Just wanted to check that I am playing the Officer Tactics rules correctly.
I have had a couple of situations where the leaders on both sides were poor. In one instance there were 2 units v 1 unit. So I allowed the single unit to add 1 to die rolls and for the other side allowed the Leader to add 1 to a single unit of his choice.
Is this correct or should the two dummies cancel each other out, giving neither side a benefit?
The example on p73 implies that where multiple attackers fight a defender commanded by a poor subcommander, only 1 of the attacker's gets to use the bonus.
Can the player choose which unit gets the penalty? Not sure. The example on p73 has the sentence: "He couldn't have applied it [the bonus for poor enemy subcommander] to C, because that unit isn't under Brilliante's command." I don't get why unit C can't use the bonus against unit 2 for Numbskull being poor - p72 does say an average commander can use a bonus for the enemy subcommander being poor.
I don't see anything that says poor commanders cancel out - so one unit on each side will get the bonus.
Cam
Hi
You need a Sub-Commander (or indeed the Commander) with a better tactics rating than the poor subbie to take advantage of him. That sub-commander applies that advantage to one of the units (and only one) under his current control against a unit currently under the poor subbie. There is no negative modifier only a positive one for a subbie (or indeed the Commander) that takes advantage of him.
Poor sub-Commanders do not cancel each other out, they cannot take advantage of each other (too inept to do that).
regards
Stephen
I missed that - what page is that on?
Cam
Hi Cam
I'm at work at present, without the rules! I too had problems understanding this at first, but I just read and re-read the sections on Tactics, now it makes sense.
To summarise (and correct me if I'm wrong!):
A superior Tactics Sub-Commander can apply his advantage once per combat turn to a unit in his command, and currently in his command range. This gives his unit the ability to hit on a 4 rather than a 5. This could result in a combat where both sides might have a superior tactics sub-commander and so two units (one from each side) might be applying this advantage. It doesn't have anthing to do with the quality of the opposition commander, poor or otherwise.
In relation to poor enemy sub-commanders an opposition sub-commander of better quality (an average or superior sub-commander or a Commander [who doesn't have a tactics rating but can do this regardless]) takes advantage of the enemy's poor tactics rating. He does this by nominating one unit in his command, and in his command range, currently participating in combat against a unit of the poor enemy sub-commander in his command range. He applies the advantage to his unit which then hits on a 4 not a 5. The better quality sub-commander or Commander is then subject to possibility of being wounded or killed.
So you can see that if a superior sub-commander is up against a poor sub-commander the effect is the same whichever you apply, the superior sub-commander picks one of his units in combat, and in command range and this unit gets the advantage. Poor sub-commanders never roll for being killed or wounded.
My understanding is that a sub-commander or Commander can only provide advantage once per combat turn whether it is of the first or second type above. Any sub-commander or Commander applying an advantage to a unit is subject to the possibility of being killed or wounded.
Have I clarified things or just provided a long winded addition to the confusion?
regards
Stephen
Having read through this rules section again several times myself the paragraph that seem to be most relevant is the last one under 'How the Tactics Rating is Used'.
It says:
'The commander, or an officer with an "average" tactics rating , may not apply a bonus himself, but may still take advantage of an enemy's penalty for "poor" tactics.'
So no mention of a poor officer using a bonus.
So the overall position seems to be:
Good officer beats Average and Poor
Average officer beats Poor
Commnander beats Poor
Good v Good, Average v Average and Poor v Poor all cancel out with no effect
(The commander doesn't have a rating so he only beats poor.)
So going back to my original post I think I was playing this rule incorectly and that poor v poor cancels out with no advantage to either side.
Perhaps Sam can give a final ruling on this?
Having looked at the rules, I can sortof see what I have got wrong. Relevant rules are:
"If a subcommander has a poor tactics rating, then his opponent may declare the bonus..."
"The commander, or an officer with an average tactics rating, may not apply a bonus himself, but may still take advantage of an enemy's penalty for poor tactics."
"...if a combat features a good tactician versus a poor one, the good tactician may use the enemy's poor tactic rating, and save his own bonus ..."
I presume your argument is that the dog did not bark - there is no specific statement saying that a poor commander can apply a bonus for fighting another poor commander, but there are specific statements saying a commander, average sub and superior sub can use the enemy poor rating.
I had read it instead that the first quote means everyone gets a bonus against a poor commander, and there were two additions - a reminder that good generals and the commander can claim the poor bonus despite not having a rating themselves, and a specific rule about good commanders being able to save his good rating.
Cam
On a slightly different note, sub commanders that are killed are replaced with a subordinate rated 1 grade lower for Vigor and Tactics. Should there not be the opportunity of being downgraded again by the new general also being killed?
I actually quite like the thought that my commander isnt killed, just reduced in effectivness by wounds and the loss of ADC's/ horses shot from beneath him etc.
Hi
Having now read the rules again, the only thing I think I got wrong was that a Superior Sub-Commander can use the poor tactics rating against the enemy and then also use his superior rating with another unit in the same turn.
I suggest you re-read these pages again, they are not actually badly written, probably people like me commenting without the rules in front of them cause more problems!
regards
Stephen
We've played it that anyone (whether superior, average, poor or commander) can take advantage over a poor commander on the other side. The relevant quote is "If a subcommander has a poor tactics rating, then his opponent may declare the bonus" and it does not give any condition such as "except if your subcommander is poor."
Hi
Keep reading the whole section, it finishes as:
'The Commander, or an officer with an "average" tactics rating, may not apply a bonus rating himself, but may still take advantage an enemy's penalty for "poor" tactics.'
There is no facility for a Poltroon to take advantage of another Plotroon!
regards
Stephen
Stephen
"I suggest you re-read these pages again, they are not actually badly written, probably people like me commenting without the rules in front of them cause more problems!"
I think they are somewhat unclear hence the debate in this thread where alternative interpretations are being made.
Cam
Yes in my last post I was taking the fact that the rule secion is silent on poor v poor as an indication that they should cancel out. However, you could just as easily infer something different when taking the piece as a whole.
Nick
Your statement reflects the way I have been playing the rules. However, I was uncertain as to whether that interpretation was correct, hence the original question. After further reading of the rules I managed to convince myself that poor v poor cancelled out.
The problem is that the rule is not clear and it seems it is possible to make a good case either way. Frankly, I don't think it matters much which way Sam intended it to be, as it is not a critical issue to how the game plays, whichever way you go. However, I would like his ruling on it as I don't want to end up in a game where it becomes a debating issue during playing time.
Sam, any answer on this?
If the question is: Can a Poor Tactician take advantage of another Poor tactician, then the answer is no. As Stephen wrote: There is no facility for a Poltroon to take advantage of another Poltroon!
If the question is: Can you go lower than "Poor," then the answer is "No."
You must log in to post.