Game: Commands & Colors: Ancients

Thread: Re: Battlelore and Commands & Colors.

toddrew — 2008-05-21T08:53:36+00:00

broken clock wrote:
It just doesn't feel like there is enough. I feel like I'm just sending my troops in and letting them have at it.

I am serious in my offer to play some vassal games with you, as simply playing card to card is not a good way to approach the game ;)

Part of me wants more. Some sort of bonus for flanking an enemy. Unit formations for standard foot soldiers, such as the tortoise. Maybe being able to decide between a wedge formation for my calvary or not. Porcupine, the orb, anything! I have a funny feeling that neither game has what I want. I want something like a real war game. If I play a war game my troops can do so many things it's unbelievable.

Kevin may want to chime in on this as well (if not yet daunted by the number of times this comes up ;) ), but those are all in the games (both BL and CC:A) in some fashion or another, especially things like flanking bonuses. The bonuses are not in terms of additional dice per roll, but positioning for a great number of concentrated attacks, which is generally the way to go in C&C games.

If C&C offers even a bit more than Battlelore, in terms of options and strategy, I'm down.

Again, I suspect many (especially on the forums for Ancients :) ) would disagree with me, but in terms of sheer numbers, the quantity of options and strategy/tactical response is about the same for the games (depending upon which variety of BL one is playing) and would seem to be increasing more for BL as the game system is unveiled.

Aside from chess, risk, axis and allies, some minatures gaming, and a brief exposure to ASL, I don't have a vast exposure to other war games, but I certainly do not feel stifled by the C&C games.

Thread: Re: Chronological Scenario List (with graphics)

Jasonofindy — 2008-05-21T02:02:29+00:00

franchi wrote:
I've seen a small misprint on the list file (both official and official+variant), Himera was in 480BC and not 490BC...

No big deal, I'll change it during the next update (C3i#20, for example...). Please tell me if you find others!

C3i 20 has been out for about a month. This C3i included scenarios for several games as individually printed scenario cards and not as pages in the magazine itself. Here is the new scenario info:

Cissa- 218 B.C. Carthage/Rome
Iliturgi- 215 B.C. Carthage/Rome
Castrum Album- 214 B.C. Carthage/Rome

Additionally Agrigentum-262 B.C. Carthage/Rome from C3i18 was reprinted in color on the back of one of the new scenario cards (since there were an odd number of new scenarios)

Thread: Re: The Last Battle of the Punic War - Bagradas (the Battle of Tunis (255/253BC)

VuduJoie — 2008-05-21T01:59:57+00:00

Thanks G! 'Twas a fun battle.

Thread: Re: Chronological Scenario List (with graphics)

franchi — 2008-05-21T01:35:49+00:00

I've seen a small misprint on the list file (both official and official+variant), Himera was in 480BC and not 490BC...

No big deal, I'll change it during the next update (C3i#20, for example...). Please tell me if you find others!

Thread: Re: Battlelore and Commands & Colors.

gb1469 — 2008-05-21T06:41:12+00:00

It almost sounds like you'd be happier with Simple GBoH... :what:

Thread: Re: Battlelore and Commands & Colors.

broken clock — 2008-05-21T06:20:59+00:00

It just doesn't feel like there is enough. I feel like I'm just sending my troops in and letting them have at it.

Part of me wants more. Some sort of bonus for flanking an enemy. Unit formations for standard foot soldiers, such as the tortoise. Maybe being able to decide between a wedge formation for my calvary or not. Porcupine, the orb, anything! I have a funny feeling that neither game has what I want. I want something like a real war game. If I play a war game my troops can do so many things it's unbelievable.

If C&C offers even a bit more than Battlelore, in terms of options and strategy, I'm down.

Thread: "Battles of the..." series at Barnes and Nobles

BradyLS — 2008-05-21T05:26:12+00:00

Walking into my local Barnes & Nobles today, I saw a group of coffeetable-size military history books on sale which I'll call the "Battles..." series. The six titles I found and bought were:

BATTLES that Changed the Face of Warfare, 1457 BC - AD 1991

BATTLES of the Bible, 1400 BC - AD 73 (C&C: Ancients)

BATTLES of the Ancient World, 1285 BC - AD 451 (C&C: Ancients)

BATTLES of the Medieval World, 1000 -1500 (BattleLore)

BATTLES of the Crusades, 1097 - 1444 (BattleLore)

BATTLES of the Civil War (BattleCry)

Each book spotlights 20 battles of the era covered and are lavishly illustrated. If I were to compare them to another series, it would be the series of hard-backed individual battle books published by Osprey/Praeger. Only these books measure approximately 9"x12" and retail for about $15 each.

I've noted the books and games that fans of Richard Borg's system may be interested in checking out either for further information about the periods his games covers or to perhaps gain ideas for Design Your Own scenarios.

COuld be that there are other books in this series (one on the Napoleonic Wars or Age of Sail seems conspicuous by its absence) but I didn't see any. Maybe someone can tell us if there are any others.

Could be you'll find 'em at Half Price books anytime from next month to next year for half the price, but I went ahead and got them.

Thread: Re: The Last Battle of the Punic War - Bagradas (the Battle of Tunis (255/253BC)

raolsson — 2008-05-21T01:28:31+00:00

Yeah! That's more or less what happened.

Well scribed, Histori-G!

Thread: The Last Battle of the Punic War - Bagradas (the Battle of Tunis (255/253BC)

VuduJoie — 2008-05-20T10:54:13+00:00

[GAMEID=14105]

Regulus surveyed his position on the plains of Bagradas, a full day’s march outside Tunis: this was his chance to defeat Carthage… and to do it on their own land and bring an end to this costly Punic War, oh what glory! His chance for immortal glory and honor for Rome that comes with victory! He summoned his collegium of priests… “I must know the gods favor us!”

Far above them Leopodus and Silvus, Regulus’ augurs, watched a pair of eagles speed towards the river that lay south of the Roman camp. Just before reaching the river, the eagles split – one flying east along the river and the other west. Each bird flew until lost from sight. Leopodus knew the mind of his commander and thus read the auguries favorably, for he valued his own life as much as Rome did the power of her senate. Silvus the elder sage soothed, “The gods provide no readable sign… whether for or against us.”

Dawn was unraveling, yet Regulus was still unwilling to commit his legions without divine guidance. The assembling Carthaginian forces could now be heard in the foggy morning stillness. Finally, minutes before full light Regulus called to Diodorus, his Greek slave and haruspex, to read for him what he could of the will of the gods. Regulus slew and delivered to Diodorus the fresh carcass of a captured Numidian steed. In the massive entrails of the animal it was plain to Diodorus that the thirst of Jupiter and Mars were only to be slaked on Carthaginian blood!

Regulus issued nary an order in haste to assemble the Roman troops – the legions would have to rely upon their battle hardened centurions to keep cohesion with the ranks. Conversely, the Carthaginian commander, Xanthippus – himself a Greek, quickly and decisively issued an order to his elephants to advance in the center. Moments later, another order issued to the Carthaginian cavalry joined in the elephant charge. Together they advanced and while the elephants stumbled a bit when they met missiles from the screening velites, the Numidian cavalry smashed into the Roman lighter cavalry and sent them to the Elysian Fields.

Regulus calling upon his men and Mars gave the order to stand firm… trust in the Roman pilium and gladius maior. On the enraged pachyderms came, their massive bodies smashing their way through the velites, their tusks annihilating the first rank of hastati – on they came until meeting resistance from the steadied principes whom the Tribunus Laticlavius rallied. Losses mounted on both sides as barbed elephants fell alongside the broken bodies of Roman legionaries while Numidian horses lay amongst the valiant Roman auxilia.

Fiercely each soldier fought. Unrelentingly the Carthaginians kept charging but Regulus’ line stood firm. The exposed Roman right flank pulled together under Regulus direct command and withstood and then finished off the repeated Carthaginian attempts to break the Roman flank with their cavalry charges. So quickly had the Carthaginian mounted troops engaged the Roman infantry that Xanthippus hadn’t the time to bring up the massed infantry line in support of the all-out charge. And as a bolt from Jupiter, the stout Roman legions withstood the unsupported charge and delivered carnage foreseen by the Greek haruspex.

In celebration, Regulus offered the spitted head of Xanthippus to Mars. And his headless body was sent smoking to Jupiter. For on this day, these martial gods together with the might of Rome re-wrote history and defeated Carthage

Thread: Valley Games Dice Deliver for My Opponent

raolsson — 2008-05-20T06:07:55+00:00

On our way over to play a game of Command and Colors: Ancients, VuduJoie handed over a belated birthday gift, a set of C&C:A dice from Valley Games. I was so caught up in rolling the rounded wooden goodness of those dice that I cannot recall the name of the battle we played, other than that the Carthaginians were set to win, they had three leaders to the Roman's two, and that all of the heavies, warriors, and elephants were on a board that had no terrain. Rome was mostly infantry with some medium cavalry on the flanks. I had six command cards, he had four, and we were playing for seven flags.

I must admit that I do not know how to use elephants. Which is a shame because I often play the Carthaginians and end up with elephants. Great attacks, but they don't take hits very well at all. And they tend to be taking out as many of my troops as the other guys when they get their retreats inflicted. Still, you have got to love the way they march forward and strike fear into the heart of your opponent. I started moving them up as soon as I could, only to have VuduJoie send some light cavalry and light infantry to cause them to retreat back almost at once.

My cards provided lots of mobility and I took advantage of it, marching the troops up and inflicting my hits. I was able to take out the medium troops that the Roman leader on my right was with, but he retreated to join the heavies in the next row, which was not good for me. I threw everything I had at those heavies to try to take them out and not eat a hole in my right flank, but it turned out that they ate pretty much everything I threw at them. Which included two units of elephants with mounted charge (yes, 12 dice to take out four lousy red troops). There were no elephants at the end of that assault.

The final score was 7 flags for Rome, 4 flags for Carthage.

Card rich and dice poor was pretty much what the historians will record of the Carthaginians that day. VuduJoie on the other hand was very weak in cards, but his dice were dead on. I started to learn the value of retreating rather than charging and taking hits with a hope of striking back. We have a shot at getting in a few games on Friday, so I will keep my fingers crossed that the dice will be in my favor that day.

An awesome game, even if I did end up coming up short in the flags for victory.

Thread: Epic card play questions

kduke — 2008-05-20T04:02:05+00:00

Two questions or observations about interpretation and card play/cost in Epic games.

1. Counter Attack. This one is pretty easy when your opponent is only playing one card (but we still managed to generate a lot of questions about it.). When your opponent might be playing up to 3 cards, the permutations grow.

I'll assume that you pick ONE of the cards from your opponents' last play, and if that was an "army command card," then your counter attack is your only possible play. But if your opponent plays something other than an Army Command card, the options for confusion grow.

If your opponent played an "Inspired Leadership" card on the left, for example, I know you have to counter on your own right. But I am thinking the issue of whether he crossed a section line-- or not-- has to be moot for your CA play. If his block of units DID cross a section line (meaning it counted like two Field Command cards), I believe you are not mandated to do the same (cross the line, count as 2 cards) as long as you handle your CA with a leader in your right section. Ditto for the other cards which count 1 or 2, depending on how many sections are crossed with activated units. I'm also thinking that CA to a "line command" card is totally open ended for you-- if your opponent used it to move a block of units only in his left section, you can ignore that-- it's "special field command" card and you are acting "as though you played the card yourself" and you could, conceivably, move a huge line of units that crossed both section lines, even if your opponent only moved units in one section (and counted it as one card-- while I THINK the cost in cards that YOU have to play should depend on how many section lines you cross.)

Does anyone see any problems with this sort of interpretation?

I could see someone making a case-- particularly on that Line Command example-- that if the original card play counted only as one field command because it only affected one section, that your CA response would be limited to counting as one FC card and would have to react in the same section (on your side) as the original move. Or for that matter, any of the cards with a variable cost might have to be matched (or at least not exceeded). I don't like it that way, but would not be surprised at the argument...which I bring here in the hopes of avoiding one in FtF play.

QUESTION 2 concerns those cards that have the alternative line "or order one unit." We have seen it long established that this is not an"either or" option-- that you don't get to choose "or order one unit" unless you have ZERO of the units that the card's main direction impacts (and so it goes with using a Counterattack card against such a play). But my question is, what should this card "cost" in card play terms if it can only order a single unit?

To set up an example, if I have zero heavy units and play "order heavy units," I will get to activate a single other unit. But this card is listed under "Army Commands," and-- taken literally-- would mean this is the only play I get for that turn.

In the base game, where I only get one card per turn, that is only a marginal detriment. In Epic, it seems a much more significant loss. While this would be useful for "rebuilding your command level" (as the rules state about the Coordinated Attack), even that card is still impacting 3 sections.

Should the "or order one unit" play be considered like a single field command card (and, thus, leave me with more potential card plays)?

Or not?

Thread: Re: Battlelore and Commands & Colors.

kduke — 2008-05-20T03:59:11+00:00

To answer a question with some questions, tell me...

1. When you finish a BL game, unless someone's house is on fire or you are already late to work, do you feel like you'd immediatley like to re-set the scenario and play it again? This might involve swapping sides (and seeing who can win the most total banners) or NOT swapping sides, but just playing it again because you want to?

That's a pretty common feeling among CCA players.

2. Do you play BL solo and still find it an exciting game? CCA players have conjured several techniques for solo play and most report having a very good time with it. That seemed counter-intuitive to me-- 'hidden cards" and all that-- but I tried it and had a great time.

The list could go on, but those two points may be enough.

Thread: Re: Solitaire Surprise

franchi — 2008-05-20T01:12:49+00:00

Recently I'm having a lot of fun playing Ipsus ("The Battle of the Kings", from Exp#1) solo, it has almost all the unit types in the game and it lasts till 8 banners, so you have plenty of time to experiment with the use of elephants, HC, a HI phalanx line, frontal or flank attacks...

I used to leave First Strike and Counterattack out when playing solo, but now I play solo with all the deck, I guess I'm becoming more "schizophrenic" with age!
:)

Thread: Re: Solitaire Surprise

aerial7 — 2008-05-20T12:05:14+00:00

For many reasons, Ancients had gotten exactly 2 plays in the time I've had it (I think almost a year). Last week I had started hunting around for solitaire wargames and discovered some people trying Ancients that way. Since I already had the game, I decided to try it....

For me, solitaire really does work. There's the obvious benefit of learning the game, but there's also a great deal of the same tension when played head-to-head. There's enough going on that's its easy to temporarily "forget" what you're doing for one side as you switch to the other side, and the full hand of cards for each side will usually have only one or two, maybe three, good cards, so you're already constrained in what you can do. So I play the game exactly as I would head-to-head (although I did set aside the "first strike" card when I came across it once).

There's also another level to playing solitaire, and that's learning and developing tactics, but I'm not there yet. It takes awhile to get acquainted with all the different units and entirely internalize all the rules.

Anway, playing solitaire, I've already doubled the amount of time I've spent with the game.....even better, my kids suddenly seem to think Ancients is the best game in the house, so we've started playing it quite a bit together.

Thread: Re: Battlelore and Commands & Colors.

toddrew — 2008-05-20T03:13:50+00:00

I'm not sure if you play on Vassal at all, but I would be more than happy to play a few Ancients scenarios with you so you get the feel of it and can contrast with BL yourself.

I own and love both of the games, and in my opinion each merits inclusion for its own rights.

I would also be happy to play some BL with you too, as I actually feel that it is the more surprising of the two when played with war councils and lore. Though there are many differences between the two, each offers a large variety of tactical situations with much choice in how to respond, which is what I enjoy most about the games.

I know many consider Ancients "heavier" than BL, but I wouldn't characterize it as such. Just as I also wouldn't characterize either of them as heavier than Memoir '44.

To me, the one thing that causes the most variety between the games are the hit rate and numbers of dice.

In C&C:Ancients the dice are the most lethal of the C&C games (well, maybe excluding Battle Cry - haven't had the pleasure yet :) ) in close combat, both in number and hit rate, when Leaders are involved. But the difference is getting to close combat can be tricky at times, and setting up a tactically superior approach, or setting a good trap to respond to the battle lines of the opponent cause there to be much dancing about, especially at the beginning, but throughout the game as well. The Evade tactic of the Light foot units and mounted units provide a wonderful balance to the brash clashing of the Heavy and Medium foot soldiers. The game ebbs and flows beautifully.

In BattleLore the dice are tempered in close combat, ratched down a die and usually hitting at 33% compared to the (if utilizing Leaders effectively ;) ) 50% of Ancients. Manipulating the formations and positioning of units in conjunction with command card and lore plays to raise the hit rate to 50 - 66% and increase the number the number of dice hitting so is the way to be successful in BL. Not being able to Evade on a regular basis makes the Light units seem less useful, but taking advantage of terrain and using them to bait the opponent while also taking advantage of their greater mobility - human shield type tactics, hunters towards the end of the game, a finishing blow in a tight scrum...lots of possibilities that may not reveal themselves at first play.

Anyway, I'm prattling on at this point, I've got someone waiting to play some ancients - I may revisit this to try to make better sense out of what I'm trying to convey ;)

Thread: Re: Battlelore and Commands & Colors.

dcorban — 2008-05-20T03:11:27+00:00

In my opinion, C&C is no heavier than Battlelore. C&C is more strategic with the addition of leaders. Battlelore is more tactical and chaotic due to Lore cards.

The major difference is that C&C scenarios are historically based and by nature unbalanced. It is more of a "can you change history?" challenge. Battlelore scenarios tend to be balanced and it is more of a "here are my guys, there are your guys, let's fight" skirmish.

Thread: Re: Battlelore and Commands & Colors.

AllenDoum — 2008-05-19T10:16:07+00:00

Plus, the bridge game of CCA is not mounted, and sometimes it is difficult to keep good tense, then the long run, stickers on the wood tend to fall off, and it takes 2 afternoons to attack well in their respective blocks! (it is not just a great fun).

For what it is worth, Exp2 & Exp3 have mounted boards, The Epic battles use both. Epic rules are in Exp3.

I have never had a sticker fall off a block, even if I had to reposition it.

Thread: Re: Battlelore and Commands & Colors.

aringarosa — 2008-05-19T08:44:35+00:00

Hello Mike ...
I do not know if I understood correctly ... not ask which of 2 games between BL and CCA is better, but what are the main differences, and if CCA could have more tactical options than BL.

I have all games of Borg,
and I played so many times that we can offer an impression that could help, even if our comments may not allay your concerns, because it seems that the author
bestows merits and defects in an equally between its products,
so you can not choose NEVER at the expense of others!

At this point I sit on the games that interest you:
for the quality of material BL beats CCA 10 to 1!
(it follows that in the glance BL beats CCA 9 to 2).
for me to see thumbnails on a bridge is more beautiful than seeing blocks of wood (although the issue is controversial, because many of my friends love the blocks of wood).
On the website, you have many examples of how easy it is to adapt the system thumbnails 1:72 CCA, simply by colouring the bases!

Plus, the bridge game of CCA is not mounted, and sometimes it is difficult to keep good tense, then the long run, stickers on the wood tend to fall off, and it takes 2 afternoons to attack well in their respective blocks! (it is not just a great fun).

For rules: CCA beat BL 8 to 5!
(here we do some insights: the style of the Rules of CCA is perfectly appropriate to his age: there are Leaders giving concrete benefits to their troops, while in the BL council of war from the same effect for everyone, even if you choose different characters !, CCA there are no rules for units perfectly suited and well congeniate: fantery, bowman, warriors, elephants, have all their tactical and strategic importance with a better characterization for movements and battles that BL! ! Fighting are not simultaneous for both games, and is the only real hole every regulation Borg, but CCA works best in the sense that it is more appropriate at about!
cards! .. Keep in CCA if the tactics of the time, allow you to be able to move relatively freely on all fronts .... while in BL there is more danger of stagnation, and also the tactics of movement and reactions to the attacks, I am a little removed compared to the Middle Ages.

How do you see ultimately CCA is better (both tactically and strategically), and is without doubt the best regulation designed by Borg, liable undoubtedly be improved, but now, the more functional and better managed;
CCA but lost the game on all fronts for the material!

Maybe if you dowload the regulations and you read them, you will have many elements of judgement more for a more prudent choice.

I hope to be helpful and above all to have been comprensiile, since I do not have good English.

Hello and good game. Aringarosa. ;)

Thread: Battlelore and Commands & Colors.

broken clock — 2008-05-19T07:31:30+00:00

Don't worry, I'm not asking which is better. I own Battlelore and I've been having some fun with it. However, I'm yearning for something a little more heavy. I don't feel my units have a lot of options and I don't feel like I have a lot of choices when I'm playing. How is C&C different? What are some major differences that make it stand out from Battlelore? Any help would be nice, as the game costs a lot for just wooden blocks.

Thread: CC:Ancients Tournament at the UK Games Expo, Birmingham on Sunday 1st June...

TommieSL — 2008-05-16T07:18:32+00:00

I will be hosting a C&C: Ancients Event at the UK Games Expo in Birmingham, a 1 day Tournament for up to 12 players.

First and foremost the objective of this tournament is for everyone to have FUN.

Players of ALL experience levels will be very welcome. Ranging from someone with just a passing interest, keen to try the game maybe even for the first time, to those eager to pit their skills against new opponents of a similar skill set.

Guidance / instruction will be provided for new players and first round match pairings will be based on playing experience.

Players will be divided into two groups. One to fight as the Roman Army during the preliminary stages with the other group playing as the Carthaginians.
[size=8]Note: Let's just say that my choice for the scenarios has been very much influenced by the excellent Valley Games reprint of the old Avalon Hill classic - Hannibal: Rome v Carthage.[/size]
Each player will be ranked within their group depending on their won/loss record.
The top ranked Roman player will match against the top ranked Carthaginian player in the final with the lower ranks similarly matched to determine final placings.

A full compliment of 12 players* will result in 6 preliminary rounds with a further 2 round, head-to-head final match playing the same scenario from both sides (to remove any potential scenario unbalance)

A nice feature of this preliminary format is that it does not require the scenarios played to be balanced, as each player is 'competing' (i.e. ranked) against the other members of their Army group, not the actual opponents played. It also means that every player will face a different opponent in every prliminary round. So, here is your chance to pit your skills against a whole new set of [-]combatants[/-] opponents.
:D

*More players may be accommodated depending on level of interest and notice provided by early registration (book early if possible)

Rule Clarifications:
Standard CC:Ancients + Expansion Game rules (as appropriate - tbc)
OUT OF THE BOX - plus those designated as Special Scenario Rules.

Scenarios:
Details of the scenarios to be played will be posted nearer the event date.

Players may take part in some or all of the separate parts of the CC:A Tournament, playing in part or all of the rounds as best suits their needs on the day.

Winner's Prize:
The CC:Ancients Championship Winner will receive a £25 voucher to be spent at the Expo to go with their handsome trophy.

Fee: Sun £4.00

For more details and/or to register go to the Events page here...

http://www.ukgamesexpo.co.uk/bookevents.php?category=min

Or

Contact me direct: IngramBJ -at- aol.com (replace -at- with @ )

I'd be happy to answer any questions/clarifications or talk you through the registration process.

UK Games Expo details are here...
http://ukgamesexpo.co.uk/

Thanks for reading.

Thread: Re: poll

Robin — 2008-05-16T12:57:43+00:00

Giuseppe,
I believe that all the question is in the word "improving" and in the understanding of the fundamental notions and mechanics the game is based upon.
House rules (i.e. variants to the "official" ones) can be fun to try.
Now, will they "improve" the system? The question is open.
They certainly will change some of the way a game develops.

I personally like CCA as it is - as it offers many "improvements" (in my opinion) over Battle Cry and M44 (that I do own and play too).
As a "hard core" wargamer (I am an ASL fan, among many other wargames), I find that CCA renders antique warfare quite well, with a minimum of complexity and a high "fun factor".
I have played the GBoH system, and I find that CCA leads to about the same results, with much less clutter of markers and complicated rules.

The main point to understand in all R. Borg's systems(that other guys here have underlined) is about the "blocks number". They are much more representative of what one could call "cohesion" than "manpower".
An eliminated unit hasn't lost all its men - perhaps, even, it lost only a small proportion of them - but demoralization and panic overcame it and it is no more efficient on the battlefield.
A unit reduced to one block still can hit hard, but is at the brink of letting things go and disappear from the battlefield.
I wouldn't advocate any reduction of the damage it can cause, as it already is handicapped by the damage it can take (the battle back option will prevent a one-block unit to attack a strong opponent - contrary to the M44 or Battle Cry games where one often dares such a move) and it will be unable to battle back quite often, as only one symbol (or sword) will wipe it out of the battlefield.
I personally try to evacuate to the rear too heavily depleted units.
A one-block unit already is weaker than a 2-4 block one: would it be an improvement to make it even weaker?

Otherwise, the option to have one entire card pack per player seems to aim to give "equal opportunities" to both of them... Why not, but I don't mind seeing "Mrs Luck" sowing some more fun in a play.

Don't feel too bad about the answers you recieved.
I believe everybody respects you here.
It just may be that some people else than you have offered "improvements" without even having played the game - a phenomenon that one can see in about any wargame forum.

Anyway, have a nice day! :)

Thread: Re: Elephant Rampage Check: which units first?

BradyLS — 2008-05-15T03:22:40+00:00

Well, that's a great question, franchi.

Unofficially, I would say the attacker would Rampage the Elephant against the available targets in any order he chooses, with rolls against his own units, if any, handled by the defender. If resulting casualties from a particular roll trigger a victory for one side or the other: game over.

Sorry I can't quote any chapters and verses at the moment to support my opinion. Just thinking about how battles are resolved and extending the process to Rampages.

Sounds like an official clarification is needed from the designer if there's nothing explicit in the rules...

Thread: Re: Elephant Rampage Check: which units first?

franchi — 2008-05-15T03:02:46+00:00

Yes, logic says that all the effects of rampage should be considered at once, I can understand a commander ordering a unit to attack first or second, but not a rampaging elephant saying "I'm going to kill these guys first".

And at the same time I have never heard of possible ties in CCA, so I guess there must be a given order (I cannot believe no one went through this situation before).

I personally have no problem if a given game ends as a draw, or going into "sudden death", but I would prefer official ruling on this...

Thread: Re: Elephant Rampage Check: which units first?

dcorban — 2008-05-15T02:13:02+00:00

I interpret it as all rampage losses being resolved simultaneously. Opponent rolls for your losses, and you roll for opponent's losses. This could result in a tie or even gaining more victory blocks than required.

While a tie isn't handled or expected by the rules, I don't see why you couldn't just end it as a draw, or even go into "sudden death", with the next victory block being the win.

Thread: Re: Elephant Rampage Check: which units first?

franchi — 2008-05-15T01:35:13+00:00

Brian, is this your guess or is it official ruling?

There's nothing in the FAQ, and going again through the rules I found in an example:

In battle B the Roman warrior unit inflicted two flag results
on the Carthaginian elephant and so it must Rampage and then
retreat two hexes. Note that the two friendly units behind the
elephant do not provide support (bolster morale) because elephant
units cannot receive support—only provide it. First it
Rampages against all adjacent hexes—five units in this case.
The Roman player rolls two dice each for the units in hexes X
and Y, while his opponent rolls for his three unit hexes.
The emphasis is mine. Does "while" here mean that the rolling is simultaneous? Could this lead to a draw, 8-8 in our Ipsus case?

Thread: Re: Elephant Rampage Check: which units first?

ColtsFan76 — 2008-05-15T01:04:52+00:00

Just like combat, it should go in the order the attacker prefers.

Thread: Elephant Rampage Check: which units first?

franchi — 2008-05-15T10:07:43+00:00

Hi,

I played yesterday Ipsus, with a lot of elephants on the field, and a question arose: during rampage, is there an order in which the rampage check must be done when there are several units around the elephant?

It was a close battle (8-7 for Seleucus), Antigonus advanced his heavies in the center (Line Command plus Double Time) while threatening my left flank with his powerful cavalry, and I sent my elephants (and chariots) in a Mounted Charge against them. Sure they didn't survive, and I got 3-6 after the charge, but his phalanx took heavy casualties and was now so thin that it was quite easy (with a bit of patience, sure) to finish the elephants' work and lead 8-7 in the end.
:)
But when at 7-7 we wondered what would happen if a rampage check should be done at this point: the order could decide the winner, and I didn't find anything on the rules about this...
:what: