, expect them and guard against them. It is when a newbie runs into the gun rules lawyer that things gets unhappy as they get taken apart by exact cheesy micro moves. But they soon learn ...

   Cam

   Posted 2 years ago #

10. Sam Mustafa
    Le Grand Fromage

    For what it's worth, I suppose I should repeat again that the different armies' tables for rolling subcommander Tactics and Vigor are considered part of that army's "balance." Thus, not "unpaid." (I'm assuming that's what the word means in this context?)

    All of these went into the mix. After all, there's a reason why people aren't jumping to collect and field Austrian early-war armies. Who could resist those seven big battalions...

    ...until you find that their subcommanders are asleep, and their infantry is hamstrung by the "Linear" rule that prevents them from attacking in column and forces them to spend an entire turn stationary, getting out of March formation, presumably while under enemy fire.

    There's a reason the British lists are so tiny: extra SK bases, smart commanders, the "Superior Commander" rule, big elite units, etc. Having an extra musketry die, having a 5-out-of-6 chance to React successfully... these sorts of things are significant force multipliers.

    Posted 2 years ago #

11. cam_millar
    Member

    I didn't think garyp's point is that the lists are not balanced.

    But what can happen is I play 4 games at a comp and in game 1 I could roll up four better than normal commanders, in game 2 four worse than normal commanders, and in the other 2 games all completely normal commanders.

    On average over the four games my commanders are "normal" for my army. But in game 1 I probably fight with an edge and in game 2 at a disadvantage.

    Of course, normal dice luck in combat can be similar, but the issue is whether the commander rolls at the start of the game can be significant to a game's result.

    In my first couple of solo games it did not appear so to me.

    But I can accept garyp's point there may be times that one player is going to feel aggrieved by the time the game gets underway because all their generals are worse than normal and the other guys are all better than normal.

    In my first non-solo game this weekend I will be using Early War Austrians - so I ain't afraid of using rubbish generals. They will match the commander.

    Cam

    Posted 2 years ago #

12. Sam Mustafa
    Le Grand Fromage

    [Of course, normal dice luck in combat can be similar, but the issue is whether the commander rolls at the start of the game can be significant to a game's result.]

    I understand. And it's just a feature of the army builder that not everybody will like. But the overall odds of getting sleepy or vigorous generals hopefully is also part of the fun of choosing one's strategy for a game. A Russian player might normally be sleepy, but what if one day he suddenly gets the Over-Stimulated High-Achiever Caffeine-Team of officers? It might embolden him in interesting ways that may or may not be good for him!

    [But I can accept garyp's point there may be times that one player is going to feel aggrieved by the time the game gets underway because all their generals are worse than normal and the other guys are all better than normal.]

    It's true. I suppose that if Tournament organizers are really worried about this, they can create an arbitrary ruling in which every French player gets a +1 Vigor general and a 0-Vigor general... and every Russian player gets a 0-Vigor and a -1 Vigor... and so on. In other words, if people really want that sort of thing to be predictable, then they can make it so.

    [In my first non-solo game this weekend I will be using Early War Austrians]

    One of our guys is furiously collecting Early-War Prussians for his new army, and refuses to be dissuaded. He's one of those wonderful "But they're pretty!" sort of wargamers that makes the hobby joyful.

    Posted 2 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.