| BigRedBat ||24 Mar 2017 6:16 a.m. PST|
I've just published a free supplement with some additional rules for "to the Strongest" called "Even Stronger"- you can download it from:-
(minis above painted by Shaun Watson)
|mghFond||24 Mar 2017 8:17 a.m. PST|
Thanks for the extra goodies, Simon, and wow, Mr. Watson is a superb painter!
|stecal ||24 Mar 2017 9:02 a.m. PST|
not liking the new rout check rule. Seems like overkill and a waste of time as you potentially draw 14 cards for double checks on up to 7 units in the same and adjacent boxes.
Haven't wargames rules moved away from the fallacy that everyone runs away when their neighbors rout. Sure it sometimes happened with raw troops, but that is more likely that the entire army is demoralized and the battle is over.
| BigRedBat ||24 Mar 2017 10:06 a.m. PST|
The rout test- it's not usually that many units or cards; more commonly 3 units, some of which will pass on the first test, so usually 6 or fewer cards.
One of the drivers is that I have felt it is a little too hard to persuade raw units to run away. Raw units are rather more likely to fail the rout test than their veteran peers.
It also replaces the demoralisation rule – a rule so painfully dull that almost no one (including me) could ever recall it during play. Rout tests won't ever be dull. :-)
| ColCampbell ||24 Mar 2017 12:18 p.m. PST|
We just did a game to help Simon test his new ECW rules which have the rout check. It can really turn a battle around. I had two Royalist horse units have to test; both failed the checks and each accumulated a second disorder. Then the dastardly Parliamentary commanders charged them with his horse and inflicted a hit to each which they failed to save resulting in their destruction. Blew a big hole in my line as the disheartened troops fled the field.
So if you can get the right circumstances, you stand a good chance of blowing a hole in the enemy's line.
|Big Red ||24 Mar 2017 12:54 p.m. PST|
I like the Group Move rule. May help keep the battle line from looking a little disjointed.
|mghFond||24 Mar 2017 1:29 p.m. PST|
I think the rout test is an excellent improvement on the old demoralization rule which our group never really paid attention to anyhow, nice to know even Simon failed to utilize it at times. :)
Of course next game if 3 of my units rout on the first time I have to do a check for this, then my view might well change!
Who the bloody *&^# put this rule in the game???????????
|mollinary||24 Mar 2017 1:36 p.m. PST|
The existence of the test is also a great incentive not to crowd all your troops together in a small space. It might just, actually, help one to reproduce the Roman catastrophe at Cannae. Not something that is usually possible with wragmes rules.
|Kenntak||24 Mar 2017 3:48 p.m. PST|
I really like all of the new rules.
Maybe to lessen some of the potential adverse effects of the rout test, units which have to test, and which are in the same box as a general, should get a +1 modifier to their save roll. Picture the general exhorting the troops on… Just a thought.
|Kenntak||25 Mar 2017 4:35 a.m. PST|
For purposes of discussion, and I do not claim to be good at math so correct me if I am wrong, but I believe these are the percentage chances that a unit will become disordered based upon its save number:
It appears pretty brutal for units with a higher save number.
|mollinary||25 Mar 2017 5:06 a.m. PST|
I think those are percentage chances of becoming disordered, rather than of routing. But, as you say, poor troops are not going to like it. Interestingly, chequer board formations would not have this problem!
|Kenntak||25 Mar 2017 5:32 a.m. PST|
I corrected the error, thanks Mollinary.
| BigRedBat ||25 Mar 2017 8:25 a.m. PST|
I have thought about having the general give a plus one on the save… it's not a bad idea. Might include it at some stage…
| ColCampbell ||25 Mar 2017 10:28 a.m. PST|
I think any leader in the same box with a unit should give the unit a +1 on the save check (unless the leader is a ninny, of course ).
|Mark Barker||04 Apr 2017 12:15 p.m. PST|
Just got the download and some very interesting stuff in there..
I've a few questions on Group Move:-
Do you have to move everything in a command, or can you nominate which units you want to use the Group Move for ?
Assuming you can nominate, the General obviously has to nominate before turning the card. There will need to be some way to identify those units that have used the group move card for purposes of subsequent activations.
Lastly, I am also assuming that if the General fluffs the activation card they can use whatever card replay potential they have to try to avoid the disaster of losing their whole command activation ?
If I am right with these, then I am good to go.
|mollinary||05 Apr 2017 2:25 a.m. PST|
I am sure Simon will be along in a while, but I know he is up to his ears with the real world at present. This idea originated in our upcoming ECW rules, so as co-author of those I can offer you a few thoughts to tide you over.
Question 1. No, you do not have to move everything in the command with a group move. Indeed, given that the units involved in the group move must all do exactly the same thing, there will be many occasions where you may not want to. The only requirement is for the general to be with one of the units you wish to activate, and for the others to be within his command radius.
Question 2. Yes he will have to nominate first! Your second point is a good one. I suggest placing rhe card under the general's figure, and putting a marker with the activated units. Anything, preferably simple, will do.
Question 3. On this, there is still a bit of debate between us. At the WHC at the weekend we played that he could redraw a failed group move. However, this means the chances of a simple group move failing drops to about 1%, which I think is too low. Also it allows a general to use two of his attributes in one turn, which is not normally allowed. In the ECW version an activating command (or brigade) is a maximum of 8 units, and more commonly only 4 or 5. These rules do not allow a redraw, unless a senior general in the chain of command is also present in the same box. Simon is thinking all this over at present, and will doubtless clarify it all!
| BigRedBat ||05 Apr 2017 8:09 a.m. PST|
Hi all- sorry I have been preoccupied with real-life.
Q1 what Mollinary said
Q2 easy enough to remember- it's usually most or all of the command. Suggestion re placing under the general is a great one, I'll incorporate that
Q3 no replay
I'm currently rewriting the wording of the rule along the lines above. In a couple of weeks I'll issue an updated version of the supplement, with the new wording and some additional rules (including a rule to add supporting light infantry to cavalry units).
|Mark Barker||05 Apr 2017 2:04 p.m. PST|
Dear both, thanks for the quick reply.
Obviously to do a Group Move including some units with higher activations cost is risky, as a single fail cancels the movement of the entire group.
When you do the next version can you make it clear whether 'no replay' means 'no replay, full stop' or 'no replay by that general but a senior general can wade in' as suggested by Mollinary.
| BigRedBat ||06 Apr 2017 2:29 a.m. PST|
A group move is risky- but less risky than a move by, say, three or more individual units.
Still mulling, but I am likely to include the senior general replay- even though I suspect it will be a very rare event as they usually lead a command of their own.