

16.6.3 b states:
"Units taking fire must apply enough Loss Factors to cover the entire Loss Number inflicted by the enemy, even if it destroys one or more of those units".
But if the loss number is smaller than the smallest loss factor among the units, so no loss is applied. So in effect the loss mechanics works exactly as in Paths of Glory however it's worded differently. Is that correct? If so, the wording in PoG was more precise and easier to digest:
"Each player must fulfill as much of their Loss Number as possible without taking more losses than their Loss Number. The player may not take fewer losses than required if it is possible to take the exact Loss Number, but the player never takes more losses than the Loss Number".

Perry Silverman
United States Powell Ohio

To clarify this, I am using the following Rule 12.6.2a in the upcoming Living Rules IoG booklet:
If the Loss Number is equal to or greater than the smallest Loss Factor (LF) among the units taking fire, then the units taking fire must try to absorb all the damage indicated by Loss Number. First, the unit with the smallest LN must try to absorb the entire LN. If it is destroyed, the next unit with the smallest LN must try to absorb the entire LN. If two units have the same LN, and one of them is reduced strength, then the reduced strength unit must try to absorb the entire LN. Otherwise, the player whose units are taking fire decides which of those units will absorb the damage.



ohiogrognard wrote: To clarify this, I am using the following Rule 12.6.2a in the upcoming Living Rules IoG booklet:
If the Loss Number is equal to or greater than the smallest Loss Factor (LF) among the units taking fire, then the units taking fire must try to absorb all the damage indicated by Loss Number. First, the unit with the smallest LN must try to absorb the entire LN. If it is destroyed, the next unit with the smallest LN must try to absorb the entire LN. If two units have the same LN, and one of them is reduced strength, then the reduced strength unit must try to absorb the entire LN. Otherwise, the player whose units are taking fire decides which of those units will absorb the damage.
So is the loss mechanics exactly the same as in PoG, with the exception that the units with smallest LN should take the loses first? I.e. if a corps is stacked with the army, the corps has to be reduced first?

Perry Silverman
United States Powell Ohio

This is the best way to enforce absorbing the entire LN.



ohiogrognard wrote: This is the best way to enforce absorbing the entire LN.
Is it? I mean the situation where you have a 213 SCU stacked with a 433 LCU and you take a '7' LN. If you must take the first hit on smallest LN (the SCU) you can't take the entire '7' LN. If you take it on the LCU first however, you can.

Perry Silverman
United States Powell Ohio

The entire LN is still being absorbed. There'll often be a situation where part of an LN is absorbed without damage. I'm providing structure that's absent from PoG.

Douglas Bush
United States Arlington Virginia

Perry,
Played five turns FtF with a friend. Overall IOG package is very nice and the game is fun, but this one (very important) fuzzy rule is killing me. I recommend just going back to the PoG wording and call it good.
Doug

Perry Silverman
United States Powell Ohio

Doug, isn't this clearer:
I am using the following Rule 12.6.2a in the upcoming Living Rules IoG booklet:
If the Loss Number is equal to or greater than the smallest Loss Factor (LF) among the units taking fire, then the units taking fire must try to absorb all the damage indicated by Loss Number. First, the unit with the smallest LN must try to absorb the entire LN. If it is destroyed, the next unit with the smallest LN must try to absorb the entire LN. If two units have the same LN, and one of them is reduced strength, then the reduced strength unit must try to absorb the entire LN. Otherwise, the player whose units are taking fire decides which of those units will absorb the damage.

Perry Silverman
United States Powell Ohio

Doug, going back to Ted Raicer's rules for unit losses probably won't work for IoG because a player can use his PoG wording to avoid LCU eliminations and their downward effect on Troop Quality.

Michal K
Poland Otwock Mazowieckie

While it certainly allows for more LCUs being killed, overall loses will be most probably smaller (as many of them will be absorbed without damage).
As for the updated rule, I have one comment to that part: "First, the unit with the smallest LN must try to absorb the entire LN."
Wouldn't you achieve better effect writting:
"First, the LCU unit with the smallest LN must try to absorb the entire LN."
Then you would have your LCU killed, divisions will not shield corps from full losses (as in example with SCU 213 and LCU 433).

Perry Silverman
United States Powell Ohio

Michal, your suggestion would allow LCUs with an LF of 4 to absorb LNs of 3 or less to absorb the entire LN without taking damage, shielding defending SCUs in the same space.

Michal K
Poland Otwock Mazowieckie

In dded, that would be the effect. The question was what was intent of the rule  to kill as much LCUs as possible to affect the TQ, or to allow for highest losses. I see that current ruling would fall somewhere in the middle  on one hand not all losses will be converted in to damage under new rules, but on the other hand they will not go automatically to LCU but to unit with smallest LF,which is usually SCU.
I am curious to test this  let us see how it goes.

Perry Silverman
United States Powell Ohio

As in PoG, the intent is to make the units fired on take as much actual damage as possible when absorbing the LN rolled by firing units.



Now, when I've played a little, I can tell that the current rule doesn't serve the purpose of taking as much loses as possible. For that, the original PoG rule would be better. If the purpose was to destroy as many LCU's as possible, then the rule is fine. Personally. I'd prefer the PoG rule  forcing the players to destroy completely the weakest units is artificial and counterintuitive for the purposes of taking the loses.

Perry Silverman
United States Powell Ohio

Using the PoG approach to allocating combat losses proved inadequate in trying to match the scale and pace of historic casualties.

Henry Bradley
Switzerland Wabern Bern

I also am having difficulty with the rules on absorbing losses. In
POG  Rule 12.4.3 Each player must fulfill as much of their Loss Number as possible without taking more losses than their Loss Number.
Is the intention in IoG that the Loss Number should be exceeded. Example  2LCUs LF factor 2 have to absorb 3LF  Options:
a) One LCU flipped for a loss of 2LF as per POG b) 1 LCU ELIM for a loss of 4LF c) both LCUs flipped for a loss of 4LF
I suspect it should be option b) but would appreciate guidance.

Perry Silverman
United States Powell Ohio

Rule 12.6.2 in the Living Rules manual says on taking losses:
a. If the Loss Number is equal to or greater than the smallest Loss Factor(LF)among the units taking fire, then the units taking fire must try to absorb all the damage indicated by Loss Number (LN). To begin, the unit with the smallest LF must try to absorb the LN. If it loses a step (or is destroyed), the player taking fire must select a unit with the smallest LF to absorb the remaining LN. This includes1)the unit that just lost a step and(2)an SCU that just replaced a destroyed LCU. If that unit loses a step (or is destroyed),the player taking fire must select a unit with the smallest LF to absorb the remaining LN until it loses a step (or is destroyed. The player taking fire repeats this selection process until the entire Loss Number is absorbed by his units (or they are all destroyed. If two or more units have the same LF,the player taking fire decides which of those units will absorb the damage. b. If the Loss Number is less than the smallest LF among the units taking fire, then those units absorb no damage.

Chris Brinker
United States Baltimore Maryland
Grognards
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.

hal752 wrote: a) One LCU flipped for a loss of 2LF as per POG
This one.
The way I understand it:
Step 1. Do you have any units with LN equal to or less than the LF? If no, ignore result. If yes, proceed to step 2.
Step 2. Apply one step's worth of LF to the unit with the smallest LN. (If two or more units have the same LN, you may choose which to apply the LF to.) Subtract that LN from the LF. If any LF remains, return to step 1.
So let's say that you have a LF of 3 to apply to a stack with a 3 LN LCU and a reduced 1 LN SCU. Step 1 says you must apply the result because we have units with LN equal to or less than the LF of 3. Step 2 says it must be applied to the reduced 1 LN SCU. So you eliminate the reduced SCU and subtract its 1 LN from the 3 LF. Now you have 2 LF. Now back to step 1. It's no longer true that you have a unit with a LN equal to or less than the new LF, 2, so you ignore the result.

Perry Silverman
United States Powell Ohio

Yes, because it destroyed the SCU rather than just causing a step loss to the LCU. Also, the SCU screened for the LCU, which is tactically realistic. Using the PoG approach to allocating combat losses proved inadequate in trying to match the scale and pace of historic casualties.

Perry Silverman
United States Powell Ohio

Moreover, you don’t ignore the remaining LN of 2. It’s absorbed by the LCU without causing further damage.

Andrew Trifan
Charlotte North Carolina

So if we have say a 433 unit and a 122 unit, and we need to take 5LF, under POG rules, we could flip the LCU and the SCU to satisfy the LF,as the requirements were that losses had to satisfy the maximum LF.
In IoG, we have to pick one of the two units, which according to the rules would be the one with lowest LF (122 unit here). It would get flipped and then flipped again to be eliminated to satisfy 4LF and remaining one LF is ignored. If we picked the 433, it would get flipped once and then nothing would happen as the 2LF would not be enough to flip it again.
I guess my question is, would it make more sense that when dealing LF, we have to pick the unit that would be able to absorb the most LF (which is different than POG where you could spread it among units). So in above example, the 122 unit gets picked not because it has the lowest LF but because it could absorb 4LF compared to just 3LF for LCU. And continuing with example, if we had 6LF to absorb, then the 433 unit should be selected to absorb the damage and be flipped twice as it would absorb the 6LF compared to only 4LF by SCU?

Perry Silverman
United States Powell Ohio

It would be anomalous to choose destruction of an LCU over an SCU.

Perry Silverman
United States Powell Ohio

That’s why the SCU is the first to go under IoG’s loss mechanics.

Chris Brinker
United States Baltimore Maryland
Grognards
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.

Buddy2337 wrote: And continuing with example, if we had 6LF to absorb, then the 433 unit should be selected to absorb the damage and be flipped twice as it would absorb the 6LF compared to only 4LF by SCU?
Are you asking philosophically what should happen or what the IoG rules state? In the latter, you would end up eliminating the SCU, with the final 2 points of loss not enough to cause the LCU to flip.


