The Battleground Rules: Version 3.0!

[Unknownman]

1. I dont know if its been mentioned but the Fear check rule is written wrong.
    Currently it states that a shaken unit gets (-1)-1/-1 and a Frightened unit gets (0)-1/-1, and that the two adjustments stack.
    I believe the frightened is correct but that shaken should be (-1)0/0

2. 3.0 now lists the Umenzi spell Death curse as an attack spell.
   Can this, or any other attack spell, be used against your own umenzi, ally, or merc?

[Niko White]

1. I dont know if its been mentioned but the Fear check rule is written wrong.
    Currently it states that a shaken unit gets (-1)-1/-1 and a Frightened unit gets (0)-1/-1, and that the two adjustments stack.
    I believe the frightened is correct but that shaken should be (-1)0/0

2. 3.0 now lists the Umenzi spell Death curse as an attack spell.
   Can this, or any other attack spell, be used against your own umenzi, ally, or merc?

Yeah, we're proofing now; I think that's been changed in our most recent PDF.

[Unknownman]

1. I dont know if its been mentioned but the Fear check rule is written wrong.
    Currently it states that a shaken unit gets (-1)-1/-1 and a Frightened unit gets (0)-1/-1, and that the two adjustments stack.
    I believe the frightened is correct but that shaken should be (-1)0/0

2. 3.0 now lists the Umenzi spell Death curse as an attack spell.
   Can this, or any other attack spell, be used against your own umenzi, ally, or merc?

Yeah, we're proofing now; I think that's been changed in our most recent PDF.

what about my death curse question?

[Niko White]

1. I dont know if its been mentioned but the Fear check rule is written wrong.
    Currently it states that a shaken unit gets (-1)-1/-1 and a Frightened unit gets (0)-1/-1, and that the two adjustments stack.
    I believe the frightened is correct but that shaken should be (-1)0/0

2. 3.0 now lists the Umenzi spell Death curse as an attack spell.
   Can this, or any other attack spell, be used against your own umenzi, ally, or merc?

Yeah, we're proofing now; I think that's been changed in our most recent PDF.

what about my death curse question?

Sorry; tired and missed it.  You can never use attacks on your own "friendly" guys.

[Unknownman]

1. I dont know if its been mentioned but the Fear check rule is written wrong.
    Currently it states that a shaken unit gets (-1)-1/-1 and a Frightened unit gets (0)-1/-1, and that the two adjustments stack.
    I believe the frightened is correct but that shaken should be (-1)0/0

2. 3.0 now lists the Umenzi spell Death curse as an attack spell.
   Can this, or any other attack spell, be used against your own umenzi, ally, or merc?

Yeah, we're proofing now; I think that's been changed in our most recent PDF.

what about my death curse question?

Sorry; tired and missed it.  You can never use attacks on your own "friendly" guys.

Boooo....this death curse (attack) errrata has totally destroyed my umenzi Hydra build

[ajax98]

In that situation I'd use a CA to move the right-hand unit towards the left this turn.

This strikes me as the sort of set-up that would only occur towards the latter part of a battle, when everything has become particularly confused and is no longer a line of battle.  If you have managed to maneouver your skirmishers in such a way as to present this situation (presumably either with a very clever deployment or clever direct control) then it seems only fair that your opponent should need to take DC himself.  Clever play ought to be rewarded.

Clever play, be fooled. It is a direct result of Too Simple of Rules, directly creating a Stupid Move.

The game is mid game, only one Roman Cav & 1 Preceps units have been destroyed and 3 Carthaginian (2 skirmishers). The Roman line is deep and the lines are probing for weaknesses.
The Carthaginian player has sought to widen the lines to create cracks in the Roman Inf blocks.

The Skirmisher that is listed as enemy skirmisher, Baleric Slinger(!), just helped eliminate the Roman Preceps by Pinching.

The ONLY reason for the Skirmishers to be there was the added Pinch bonuses. Totally ahistorical to throw themselves into a questionable fray directly in front of Triarii.

If there was no pinch bonus, they would have done their skirmisher thing and delayed the Triarii.

To compound the Error is to force the Roman player to burn a CA to make the Triarii Not Do Something Stupid as to attack the rear of a unit they "know" will just run away.

It would take longer and more movement to attack the rear by swinging around rather than to just move forward and "bump" the Skirmishers.

[ajax98]

They were used pretty much interchangeably in the case of the Punic War, which is the only place they exist right now.  Also pretty sure they're always "light infantry" insofar as they're guys that fight on foot and are lightly armed/armored. 

Therein is pretty much the problem. I am fairly certain the term "light infantry" wasn't used in the ancient period. "Light infantry" is a 'modern' concoction.

Under these game mechanics & unit stats, for an example, the Velites are given more than half of the unit efficiency of the unit to which they were historically 'attached', with at maximum 25% of the mass or number of personnel from which detached. (Or 1/3 if compared directly to each other.)

[ajax98]

I'm not sure were the latest version of the 3.0 rules are to be found. I looked at the Google Doc and don't see a few that I think are rather necessary.

0.5.2 The First and Second Turns
The first and second turns of the game are not full turns. Instead, the following special rules apply.
• On the first player's first turn, the game begins in the combat phase. (So no units move and the active player gains no command actions.)
• On the second player's first turn, the turn proceeds as normal, but the active player gains only half the normal number of command actions [ROUNDED UP, for odd nr CA; example?] (1.3) during his or her movement and command phase.

2.1.2 Back-Up Units
A back-up unit represents deeper ranks in your army.  When a unit serves as a back-up unit, it stands ready to replace a friendly unit should that unit rout or be destroyed.
If a unit is on Close or Follow and any part of its front is touching any part of the rear of a friendly unit, it is considered a back-up unit for that friendly unit.  (Thus, each unit can normally be a back-up unit to two friendly units if desired.)
If a backed-up unit fails a rout check you may choose to destroy it instead of having it rout. If the friendly unit is destroyed (normally or via the above rule) you may move one of its back-up units into its place. [The Back Up unit Replaces the destroyed unit in the Engagement and is Engaged.]
Replacing a destroyed unit with a back-up unit does not count as normal movement; instead, it is assumed that the back-up unit trickles in gradually, replacing the original unit as it flees or is destroyed.  Therefore, it happens immediately, regardless of the MC of the backup unit, and neither side is considered charging or final rushing, and no fear or terror checks occur.  When in doubt, treat the situation as an ongoing engagement, so nothing that happens at the beginning of an engagement occurs.

There is no Engagement; “When in doubt” “and neither side is considered charging or final rushing,”
“1.4.6.2 Final Rush Exclusivity
Units can only become engaged when one of them Final Rushes the other.”

1.4.6.2 Final Rush Exclusivity
Units can only become engaged [in this manner] when one of them Final Rushes the other.

[Chad_YMG]

Under these game mechanics & unit stats, for an example, the Velites are given more than half of the unit efficiency of the unit to which they were historically 'attached', with at maximum 25% of the mass or number of personnel from which detached. (Or 1/3 if compared directly to each other.)

This is a fair criticism, but the alternatives were (IMO) worse...and we playtested a LOT of them.  Andrew's view was that we shouldn't try to put them on cards at all -- just abstract them out of the game.  As it is, they are a bit too good from an historical perspective but they work as a game unit and most of our historical players have been fine with them.

[GoIndy]

You know, if you are shaken, but not frightened, that should clearly give a bonus to courage, accuracy, and damage, as well as overall awesomeness.

Because, I've seen in many movies that it is actually preferred to be Shaken, not Stirred.

[ajax98]

This is a fair criticism, but the alternatives were (IMO) worse...and we playtested a LOT of them.

I don't know; I don't know what the alternatives were.

As it is, they are a bit too good from an historical perspective but they work as a game unit and most of our historical players have been fine with them.

The present representation of Skirmishers, to me, is unsatisfactory. It is a 'Shark Jumping' moment.
Skirmishers should only be skirmishers and not homogenized with other infantry type abilities.
The command and control of these types of units in battle was not very good.

Other authors have gone so far as to equate these types of units into 'regular' and 'irregular' formations, with significantly different abilities.

From my casual research, I would venture the Carthaginian's are minus one infantry type, like a "Loricati Caetrati (Iberian Medium Infantry)" which is equated to Roman Hastati.

The Skirmishers in general are over powered and thus over priced. In my estimation they should should generally -1 attack die and in the 40 to 50 point range for cost. The Skirmishers should be prohibited from engaging opponents' facing based on unit or unit type.

[ajax98]

There are reasons the skirmishers disappeared from the general battle field.

First is Cavalry. Cavalry became more versatile and numerous. Cav can run down the skirmishers.

Better ranged weapons. With improved ranged weapons the same sort of effect that skirmishers inflicted on units advancing could be accomplished better at longer range.

Right now this not evident in the present iteration of the game system. IMO skirmishers point value & abilities is such that they are viable (unrealistically) in game play against any of the 'armies' in the game system.

[Hannibal]

Well, I for one think that Historicals are the opposite of "jumping the shark."  In fact, I think it's YMG's "Growing the Beard" moment:  where it moves out from being a standard fantasy game and becomes its own thing.

I think skirmishers engaging units in melee, while not terribly common, is okay.  Especially now that the 'pinch rout save' is going away.  Is it 100% accurate, frankly no.  But I don't feel that YMG was going for exact accuracy.  I always thought YMG was going the "authenticity first, accuracy when possible."  In other words, giving people the "feel" of playing Romans without getting bogged down in minutiae that dooms other historical games being played by only the old grognards who don't mind spending an entire afternoon playing one game.

[ajax98]

"authenticity first, accuracy when possible."  In other words, giving people the "feel" of playing Romans without getting bogged down in minutiae that dooms other historical games being played by only the old grognards who don't mind spending an entire afternoon playing one game.

The "inauthentic" actions/play of the Skirmishers is what I first noticed, playing as Carthaginian. Then it became apparent to me of the "inaccuracy" and suppositions put into the "Skirmishers".

I don't see getting bogged down in any minutiae. The present "Skirmishers" are overpowered and overpriced. They can accomplish all the historical abilities and game play by my previous observations. If they did not get any benefit from "pinch bonuses" they would not be thrown into such situations and thus stifle inauthentic outcomes. Game play would hardly be affected; my projections indicate a much better "accuracy".

If they were generically cheaper then the next available Regular Infantry unit would be available, to more accurately portray an authentic force.

There is one minutiae that does need to be accounted for to make this work even better. All Pila units should get only 2 volleys of Pila. Easy enough to keep track of. Then it becomes a choice of tossing Pila at skirmishers or regular troops.

[Niko White]

We specifically don't try to make cross-period or cross-genre play "accurate" (whatever that would mean,) nor do I think we should try to.  If you play Rome vs. Carthage, we want it to play like Rome facing Carthage, and it, in general, does; skirmishers charge flanks from time to time, as they, from time to time, did, but don't dominate that way for lots of reasons.

If you start mixing factions cross-period or cross-genre, the games will be fun.  That's the goal, and that's the only goal.  A 2 toughness Roman unit isn't really armored in a functionally identical way to a Hawkshold man at arms, nor, no doubt, to a 2 toughness unit from another historical faction, and we don't try to model that kind of accuracy.  So if the better cavalry of another period are worse against Roman skirmishers than they "should" be, that's pretty much fine, so long as the situation isn't one that unbalances the game power level wise.

Some games want to make anachronism somehow predictive about what would happen if those forces had faced each other, but we definitely don't try to claim ours will be.  Just that you'll have a fun game