Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage | BoardGameGeek

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: Strategy:: Re: Whats the Point of a Probe ?

rubberchicken — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 12:40:00 +0000

Why use a probe?

I had 4 probe cards in a hand of 14 versus Hannibal who also had 14 cards. It was going to be a long battle with Hannibal gaining the initiative more often. I did not care about the size of the victory. Only winning counted. So probe, probe, probe whenever I could. I won. I did not inflict much damage from the retreat of Hannibal bu he did lose an elephant. Not too shabby.

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: Rules:: Re: T. Longus Intercepted & His Special and basic Interception question

mavo — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 05:29:29 +0000

by mavo

And to add two rules:

14.5 (regarding battle)

The active player begins as the attacker

12.4 (regarding interception, end of paragraph)

The original active player
will still play their BCs first in the battle, not the intercepting
non-active player.

So, as was said before: Yes to both questions. Have fun!

Edit: Just noticed, 14.5 seems to be a clarification in the VG rules.

Thread: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: General:: Extra sticker set for minatures

billandmonica — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 03:03:12 +0000

by billandmonica

I am looking for a sticker sheet for the minatures provided with this game. I have the minatures, I am missing the sickers. Even a color copy would work also. Valley Games does not stock any now. Thanks

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: Variants:: Re: Charles' Variants (Final Edition)

camustafa — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 17:36:51 +0000

by camustafa

I have played several games where we just ruled that one must control the city in a region in order to control that region. If someone holds a majority of spaces, but not the city, neither side controls.

Worked just fine. May add the extra card after successful siege idea.

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: Rules:: Re: T. Longus Intercepted & His Special and basic Interception question

BlueJackal — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 16:44:10 +0000

by BlueJackal

Thanks for the help!

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: Rules:: Re: T. Longus Intercepted & His Special and basic Interception question

itsmarty — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 16:21:32 +0000

by itsmarty

BlueJackal wrote:
First off: an army which is intercepted and decided to fight (rather than pull back), has its movement ended after battle, right? I couldn't find something which explicitly said it, but I assume that all battles mean movement is ended.

Since I had to pull out my rulebook for the second question, here's the citation for the first:

Rule 14.0, Battles: (2nd sentence) A Battle forces the moving Army to stop and end its movement

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: Rules:: Re: T. Longus Intercepted & His Special and basic Interception question

itsmarty — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 16:14:40 +0000

by itsmarty

cmontgo2 wrote:
russ wrote:
For the second question:
Rule 12.1: "Interception forces the moving army to fight a battle..."
Rule 14.5: "The player whose moving army started the battle begins as the attacker and the other player as the defender."

So it would indeed seem Longus (who was moving and got intercepted and thus forced to battle) is the original attacker.

I'm not an HRC nut, but based on those two cited rules, wouldn't the army that intercepted Longus (e.g. Hannibal) be the "player whose moving army started the battle"? That is, Longus, if he is intercepted, is not starting the battle; the army intercepting him has started the battle. So I would think, no, Longus would not get his counter-attack bonus.

Chris

The intercepting army doesn't start the battle. They intercept into the space, but have no input on whether a battle occurs or not.

The rest of the sentence quoted above makes it clear that the moving army is the one that was intercepted (the active army).

Rule 12.1: Interception forces the moving Army to fight a battle or back up one space.

It's further clarified that the moving army is still the attacker in rule 12.4: "The original active player will still play their BC's first in the battle, not the intercepting non-active player" (in 14.5, Sequence of Battle Resolution, the attacker plays cards first)

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: General:: Re: Looking for Generals miniatures

Billc63 — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 14:03:12 +0000

by Billc63

Thanks for all of the offers. I have secured a set of minis, I think Bob may also want some, though.

I appreciate the many replies!

Bill

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: Rules:: Re: T. Longus Intercepted & His Special and basic Interception question

russ — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 12:58:42 +0000

by russ

My quick interpretation was that they are using "moving" in the formal sense of "performing the Move action" (not to be confused with the Intercept action). As another recent thread showed, "Movement" has certain properties (e.g. limit of 10 CUs) that other things (e.g. Retreating) don't have, even though those other things are (in the informal sense) moving.

But I agree it's not entirely clear.

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: Rules:: Re: T. Longus Intercepted & His Special and basic Interception question

cmontgo2 — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 12:31:25 +0000

by cmontgo2

russ wrote:
For the second question:
Rule 12.1: "Interception forces the moving army to fight a battle..."
Rule 14.5: "The player whose moving army started the battle begins as the attacker and the other player as the defender."

So it would indeed seem Longus (who was moving and got intercepted and thus forced to battle) is the original attacker.

I'm not an HRC nut, but based on those two cited rules, wouldn't the army that intercepted Longus (e.g. Hannibal) be the "player whose moving army started the battle"? That is, Longus, if he is intercepted, is not starting the battle; the army intercepting him has started the battle. So I would think, no, Longus would not get his counter-attack bonus.

Chris

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: Rules:: Re: T. Longus Intercepted & His Special and basic Interception question

russ — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 10:48:13 +0000

by russ

For the second question:
Rule 12.1: "Interception forces the moving army to fight a battle..."
Rule 14.5: "The player whose moving army started the battle begins as the attacker and the other player as the defender."

So it would indeed seem Longus (who was moving and got intercepted and thus forced to battle) is the original attacker.

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: Rules:: Re: T. Longus Intercepted & His Special and basic Interception question

Steeledragon — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 08:02:24 +0000

by Steeledragon

"Yes, for both questions."

As far as I understand to.

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: Rules:: Re: T. Longus Intercepted & His Special and basic Interception question

itsmarty — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 06:12:41 +0000

by itsmarty

Yes, for both questions.

Thread: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: Rules:: T. Longus Intercepted & His Special and basic Interception question

BlueJackal — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 05:40:53 +0000

by BlueJackal

First off: an army which is intercepted and decided to fight (rather than pull back), has its movement ended after battle, right? I couldn't find something which explicitly said it, but I assume that all battles mean movement is ended.

Second: T. Longus counter-attacks on a 1 or 2 if the original attacker. If he is Intercepted, is he the original attacker still?

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: Variants:: Re: Charles' Variants (Final Edition)

BlueJackal — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 05:34:46 +0000

by BlueJackal

I do certainly like the Clemency idea better than the Loot idea. The card idea is interesting: it helps recoup the investment of Sieging, though I wonder if it'd be too potent with non-CU'd cities requiring only 2 Siege Points. Still, very interesting! As an aside, my friend preferred the 1 CU requirement for manning cities, so we went with that. We also decided that 1 PC would be flipped if a siege was successful. (A mini-Clemency.) Definitely might suggest this card idea the next time we play. Thanks for the suggestion!

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: Variants:: Re: Charles' Variants (Final Edition)

sundaysilence — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 05:31:40 +0000

by sundaysilence

An even simpler idea and seems more realistic to me is to simply gain one card for capturing any major city (Gades, New Carthage, Syracuse, Capua, Tarentum). I just dont see a connection with winning a siege and gaining CUs. WHy? However with cards, the victor will be rewarded with something subtantial more or less, but the exact reward is not known to him until the siege is over. THe loser will know even less. Clearly these sieges were some of the most important events in the war, Syracuse and Capua in particular seem as decisive as any battle.

One of the recent card driven games (I think: For Unhappy King CHarles) is doing something like this (rewarding siege w/ a card). Are there any comments about it?

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: Variants:: Re: Charles' Variants (Final Edition)

BlueJackal — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 22:14:11 +0000

by BlueJackal

I think I read this somewhere else, but I've been considering implementing a similar Siege idea. All cities take 2 Siege Points to capture, unless there are two CUs inside the city, in which case the normal 3 are required. 1 CU seems too slight an investment, and since most cities can hold 2 CUs, it seems consistent. One downside is backwater type cities may still be too undesirable. Maybe I'll implement the Clemency and Loot ideas.

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: General:: Re: Looking for Generals miniatures

Ashitaka — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 06:17:51 +0000

by Ashitaka

I'd be interested in a set as well.

Bill - once you have your set, please let me know if you have leads on another one. Thanks.

Thread: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: General:: Looking for Generals miniatures

Billc63 — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:11:40 +0000

by Billc63

If you are not using your unpainted generals, or just wish to part with them, I would like to offer you some games or cash for them.
I paint minis and wish to paint them up for use in games for my son and I!
I don't care if they are broken or not, I can fix stuff like that.

Send me a PM what you want for them, and thanks!

Bill

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: Rules:: Re: 18.3 and army size

mavo — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:15:05 +0000

by mavo

Accepted - I was also a little bit rude... :blush:

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: Rules:: Re: 18.3 and army size

andylatto — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 19:30:54 +0000

by andylatto

Andy, could you explain what's the reason for provoking me???

My apologies. I confused Avoid Battle with Withdrawal, and my post is completely wrong.

I agree that Withdrawal, unlike Avoid Battle, can be done with an army of any size.

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: Rules:: Re: 18.3 and army size

mavo — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 17:20:12 +0000

by mavo

Hi Peter,

please look again at my post directly after yours above.

It is like that (without quoting again, as I qouted in the post above): Interception is a special kind of movement. Movement is restricted to 10 CUs. Consequence: Interception is also restricted.

So, the 10 CU limit does not apply to "activation", but to "movement".
Edit Correction: sorry, apply is not the correct word here. What I mean is that the limit is in general valid for movement

Another quote:

The sequence below must be observed when moving an army:
1. Select the general you wish to activate. If there are two or
more generals with an army you may designate which is the
commanding general (under the restrictions of 9.3). Then
select up to 10 CUs and any number of subordinates to
accompany the commanding general. ...

And regarding withdrawal, things are also quite clear: look at the end of my post before your last post (the part where I found back to dispassion :) )

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: Rules:: Re: Scipio Africanus (or Hannibal) retreating with no CU's

mavo — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 17:09:20 +0000

by mavo

Yes,thank you very much!

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: Rules:: Re: 18.3 and army size

Peter White — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 17:08:39 +0000

by Peter White

To recap:

There is no limitation on the size of the army. I do not think we have any controversy here. The question is around size limitations on kinds of movement.

If the rules do not explicitly state a size restriction for a type of army movement, then we must assume there is no restriction.

I have found restrictions for general Activation and Avoid battle. I do not know of any size restriction for Retreat, Withdrawal, and Interception, based on my reading of the rules. If you think I missed something, please let me know.

That is the Rules As Written.

Now, if you think there should be a restriction on Interception (or Withdrawal), I would suggest either finding basis within the rules for that opinion or start a separate thread on that topic.

(I am not trying to be rude to anyone, but I think this is the most constructive approach to resolving these issues.)

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: Rules:: Re: 18.3 and army size

mavo — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 17:05:54 +0000

by mavo

Andy, could you explain what's the reason for provoking me???

mavo wrote:
Just another note: I confirm that there is no CU limit in a withdrawal. The rule say "you withdraw your complete army", and an army is defined as "all CUs in a space", so things are quite clear.

I don't understand why people think it's useful to reply to rules queries from memory, without looking the rules up. But if you're going to do this, could you at least say "I think" or "I seem to recall", rather than "the rules say", so as not to create an impression that you actually looked at the rules?

I hate it when people tell things they do not know. Of course I looked in the rule`s, but I did not quote them. Where is the problem? Are we fucking lawyers or something? If I say "I confirm" I think it's clear I found it in the rules. If you would like to know the rules paragraph, you could have asked in a gentle way.

What the rules actually say on the subject is
Quote:
13.2 Restrictions on Avoiding Battle
No more than 10 CUs may avoid battle. An army that contains more than 10 CUs must leave behind all CUs in excess of 10.

Seems you did not get what was discussed, sorry.

You didn't look up the rule in question

Lie!

and surely you can't be under the misconception that you've memorized all 27 pages of rules verbatim. So why fabricate a quote

If have wanted to quote, I would have done so - just as I did in a lot of other questions regarding Hannibal (see even a few posts above!!!)

So, if anyone thinks it is better to get help from people that even do not get the point... great. I'm a patient person, but unjustified blame drives me crazy. :shake: Sorry for being a bit rude...

For your peace of soul (and maybe Russ', I'm not sure), paragraph 16:

A successful withdrawal ends the battle and forces the
withdrawing player to move his army to an adjacent space

And now the definition of army (to make it clear):

Army: An Army consists of a general and any number of
friendly combat units stacked together in a space.

Got it??

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: Rules:: Re: 18.3 and army size

russ — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 07:57:31 +0000

by russ

andylatto wrote:
mavo wrote:
Just another note: I confirm that there is no CU limit in a withdrawal. The rule say "you withdraw your complete army", and an army is defined as "all CUs in a space", so things are quite clear.

I don't understand why people think it's useful to reply to rules queries from memory, without looking the rules up. But if you're going to do this, could you at least say "I think" or "I seem to recall", rather than "the rules say", so as not to create an impression that you actually looked at the rules?

Agreed.

What the rules actually say on the subject is
13.2 Restrictions on Avoiding Battle

No more than 10 CUs may avoid battle. An army that contains more than 10 CUs must leave behind all CUs in excess of 10.

But Avoiding Battle is a different thing than Withdrawing from battle, so this rule quote is seemingly irrelevant...

About Withdrawing, the rules say

16.3 A withdrawing army may not split up

But unfortunately don't talk about whether 10 CUs has relevance or not. I.e. it's not clear from that whether:
1. An army with more than 10 CUs can not withdraw (because it can't split up and there's a movement limit of 10)
or
2. An army with more than 10 CUs can withdraw (because it doesn't split up, and no limit of 10 CUs is mentioned for withdrawing).

...sigh.

I'm inclined to think a large army can withdraw, since no restriction of 10 CUs is mentioned, and the restriction of 10 CUs is mentioned in the context of normal movement by playing a strategy card (10.2).

On the other hand, retreat explicitly mentions "The 10 CU movement limit does not apply during retreats; any size force (commanded by a general or not) defeated in battle must be retreated." (15.1), so why doesn't Withdraw mention that? Simple oversight? (That quote was added in red text as a clarification to Retreat rules.) Or in order to imply that the limit does apply?

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: Rules:: Re: Scipio Africanus (or Hannibal) retreating with no CU's

burrie — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 00:43:24 +0000

by burrie

Simon7itch wrote:
In the example above, Scipio is displaced unless the battle was won with a Probe card and the Retreat roll was 0. Had Scipio won the battle, but lost all his CUs--he would not be displaced.
I hope that helps.

The master himself. Thanks for helping us out.

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: Rules:: Re: 18.3 and army size

drunkenKOALA — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 22:55:23 +0000

by drunkenKOALA

From what I remember only retreats can be more than 10 CUs?

But, 18.3 says Proconsular armies can be bigger than Consular Armies. And Consular armies are 10 or less, according to the previous rule.

So? Proconsular can be bigger than Consular, and Consular could be 10 or less.

"Can" means that it is possible. And since Consular isn't always 10--it could be less sometimes--it is possible for Proconsular to be larger.

We both take a test. The score ranges from 0-100. You can score higher than me--there are no rules that ban you from doing so. I can score anywhere from 0-100. Does that mean you will score higher than 100?

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: Rules:: Re: 18.3 and army size

andylatto — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 22:34:04 +0000

by andylatto

mavo wrote:
Just another note: I confirm that there is no CU limit in a withdrawal. The rule say "you withdraw your complete army", and an army is defined as "all CUs in a space", so things are quite clear.

I don't understand why people think it's useful to reply to rules queries from memory, without looking the rules up. But if you're going to do this, could you at least say "I think" or "I seem to recall", rather than "the rules say", so as not to create an impression that you actually looked at the rules?

What the rules actually say on the subject is

13.2 Restrictions on Avoiding Battle

No more than 10 CUs may avoid battle. An army that contains more than 10 CUs must leave behind all CUs in excess of 10.

mavo wrote:
so things are quite clear

Except that the phrase you say is quite clear, "you withdraw your complete army" does not actually occur in the rules.

You didn't look up the rule in question, and surely you can't be under the misconception that you've memorized all 27 pages of rules verbatim. So why fabricate a quote, and then pretend that you are interpreting the words in the quote, rather than just going by your memory of what the rule is?

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: Rules:: Re: Scipio Africanus (or Hannibal) retreating with no CU's

Simon7itch — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:49:45 +0000

by Simon7itch

In the example above, Scipio is displaced unless the battle was won with a Probe card and the Retreat roll was 0. Had Scipio won the battle, but lost all his CUs--he would not be displaced.
I hope that helps.

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: Rules:: Re: 18.3 and army size

mavo — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 17:31:29 +0000

by mavo

Just another note: I confirm that there is no CU limit in a withdrawal. The rule say "you withdraw your complete army", and an army is defined as "all CUs in a space", so things are quite clear.

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: Rules:: Re: Scipio Africanus (or Hannibal) retreating with no CU's

mavo — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 17:21:33 +0000

by mavo

And to add to Russ' statement:
If you lost all your CUs but do not loose any during retreat, your general is also not displaced - right?

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: Rules:: Re: Scipio Africanus (or Hannibal) retreating with no CU's

russ — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:30:12 +0000

by russ

So perhaps the intent is that if you lose all your CUs AND you lost the battle (therefore must retreat), then you are displaced.

But if you lost all your CUs but WON the battle (therefore don't retreat), then you are not displaced. I'm guessing/hoping that's the solution to the mystery.

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: Rules:: Re: Scipio Africanus (or Hannibal) retreating with no CU's

Peter White — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:53:57 +0000

by Peter White

A general also becomes displaced if all CUs accompanying the general are eliminated due to Retreat Table casualties, Retreat losses or the Naval Table. A general is not displaced if all CUs under his command are removed due to the Attrition Table, the Storm at Sea event (#60) or the Battle Casualties die roll.

Scipio A. certainly did lose all the CUs accompanying him during Retreat, due to the Retreat table.

Mathematically speaking, one cannot deny that "0 CUs" = "all CUs" under these circumstances.

New Image for Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage

bsungjong — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 00:06:41 +0000

by bsungjong

Initial placement

]]>

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: Rules:: Re: Scipio Africanus (or Hannibal) retreating with no CU's

kduke — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 20:39:00 +0000

by kduke

I agree. The rules say he isn't lost because he lost all his CUs in combat, but he is if the final losses happen during retreat. It doesn't make any sense that he's "killed" if he has 1 CU but has no effect if he doesn't have any CU with him.

If the retreat roll had been such that no further losses had to be taken, he would just retreat.

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: Rules:: Re: Scipio Africanus (or Hannibal) retreating with no CU's

cmontgo2 — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 19:16:20 +0000

by cmontgo2

Exactly. The rules are clear. I would think that a general who lost all his CUs for whatever reason should be displaced, but the rules are clear that in the situation posted by the OP, Scipio A. would be displaced.

It can't be made more clear based on the excerpt.

If a general loses all his CUs from Battle, he is not displaced. If he loses all his CUs in retreat, he is. Thus, even 1 CU loss with a general that has no CUs is a displacement during retreat.

Chris

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: Rules:: Re: Scipio Africanus (or Hannibal) retreating with no CU's

mavo — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 15:35:54 +0000

by mavo

Chris, I think this rules excerpt is exactly what we are discussing. It says "a general is displaced if all the CUs with him are displaced due to retreat table losses". But in the situation mentioned above, there is no CU who could die...

So, still unsure about it, but I personally will play it so that the general is displaced - I would change the word "due" to "after"...

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: Rules:: Re: Scipio Africanus (or Hannibal) retreating with no CU's

cmontgo2 — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 15:24:31 +0000

by cmontgo2

Common sense would dictate that if the entire army is eliminated, all generals are displaced/eliminated. However, the 2nd Ed rules are pretty clear:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~gnichols/glg/Hannibal2ed.pdf

10.10 Displaced Generals

A general becomes displaced if an enemy army enters the general's space and the general is not accompanied by friendly CUs. A general also becomes displaced if all CUs accompanying the general are eliminated due to Retreat Table casualties, Retreat losses or the Naval Table. A general is not displaced if all CUs under his command are removed due to the Attrition Table, the Storm at Sea event (#60) or the Battle Casualties die roll.

If Scipio Africanus is displaced, he is eliminated.

If Hannibal is displaced he is eliminated and the Carthaginian player must remove 5 PC markers from any spaces on the map. This is in addition to any PCs losses resulting from the battle that led to Hannibal's death.

A displaced general is removed from the map and does not return to play until the next Reinforcement Phase (see 5).

It is possible that this particular rule set does not match verbatim with the 2nd Ed. rules as published, but I found this on a quick search of Google.

Chris

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: Rules:: Re: Scipio Africanus (or Hannibal) retreating with no CU's

burrie — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 14:47:58 +0000

by burrie

Funny, two answers and both are different.

On the one hand you can argue and say that the General manages to escapre by himself and doesn't have to suffer for retreat since he is alone.

On the other hand you can say that it would be in the spirit of the game that the Scipio A. gets eliminated. If he would have had 1 CU left and he would have lost that CU during retreat he would have been dead.

Interesting... Still don't know what to do. Rule 10.10 isn't very clear on this.

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: Rules:: Re: 18.3 and army size

mavo — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 09:13:56 +0000

by mavo

Peter, where did you find those restrictions? The first three are clear, but where are the rules for movement restriction during withdrawal or interception?

While I feel a bit unsure about withdrawal, I think that interception is restricted to 10 CUs, because of this rule 12.1:

Interception is a special kind of movement

And because it is a movement, it is restricted - no more than 10 CUs

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: Rules:: Re: Scipio Africanus (or Hannibal) retreating with no CU's

mavo — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 08:57:37 +0000

by mavo

Mmmmh - now this question was a really interesting one. If you look at rule 10.10, Evan is right. But somehow I feel that is now how it was meant to be. Any clarifications on this?

Note: edited for typo (see bold word above - a heavy mistake :))

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: Rules:: Re: Scipio Africanus (or Hannibal) retreating with no CU's

abbadingo — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 05:40:08 +0000

by abbadingo

burrie wrote:
Played the game for the second time today and ended up with one question. I checked the rules questions but couldn't find the answer.

Here is what happened:

Carthage with 10 CU's attacked Scipio Africanus who had 3 CU's. Scipio A. lost the battle, we rolled for attrition and we both lost 3 CU's. At that points Scipio A. had no more troops. Scipio A. now has to retreat without any CU's left. I said Scipio had to roll on the retreat table, even tough he has no more CU's, he rolled and his die result was such that he had to lose another CU. I assumed Scipio A. was killed now (he is the only Roman general that can get killed btw, and the killing occured on a retreat) but my opponent said that he couldn't be killed since he had no CU's.

Who is right? Should Scipio A. be killed after such a retreat? Or is my opponent right?

Thanks.

According to Rule 10.10, your opponent is correct. How the last CU is lost determines whether or not the General is displaced. A Battle Casualties die roll that removes the last CU does not cause displacement - the General then retreats with no CUs. In order for Scipio A. to be displaced in your situation, he would have had to have one CU left over to be lost in the retreat.

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: Rules:: Re: Scipio Africanus (or Hannibal) retreating with no CU's

agentzen — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 05:32:44 +0000

by agentzen

You are correct. The retreat table roll kills Scipio A. (or Hannibal) - as soon as he has no more troops left as a result of retreat table roll, retreat losses, or Naval Table losses, they are dead. Rule 10.10.

Thread: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: Rules:: Scipio Africanus (or Hannibal) retreating with no CU's

burrie — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 04:34:37 +0000

by burrie

Played the game for the second time today and ended up with one question. I checked the rules questions but couldn't find the answer.

Here is what happened:

Carthage with 10 CU's attacked Scipio Africanus who had 3 CU's. Scipio A. lost the battle, we rolled for attrition and we both lost 3 CU's. At that points Scipio A. had no more troops. Scipio A. now has to retreat without any CU's left. I said Scipio had to roll on the retreat table, even tough he has no more CU's, he rolled and his die result was such that he had to lose another CU. I assumed Scipio A. was killed now (he is the only Roman general that can get killed btw, and the killing occured on a retreat) but my opponent said that he couldn't be killed since he had no CU's.

Who is right? Should Scipio A. be killed after such a retreat? Or is my opponent right?

Thanks.

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: Strategy:: Re: Clarifying the point of cities

Ramidel — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 20:05:46 +0000

by Ramidel

I once sieged Neapolis as Hannibal, because we were "working at cross purposes" (Rome savaging Africa, me running wild in Italy) and I already had Capua, and because I had a Treachery Within City card -and- the Siege Train, and because I honestly preferred to lure the Roman out of Rome for the fight. But that was an unusual sitch.

File: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: Hannibal Reference sheet v1.1

bomberclaad — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 02:11:58 +0000

by bomberclaad

Hannibal Reference sheet v1.1 for Board Game: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage ]]>

New Image for Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage

bsungjong — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 12:35:06 +0000

by bsungjong

Hannibal into Sracuse

]]>

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: General:: Re: Two years later... still no generals

foxtrotsierra66 — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 02:17:54 +0000

by foxtrotsierra66

I also never received my generals. Not receiving them was bad, but the continual promises (lies) that they would be provided was what really ticked me off.

I have dialed out Valley Games. I don't even look to see what they have out.

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: Rules:: Re: 18.3 and army size

Peter White — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 01:39:06 +0000

by Peter White

Steve is correct.

The original AH 1.0 version of the rules said a proconsular army could never be bigger than a consular army in that space at any moment in time. While interesting, that was rather fussy, according to some.

The 2.0 rules adopted language that made it clear proconsular army size had no special restrictions, as long as the consular army in the same space was of at least size 5. The Valley Game rules were based on the 2.0 rules, and may reading slightly oddly to a new reader.

However, the rules as written are absolutely correct and self consistent. There is no limit on army size. An army can be of any size.

10.1 ...A General and the CUs stacked with him are collectively called an "Army."...

The relevant restrictions are on how one can move an army:
* May be no larger than 10 CUs if --
-- moved by general Activation
-- moved by Avoid battle
* May be any size if --
-- moved by Retreat
-- moved by Witdrawal
-- moved by Interception

That last one surprised me! I see no restriction on how large an intercepting army may be.

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: Rules:: Re: 18.3 and army size

Ward — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 21:24:27 +0000

by Ward

Pretty sure it just means a Proconsular army of any size (including 6-10CU) may move through a Consular army space of 5-10CU without restriction.

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: Rules:: Re: 18.3 and army size

bignickel — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 20:42:31 +0000

by bignickel

But, 18.3 says Proconsular armies can be bigger than Consular Armies. And Consular armies are 10 or less, according to the previous rule.

Unless.....

18.3 is worded backwards. What it MEANT to say was the Proconsular armies could be SMALLER than Consular Armies (which can't voluntarily be less than 5). It's my guess that when a Consular army of 2 CU (due to previous battle, perhaps) moves into a space with a Consular army of 5 or so, then then the activated army MUST stop moving (because of the 'less than 5' rule in 18.1).

However, the Proconsular army can move through a Consular army space (of possibly less than 5 CU), give up a few CU to get it to 5, and KEEP moving, even though it might have less than 5. Which a Consular Army wouldn't be able to do.

Thoughts?

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: Rules:: Re: 18.3 and army size

wilk — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 20:02:46 +0000

by wilk

bignickel wrote:

Now, according to 10.6, #1, "Then select up to 10 CUs and any number of subordinates to accompany the commanding General".

So, 18.3 seems to be saying that Proconsul armies can be greater than 10.

Theoretically you are right, but, pursuant to 10.2 you cannot move armies bigger than 10 anyway, so such proconsular army would be stuck in one place until split . That's how I see it, at least.

Thread: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: Rules:: 18.3 and army size

bignickel — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:50:04 +0000

by bignickel

Have only played this game once, two years ago, and I'm re-reading the rules for a game this weekend.

18.3 says "However, an Army led by a Proconsul is allowed to be larger than the Consular Armies and may pass through, a Consular Army containing 5 or more CUs without restrictions."

Now, according to 10.6, #1, "Then select up to 10 CUs and any number of subordinates to accompany the commanding General".

So, 18.3 seems to be saying that Proconsul armies can be greater than 10.

EDIT: ...without picking up another general's army along the way, as in 10.8. If he did picked up a consul, it would be become a Consular army; if proconsul was Scipio, or picking up Scipio, it would still be a pProconsul army

Thoughts?

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: Rules:: Re: Retreat, question for.

bignickel — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:08:45 +0000

by bignickel

Haven't played the game yet, but I'm planning to this weekend.

From my reading of 10.10, I'd have to say yes as well: if an enemy army enters ther General's space, and he's got no CU's with him, he's displaced.

There is a section on when he's not displaced, but his situation is NOT mentioned. If there's ever an official errata, or a post from Mark, that might save poor Hannibal from being killed by a RETREATING enemy army...

What an ignoble way to go out.

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: General:: Re: Two years later... still no generals

juanjoroig — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 18:33:56 +0000

by juanjoroig

Oops! I forgot to post my monthly report. As you can imagine... generals are still trying to find home.

New Image for Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage

mitservices — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:03:57 +0000

by mitservices

My son as the Romans; just before Hannibal's attempt to restore the ba...

]]>

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: Strategy:: Re: Carthage: Truce Gambit

chaosbreaker — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 22:12:30 +0000

by chaosbreaker

asgar777 wrote:
...it is particularly effective against the Roman superstack strategy. ...

Roman superstack Strategy
Placing all Roman starting combat units at Arminum or Mutina forces Hannibal to face a hard battle or mountain attrition to reach Rome.
]]>

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: Strategy:: Re: Carthage: Truce Gambit

Cathan — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 13:48:59 +0000

by Cathan

I wasn't aware of how Truce and navel movement worked either. For that alone, thanks for posting. The strategy tip is an interesting one as well!!

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: General:: Re: Versions

bigben666 — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 11:10:36 +0000

by bigben666

I bought the old version a year ago in a comicshop in Germany.

The seller found some old but shrinkwrapped games in his storage during a relocation of his store.

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: General:: Re: Versions

ColtsFan76 — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 10:42:47 +0000

by ColtsFan76

Don't know much about TtA. Memoir and H:RvC draw some obvious paralells: 2-player war game with units ordered by cards. My wife loved Memoir but was lukewarm towards Hannibal.

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: General:: Re: Versions

Mr Mjeh — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 08:05:26 +0000

by Mr Mjeh

well, i've ordered it - can't wait to subject my wife to this

I fear it might just be the one game of this we'll play - we played one game of Memoir '44 and she told me she'd play again if I made her, but it was obviously a "boys game".

I'd rather play games with her she likes.

She likes Through the Ages though - any chance she'll like this? Or are Memoir/TtA not comparable in any way?

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: General:: Re: Versions

Bubslug — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 00:36:19 +0000

by Bubslug

In my opinion even given a choice of the AH version or the VG version, I would recommend the newer (VG) edition. Valley Games did a marvellous job in reviving this classic two player CDG...

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: Strategy:: Re: Carthage: Truce Gambit

russ — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 21:17:03 +0000

by russ

Man, every time I play this game, I then read a message in the forum that tells me about a rule we didn't know about...

"Carthaginian Naval Movement is not affected by Roman Naval Supremacy during a Truce; however, Naval Movement can still be affected by Storms at Sea."

I see now why the Truce card is more useful than we thought before...!

Thanks for this article!

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: Strategy:: Re: Carthage: Truce Gambit

Peter White — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 20:41:56 +0000

by Peter White

It is a pretty devastating move, if you can pull it off.

The downside is you a giving up a bird in the hand, playing the Truce as a 2-Ops card, and banking on being dealt a Campaign card. The odds are pretty good. But one of the big advantages of playing Carthage is that you can still be reasonably effective with even poor Strategy card draws, and you are temporarily discarding that edge.

Of course, if you see Rome playing multiple reinforcement cards on Turn 1, cracking a northern roadblock is not going to be fun.

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: General:: Re: Versions

ColtsFan76 — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 10:59:11 +0000

by ColtsFan76

Not only is it the Valley Games cover and the description state it is the reprint, the original is so old you won't find it at retail anywhere.

So you can buy it and be sure it is the new edition.

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: General:: Re: Versions

Mr Mjeh — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 10:54:42 +0000

by Mr Mjeh

it would be from here:

http://www.12spiel.de/product_info.php/info/p4259_Hannibal--...

no idea if that is the valley games version though :what:

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: General:: Re: Versions

brainst0rm — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 10:44:36 +0000

by brainst0rm

If you are buying it now you should get the Valley Games version.

Thread: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: General:: Versions

Mr Mjeh — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 10:31:43 +0000

by Mr Mjeh

Looking at getting this game, but am a little worried, since it's so old, that I might be getting the "wrong" version. Are there different versions and which one would I be getting if I get it from a online store in Germany?

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: General:: Re: Two years later... still no generals

asgar777 — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 08:59:22 +0000

by asgar777

You could try insisting they send the package with a tracking number. Both US Post office and couriers such as UPS and FedEx offer this. At least then you could get some accountability (i.e. where in the chain of custody the generals were lost). Good luck!

Thread: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: Strategy:: Carthage: Truce Gambit

asgar777 — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 08:03:00 +0000

by asgar777

This is a Carthaginian gambit requiring the Truce card on Turn 1. If successful, it can give Carthage a strong start.

SUMMARY

The objective of the gambit is to get Hannibal into Southern Italy with a 10CU army, without having to cross the Alps, and without having to face any CU stack the Roman player has assembled in Arminium. In fact, it is particularly effective against the Roman superstack strategy. This is likely done without ceding control of Gallia Cisalpina or Idubeda.

The odds of having Truce on Turn one aren't great, and the odds of having additional cards necessary to effect the gambit are even lower, but the results are often so favorable to Carthage that it's worth knowing about the gambit and checking to see if you have the right cards. There have been those who have said "it's so unlikely to get the right cards that it's not even worth knowing about." I'm not going to argue with them. But I have used this gambit successfully more than once. It's also nice to know about this so you might be able to recognize it if it's being played against you.

In summary, the Carthage player will place PCs to take control of Gallia Cisalpina and Idubeda, make a feint with Hannibal towards Northern Italy, then at the very end of the turn, flip Croton and play Truce, setting Hannibal up for a 10CU sail to Croton on Turn 2.

CARD REQUIREMENTS

1. TRUCE - you must have the Truce card.

You will also need one of the following cards, in order of preference:
2a. Diplomacy (high chance of success)
2b. Adriatic Pirates (moderate chance of success)
2c. Any 3 ops card (lowest chance of success)
3. You will need a campaign card on Turn 2.
(4. A MESSENGER INTERCEPT card will further increase the chances of success, and possibly allow Hannibal to get to Lucania in Turn 1).

PROGRESSION

1. Let the Roman player go first.
2. Place PC in Taurini to take control of Gallia Cis. If you have a strong hand and are using an ops 2 or 3, you can place the extra PCs in Idubeda.
3. Continue to place PCs to take control of Idubeda. If Rome has placed PCs in Idubeda, no worries. Use your lowest ops card to move Hannibal to Dianium, drop Mago, then move north to Idubeda, dropping 1 CU in the southernmost port of Idubeda (Dertosa) and continuing north one space (Illerda?). Now you should be able to flip or isolate all Roman PCs in Idubeda except Tarraco.
4. If still empty, place PC in Tarraco and Emporiae. You may continue to feint to Norhtern Italy, but make sure you leave Hannibal in or next to a friendly Port space. For the strongest feint, you could PC Nice early or have Hannibal end in Nice.

5a. WITH DIPLOMACY: flip Croton on your second to last card play, then play Truce as an event on your last card play.

5b-c. WITH ADRIATIC Pirates or an OPS 3 card: On your third to last card play, move Mago to Croton via New Carthage, picking up 1 CU. Adriatic Pirates guarantees you make it, but with a regular Ops 3 your chance of making it is 67% (unless you have played Philip of Macedon or Syracuse, which increases your chances). Then use the next card to flip Croton, then play Truce. Recognize that if Longus has not moved north to join P Scipio, there is a chance the Gambit will be countered; if Rome leaves any CU in Croton at the end of the turn (or flips it back), the gambit has been countered and you can simply continue towards Northern Italy with Hannibal. Note than you probably want Mago in Carthage anyway, so if he's killed, really you've only lost 1 CU for the chance to execute the gambit.

6. You should end your turn with control of both Idubeda and Gallia Cisalpina, and make sure Hannibal is either in or adjacent to a friendly Port space.

7. On Turn two, Rome cannot break the Truce (campaign cards do not break Truce) until Carthage has a chance to act. If you have a Campaign card, sail Hannibal for Croton under Truce (no Naval combat roll) and get ready to take over Southern Italy. If you don't get a campaign card, going through with the gambit with a regular Ops 3 card is risky, as you will only land with 5CU. Perhaps with Bruttium recruits and/or another ops 3 card with Mago standing by to sail with another 5CU (assumes you had Diplomacy on first turn) you might want to still consider it. But with a strong or above average Roman consul draw, this could end badly for Hannibal.

(8. If you drew MESSENGER INTERCEPT in your opening hand as well, you can ensure the Roman player cannot react at all. Just wait until he is out of cards to flip Croton - you should have 3 card plays after his last play).

The more the Rome player commits to setting up a stack in Arminium or Mutina, the better. It may take a few card plays for him to redeploy his forces south. Or better yet, he may first go for securing Gallia Cis, giving you time to secure both Apulia and Lucania.

Take advantage of any foolish rash moves to oppose you once you've landed (i.e. attacking any Roman army except Marcellus or Fabius with 10CU -- and maybe even those if you have the right cards to convert the southern provinces quickly, or have an ally deserts card).

As mentioned earlier, getting one of the right card combos for the Truce gambit isn't easy, but if you play enough games, you should see the right hand soon enough. Watch for it! If the Rome player hasn't seen it before, it should be an enjoyable turn for Carthage and a strong start to the game.

On a side note, many Hannibal players forget about sailing under Truce in general -- take advantage of this when you're playing Carthage, even if you're not doing the Turn 1 Truce gambit. Save Truce for the end of a Turn when you need to get reinforcements to S. Italy later in the game, or to get to Sicily via a converted Syracuse or Mutin's Numidians, etc.

Hope you're able to test it out sometime. Enjoy!

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: General:: Re: Tutorial Video

NojNosredna — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 19:28:27 +0000

by NojNosredna

Thank heavens. Very helpful.

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: General:: Re: Two years later... still no generals

kiwifirst — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 10:39:10 +0000

by kiwifirst

I had completely the opposite service. After about 3 months not receiving my game I contacted Valley to see where it was. It turned out that during my pre-order I had moved changed credit card and email. They had still honored my pre-order and sent me the game.
Then when I contacted them to ask if I would get the miniatures they said I could and I received them in about 2 weeks.

Just thought I'd add my experiences, I know it doesnt make it any easier for you.

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: Rules:: Re: Truces and Campaigns

HMossmanMD — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 17:56:59 +0000

by HMossmanMD

Your CU's may stay on a space you have under seige but you cannot roll on the seige table during a Truce with any card play even the Camapign cards. The Truce first has to be broken by play of one of the appropriate cards before yu can prosecute a seige on the seige table.

File: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: Just Another Hannibal - Rome vs. Carthage Player Aid v1.0

decumanusmaximus — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 06:05:31 +0000

by decumanusmaximus

Just Another Hannibal - Rome vs. Carthage Player Aid v1.0 for Board Game: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage ]]>

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: General:: Re: Replacement Generals

Cantatta — Sat, 30 May 2009 02:51:13 +0000

by Cantatta

I see what you mean. Painting is always an option, even if all you did was to spray-paint one side's generals a different, solid color. I'm not motivated enough to care either way, myself, just happy to have more toy soldiers!

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: General:: Re: Replacement Generals

jacksonriker — Fri, 29 May 2009 16:35:56 +0000

by jacksonriker

Oh, believe me, I was not complaining. Just saying that Grey plastic is Not as good as colorful counters.

Same issue w/Battlelore imo.

I think Battle Cry did it right: use different colored plastics.

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: General:: Re: Replacement Generals

Macabee — Fri, 29 May 2009 16:29:24 +0000

by Macabee

Cantatta wrote:
What is the problem with the plastic generals now?! While needing a bit of glue out of the packaging, they are otherwise very cool... and much more importantly, they were very much FREE, at least for the pre-order crowd (of which I am a part)!!

Never look a gift-horse in the mouth...

erm, I know this is a Roman era game, but if you'd learn from the Trojan war, you really should look a gift horse in the mouth, at least, before you bring it into the city...

:p

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: General:: Re: Replacement Generals

Cantatta — Fri, 29 May 2009 14:54:08 +0000

by Cantatta

What is the problem with the plastic generals now?! While needing a bit of glue out of the packaging, they are otherwise very cool... and much more importantly, they were very much FREE, at least for the pre-order crowd (of which I am a part)!!

Never look a gift-horse in the mouth...

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: General:: Re: Replacement Generals

jacksonriker — Fri, 29 May 2009 14:22:06 +0000

by jacksonriker

I still have my originals in the package unopened.

To me, the whole thing was a Non-Event.

Once I saw that they were going to be Grey plastic and not the metal type, I decided to simply use the lovely cardboard ones.

I think VG should have walked away from the plastic general project.

The game doesn't need them, as the cardboard ones are terrific.

Seriously, name a cardboard counter in any of your games that is nicer than say Scipio Africanus?

(I will answer my question by pointing to Montcalm in Wilderness War, or Washington in We the People... but those are basically the same as Scipio)

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: General:: Re: Replacement Generals

kuhrusty — Fri, 29 May 2009 07:21:30 +0000

by kuhrusty

I wish they would just refund whatever money you feel you're owed for the generals, so that their time could be spent on finishing Republic of Rome instead of "very many and very recent emails" with you.

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: General:: Re: Replacement Generals

LordJesse — Thu, 28 May 2009 21:43:00 +0000

by LordJesse

I received my replacements a couple months ago. They were the old-style ones, but I still got them.

Thread: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: General:: Replacement Generals

Reedo — Thu, 28 May 2009 19:48:49 +0000

by Reedo

Just FYI...

I have had very many and very recent emails with Torben of Valley Games.

The News:

According to Torben, VGs has absolutely NO timeline for replacing our generals, none. They are (supposedly) working with a new minis company, but they have NONE to send you.

Any promises of your minis being "in the mail" or "on their way" are false.

Just thought you should know...

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: General:: Re: Two years later... still no generals

nybba — Sat, 23 May 2009 19:03:57 +0000

by nybba

No to me Valley Games are dead...

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: General:: Re: Two years later... still no generals

Pieter-Jan D. — Sat, 23 May 2009 18:42:46 +0000

by Pieter-Jan D.

Heh. I thought I was the only one who hadn't received them yet...

I don't think I ever will though.

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: General:: Re: Two years later... still no generals

nybba — Fri, 22 May 2009 13:15:59 +0000

by nybba

I sent a Mail about missing components for Supernova, and missing Generals and got a reply on 28 april and I still have nothing in the mail.

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: General:: Re: Two years later... still no generals

juanjoroig — Fri, 22 May 2009 12:50:12 +0000

by juanjoroig

The last email from VG was april 22th. Today, one month later, the generals are still sailing the sea...

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: Rules:: Re: Winter Attrition

decumanusmaximus — Fri, 15 May 2009 17:06:29 +0000

by decumanusmaximus

Bingo! That's what I get for not reading ahead. Best regards.

Reply: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: Rules:: Re: Winter Attrition

mavo — Fri, 15 May 2009 16:45:58 +0000

by mavo

Quote from the rules

The owning player makes a die roll for each applicable
occurrence and consults the Attrition Table. The owning player
cross-references the size of his force in the space with the die
roll to determine the number of CUs eliminated. Generals are
never affected by attrition (even if attrition eliminates the last
CU accompanying that general)

So, yes, you roll the attrition for each space that is subject to winter attrition.

Thread: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage:: Rules:: Winter Attrition

decumanusmaximus — Fri, 15 May 2009 16:20:45 +0000

by decumanusmaximus

Just trying to understand the rules at this point and I couldn't find a post on this particular question. Do you roll once on the Attrition Table (for Winter Attrition) and then apply that result to all CUs (as applicable) or do you roll separately for each space (as applicable) and apply the result for that space only. Thanks for your help in advance.