Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
5 Posts

Napoleonic 20» Forums » General

Subject: Leader Reaction Movement and Bridges/Fords - clarifications rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Keyser Soze
msg tools
Hi, I need clarifications on some minor problems I encounter while studying the Rulebook and reading BGG forums:


1) If, during the Reaction Phase, I execute a Countercharge with one of my cavalry units and it is not within command range of any of my leaders, is the countercharging cavalry unit "out of command" and therefore, the attack suffers the -1 combat differential penalty? I am aware that this kind of questions came out on the BGG forum, and the answer was yes - counter-charging cavalry would suffer a penalty if not "in command".

But I got confused while reading Optional Leaders Rules (16.9). Rule 16.9.4 of the 4.0 Edition Standard Rules v 1.01 states "Leaders do not affect the Combat Strenght of countercharging Cavarly units". I assume that leaders affect can be positive, meaning no penalty (-1 differential) is given to all of attacking/countercharging units in that particular phase, or negative - by reducing total attack strenght (differential) by one (-1). The rule says that "leaders do not affect" the countercharging units (which can be only cavarly units), so it seems to me that Phasing Player (attacker) does not use "out of command" marker and potential "-1 penalty" during his Reaction Phase. Or am I wrong? And if I am what is the real meaning of "Leaders do not affect the Combat Strenght of countercharging Cavarly units" term?

2) On "Fading Glory" BGG forum I found a post that states (https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1586915/bridgesfords-clarif...):

The Terrain Effect Chart (TEC) states:
Ford crossing on Major rivers costs you +1 MP to do so (that's 1 MP to move and another to cross = totals to 2 MP!),
while crossing a minor river is +0 (free - or that's 1 MP to move and that's it = totals to 1 MP!).


But the Terrain Effects Chart attached to new (4.0) editions of the Napoleonic Games (Hundred Days, Prussia, Espana etc.) clearly states that there's no additional (+1) movement point penalty only when units cross minor or major river via bridge. When units try to cross a river via ford they always spend +1 MP to do so, no matter if units are crossing minor or major river.

Terrain Effect Chart (v4.0) is clearly obvious. But my question, therefore, is: was the TEC changed in this particular rule between v3.0 (Fading Glory) and v4.0? And if it was, what was the reason of the modification? IMO rule (home rule?)that permits to cross minor rivers via fords without additional (+1) MP penalty is quite resonable. It also puts additional substantial differences between minor and major rivers that players should consider while manoeuvering their armies


Any reply (or clarification) will be appreciated
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lance McMillan
United States
Lakebay
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
With regards to your first question, rule [16.9.4] is correct and governs the interaction of leaders with counter-charging Cavalry. Essentially, the unexpected nature of the counter-charge is sufficient to supercede any requirement for command involvement.

With regards to your second question, as I recall it there was a brief period where fords over Minor Rivers functioned identically to bridges (e.g. they eliminated the "extra" Movement Point cost). This was mainly because without that modification a ford over a Minor River was functionally the same as a Minor River without a ford. What we decided in the end was that the basic "definition" of a Minor River was one that was more-or-less fordable along its entire length and so we simply stopped putting fords on Minor Rivers (except in cases where there were provisions for flooding or other special situations that temporarily turned them into Major Rivers or otherwise impacted the ability of units to cross them.

Hope that clears things up.

Lance McMillan
Developer for VPG's "Napoleonic 20" series
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Keyser Soze
msg tools
Thank you very much for a quick response, as always

Your explanation of my second question (forded rivers TEC confusion) is perfectly understandable - a "definition" of Minor River as fordable along its entire length makes sense.

But I don't think I'm quite getting your clarification of rule 16.9.4 (Leader Reaction Movement). If Cavalry unit doesn't require any command involvement while countercharging during its Reaction Phase [8.1 rule], why would it suffer a penalty if not "In Command"?

My understanding of "Countercharge Attack" is simple - this is a special move when Second Player seizes an opportunity to disrupt the following First Player Combat Phase by powerful, double-strength Selective Attack that is taken without requirement of "coordination" by Leader units, nor "Out of Command" penalty (exception of 16.9.5 rule). But I suppose I'm just making "home rule" in this case

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lance McMillan
United States
Lakebay
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
19PG45 wrote:
But I don't think I'm quite getting your clarification of rule 16.9.4 (Leader Reaction Movement).


Ah, I think I now understand the root of the confusion. Rule [16.9.4] governs the movement of Leaders (or, more accurately, their lack of Movement) during the Reaction phase. Basically, the Leader can't "react" on his own, he simply accompanies the reacting unit that he's stacked with if the owning player wishes him to (when the unit Disengages or Advances After Combat due to a successful Countercharge).

19PG45 wrote:
If Cavalry unit doesn't require any command involvement while countercharging during its Reaction Phase [8.1 rule], why would it suffer a penalty if not "In Command"?


Again, it doesn't -- and the final sentence of rule [16.9.4] states that specifically: "Leaders do not affect the Combat Strength of countercharging Cavalry units."

19PG45 wrote:
My understanding of "Countercharge Attack" is simple - this is a special move when Second Player seizes an opportunity to disrupt the following First Player Combat Phase by powerful, double-strength Selective Attack that is taken without requirement of "coordination" by Leader units, nor "Out of Command" penalty (exception of 16.9.5 rule).


Exactly. The difference between [16.9.4] and [16.9.5] is explicit: the first pertains to actvity conducted during the Reaction phase and the second pertains to activity conducted during the Combat phase.

Does that make things more obvious?
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Keyser Soze
msg tools
Lancer4321 wrote:

Exactly. The difference between [16.9.4] and [16.9.5] is explicit: the first pertains to actvity conducted during the Reaction phase and the second pertains to activity conducted during the Combat phase.

Does that make things more obvious?



Yes it does, thank you very much Lance!


I must admit that I got confused with [16.9.4] and [16.9.5] in reference to [8.1] rule only because this kind of question came out on the BGG forum several times. For example here, on the Espana 20 forum:

https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1354022/does-command-penalt...

And your answer to the same exact question was different:

Quote:
Assuming you're using the optional leader rules, then yes, counter-charging cavalry would suffer a penalty if not "in command."



But now I think this countercharging-out-of-command-penalty thing is cleared up once and for all, I believe

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.