The (Unofficial) Great Battles of History
Gerry Germond
26 Jun 00
Gerry sent these notes in as submissions for the FAQ, but since these are his club's interpretations rather than pronouncements from on high I've posted them here as a separate article. DaveT
7.1. Facing If a "heavy" (one with a + on the Shock Superiority
Chart) unit changes facing (only) to place a unit formerly on its
flank in its front, would the units have to make pre-Shock TQ checks?
We figure since that no hex-to-hex movement took place, even though
the unit spent MP(s) to change facing, the checks need not be made, as
the units were already adjacent and no big rush is being made. This
resembles more the hurly-burly of close combat than an organized
charge.
7.16. Reaction Facing Change If the unit attempting a change
of facing routs, may the attacking unit keep on moving?
We say yes, unless blocked by ZOCs.
Rule 7.16 should be adaptable to SPQR as well.
8.38. Despite what the FAQ says, I really believe that advancing after combat comes AFTER the Collapse phase (unless as a result of pre-shock TQ checks). It's in the Collapse phase that you find out who's routing! Advancing after combat should occur hand-in-glove with checking for cavalry pursuit, if used. So the order would be (1) determine the immediate routs as a result of combat, (2) roll for those within one point of reaching automatic rout and rout those that fail, (3) resolve cavalry pursuit die rolls and conduct them and all advances after combat. Some folks may wish to conduct advance after combat after the automatic routs and before rolling for those within one cohesion point of routing, but I prefer this version because, after all, if units fail their roll and rout, it was, in effect, your units that routed them and you should be able to advance into their vacated hex.
8.38 Another issue we uncovered is simultaneous rout. If one of your units is throwing the only ZOC onto an enemy's only retreat path, and both your unit and the enemy are forced to rout (but others of your units, involved in the same attack, do not), does your unit's retreat uncover the other unit's retreat path? Mark Herman says yes and this makes sense, all of this being done simultaneously. Of course chariots would vanish. Moral of the story is, if you send a unit to make a daring flank attack, meaning you are probably pulling it out of the safety of its own line to do so, it'd best be in good shape when you do it!
8.45 When we say all ratings are reduced, do we also mean the unprinted ones (not on the counter) such as movement? So a severely wounded leader with a consequential movement allowance of 7 would not be able to avoid a unit with a movement factor of 8? And should that detract from Alexander's elite initiative die roll? I'm of the opinion that it should be so and my gaming group agrees about the elite die roll deduction but not the ability to conduct orderly withdrawal (but Alexander was in the thick of it when this question came up and it didn't seem fair to impose it at that time). I think if you're wounded, everything you try to do suffers and this will discourage players from throwing leaders pell-mell into every situation. These leaders were bold, but not stupid. We also believe the elite die-roll could be applied to Pyrrhus and Hannibal in SPQR as well.
9.2. Chariots Should chariots absorb cohesion point penalties
if they change facing as a result of advance after combat?
We say yes. The designers say chariots suck, and this will reinforce this.
10.24 Looks like a routed unit A that routs through
another routed unit B would cause routed unit B's elimination because
it gets another TQ hit, right?
We believe so.