Five Tribes Five Tribes

Forum

Suche
Forum » BattleLore - English » question about battle back
Anzeigen: Heutige Nachrichten 
  
VerfasserThema
Boogy
Junior Member

Nachrichten: 5
Registriert:
June 2007
question about battle back Tue, 12 June 2007 21:47
Is it possible to battle back if oponent hasn't rolled a black flag?
      
GunterVS
Junior Member

Nachrichten: 7
Registriert:
May 2007
Re:question about battle back Tue, 12 June 2007 21:57
Well, as long as you don't vacate the hex you're standing on, wich won't happen if your opponent rolls a black flag you're able to battle back when your morale is bold. So when supported by 2 or more adjacent units, standing on a bridge, being a dwarve, ...
So, yes it is possible if you meet the requirements (=bold)

[Aktualisiert am: Tue, 12 June 2007 21:57]

      
DarkPadawan
Senior Member
Cadet

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 599
Registriert:
November 2006
Re:question about battle back Tue, 12 June 2007 22:00
Yes it is. Battling back is an action entitled to units who are:

- Bold (from support, terrain features, racial traits, etc.)
and
- did not vacate their hex after being attacked in melee.

If both conditions apply, the unit may battle back. There is no need to roll a black flag.

Dark.
      
yangtze
DoW Content Provider
Major

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 1842
Registriert:
July 2005
Re:question about battle back Tue, 12 June 2007 22:33
What about if the unit is forced to retreat by the cavalry's first attack? If pursued and attacked again by the cavalry, and the defender is bold, can it battle back the second time? I'm sure I've seen this in the rules somewhere and now I can't find it again.
      
The New Romance
Senior Member
Armor Specialist

Nachrichten: 122
Registriert:
March 2007
Re:question about battle back Tue, 12 June 2007 22:58
I think if the defender is bold and holds its ground against the second attack, it may then battle back against the cavalry (one time). But don't ask me about the rules page...
      
tom-le-termite
Senior Member

Nachrichten: 1795
Registriert:
May 2003
Re:question about battle back Tue, 12 June 2007 23:23
as far as i remember, if a unit retreated once during the turn, it looses the capacity to battle back for entire the turn.
      
ColtsFan76
Senior Member

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 3326
Registriert:
February 2006
Re:question about battle back Tue, 12 June 2007 23:59
tom-le-termite wrote on Tue, 12 June 2007 16:23

as far as i remember, if a unit retreated once during the turn, it looses the capacity to battle back for entire the turn.

Tom is correct. Once a unit retreats, it can never battle back during that same battle. Even if it retreats to another bold position. This is clearly spelled out in the rules - I just don't have them in front of me to cite a page number.

But this is only for the present battle (and any subsequent follow-on actions). If another unit attacks the unit that just retreated, bold status is again determined and the potential for battlebacks is available again.
      
yangtze
DoW Content Provider
Major

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 1842
Registriert:
July 2005
Re:question about battle back Wed, 13 June 2007 16:52
Yes I thought so. It's one of those rules that doesn't appear where you think it should in the rulebook, and consequently it's a bit of a hunt to find it.
      
toddrew
Senior Member
Cadet

Nachrichten: 830
Registriert:
October 2006
Re:question about battle back Wed, 13 June 2007 17:02
While I am certain about the "no bb against follow-up actions once a unit vacates its original hex", the way I've been playing, but can't remember why, is that that same unit, if retreating to a bold position, may ignore the appropriate amount of flags, but, of course, not bb. Isn't that the case?
      
sdafilli
Senior Member

Nachrichten: 206
Registriert:
April 2007
Re:question about battle back Wed, 13 June 2007 17:09
toddrew wrote on Thu, 14 June 2007 00:32

While I am certain about the "no bb against follow-up actions once a unit vacates its original hex", the way I've been playing, but can't remember why, is that that same unit, if retreating to a bold position, may ignore the appropriate amount of flags, but, of course, not bb. Isn't that the case?



Yes, that is the case. Bold=ignoring flags. The battleback is a bonus for bold units that haven't retreated.

[Aktualisiert am: Wed, 13 June 2007 17:09]

      
ColtsFan76
Senior Member

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 3326
Registriert:
February 2006
Re:question about battle back Wed, 13 June 2007 17:28
toddrew wrote on Wed, 13 June 2007 10:02

While I am certain about the "no bb against follow-up actions once a unit vacates its original hex", the way I've been playing, but can't remember why, is that that same unit, if retreating to a bold position, may ignore the appropriate amount of flags, but, of course, not bb. Isn't that the case?

I have never actually had this happen so I don't know. Once a unit is "broken" it seems according to the rules that only the battleback is effected.

So I think it is safe to assume that a broken unit being pursued by an attacker may continue to ignore flags in the follow-on attack if it once again meets bold status. The rules are clear on the battle back but silent on the flags. So C&C logic means the simplest soultion is the correct one: flags can be ignored. BattleLore logic, on the other hand, is something entirely different - requiring the use of a crystal ball and unfathomble Lore tokens to cast the decipher spell.
      
sdafilli
Senior Member

Nachrichten: 206
Registriert:
April 2007
Re:question about battle back Wed, 13 June 2007 18:07
sdafilli wrote on Thu, 14 June 2007 00:39

toddrew wrote on Thu, 14 June 2007 00:32

While I am certain about the "no bb against follow-up actions once a unit vacates its original hex", the way I've been playing, but can't remember why, is that that same unit, if retreating to a bold position, may ignore the appropriate amount of flags, but, of course, not bb. Isn't that the case?



Yes, that is the case. Bold=ignoring flags. The battleback is a bonus for bold units that haven't retreated.


Actually, re-reading the rules again more carefully, I would have to conclude that NO, a retreated bold unit can no longer ignore flags.

p30 BATTLE BACK
"In melee combat, any defending unit that may ignore a flag (ie any unit whose morale is Bold) at the time of the attack is entitled to battle back."

Given a bonus attack is a separate attack (but part of same combat), and defending unit already retreated, it is no longer bold and therefore loses it's ability to ignore flags.

p30 SUPPORT (clarifies things even better)
Talks about a supported unit gaining bold status and as such, "the unit gains the ability to ignore one flag rolled against it; it may also battle back against its attacker in Mellee if it survives the initial attack and holds it's ground. This moral boost, and its benefits, remains as long as the unit holds its ground and continues to receive support."

"benefits" appears to imply not just the battle back, but also the benefit of ignoring flags.

Granted that this only talks in relation to a non-bold unit gaining bold status through support, and the implications of losing this status if it doesn't hold ground. But I think, in reading both these topics, you could safely argue that this would also apply to any unit that is either inheritently bold (ie dwarves), or gain bold status through other means (ie lore cards, landmarks, etc).

[Aktualisiert am: Wed, 13 June 2007 18:19]

      
toddrew
Senior Member
Cadet

Nachrichten: 830
Registriert:
October 2006
Re:question about battle back Wed, 13 June 2007 18:15
sdafilli wrote on Wed, 13 June 2007 09:07

Actually, re-reading the rules again more carefully, I would have to conclude that NO, a retreated bold unit can no longer ignore flags.

p30 BATTLE BACK
"In melee combat, any defending unit that may ignore a flag (ie any unit whose morale is Bold) at the time of the attack is entitled to battle back."

Given a bonus attack is a separate attack (but part of same combat), and defending unit already retreated, it is no longer bold and therefore loses it's ability to ignore flags.

p30 SUPPORT (clarifies things even better)
Talks about a supported unit gaining bold status and as such, "the unit gains the ability to ignore one flag rolled against it; it may also battle back against its attacker in Mellee if it survives the initial attack and holds it's ground. This moral boost, and its benefits, remains as long as the unit holds its ground and continues to receive support."

"benefits" appears to imply not just the battle back, but also the benefit of ignoring flags.

Granted that this only talks in relation to a non-bold unit gaining bold status through support, and the implications of losing this status if it doesn't hold ground. But I think, in reading both these topics, you could safely argue that this would also apply to any unit that is either inheritently bold (ie dwarves), or gain bold status through other means (ie lore cards, landmarks, etc).


There is another thread about this somewhere here, I'll take a gander, but I think the resolution was that a unit which retreats into a bold position becomes bold, but, due to the rule about no longer being eligible for bb's once retreating during a battle, no longer receives that benefit, though it does retain (er, regain, better said I suppose) the benefit of ignoring flags.

Much like a unit may be bold and frightened at the same time, a unit may be bold and unable to battle back, was my understanding. Unlike bold being equivalent to ability to ignore flags, bold is just a condition of being able to battle back - again, just my understanding and if incorrectly so, happy to be corrected.

O, and sdafilli, your time-stamping from the future is really messing with my mind Laughing

[Aktualisiert am: Wed, 13 June 2007 18:32]

      
yangtze
DoW Content Provider
Major

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 1842
Registriert:
July 2005
Re:question about battle back Wed, 13 June 2007 18:22
Yes, I think this one probably needs official clarification.

You can argue several ways on this looking at the rules. However, if a retreating unit is no longer considered bold then it shouldn't be able to ignore flags.
      
sdafilli
Senior Member

Nachrichten: 206
Registriert:
April 2007
Re:question about battle back Wed, 13 June 2007 18:26
toddrew wrote on Thu, 14 June 2007 01:45

sdafilli wrote on Wed, 13 June 2007 09:07

Actually, re-reading the rules again more carefully, I would have to conclude that NO, a retreated bold unit can no longer ignore flags.

p30 BATTLE BACK
"In melee combat, any defending unit that may ignore a flag (ie any unit whose morale is Bold) at the time of the attack is entitled to battle back."

Given a bonus attack is a separate attack (but part of same combat), and defending unit already retreated, it is no longer bold and therefore loses it's ability to ignore flags.

p30 SUPPORT (clarifies things even better)
Talks about a supported unit gaining bold status and as such, "the unit gains the ability to ignore one flag rolled against it; it may also battle back against its attacker in Mellee if it survives the initial attack and holds it's ground. This moral boost, and its benefits, remains as long as the unit holds its ground and continues to receive support."

"benefits" appears to imply not just the battle back, but also the benefit of ignoring flags.

Granted that this only talks in relation to a non-bold unit gaining bold status through support, and the implications of losing this status if it doesn't hold ground. But I think, in reading both these topics, you could safely argue that this would also apply to any unit that is either inheritently bold (ie dwarves), or gain bold status through other means (ie lore cards, landmarks, etc).


There is another thread about this somewhere here, I'll take a gander, but I think the resolution was that a unit which retreats into a bold position becomes bold, but, due to the rule about no longer being eligible for bb's once retreating during a battle, no longer receives that benefit, though it does retain (er, regain, better said I suppose) the benefit of ignoring flags.

Much like a unit may be bold and frightened at the same time, a unit may be bold and unable to battle back, was my understanding. Unlike bold being equivalent to ability to ignore flags, bold is just a condition of being able to battle back - again, just my understanding and if incorrectly so, happy to be corrected.



I think I've come across something like that too Todd. The problem with that though becomes that, it is possible to be able to ignore flags (and therefore bold) and NOT be able to battleback. Which goes against the argument used in regards to the "fearless" and "Mists of (or Divine- I cant remember which Wink ) Terror, which argues that because they can now ignore flags, they automatically become Bold and therefore able to battleback.

I see some inconsistency here. Sometimes a unit can ignore flags (and therefore bold) and can battleback, and sometimes it can't. My argument with these cards is that the defending unit should ONLY be able to battleback if a flag is ACTUALLY rolled and unit choese not to retreat. (cause unit is not bold, and only becomes bold if a flag THAT IS ACTUALLY ROLLED, is ignored).

[Aktualisiert am: Wed, 13 June 2007 18:28]

      
toddrew
Senior Member
Cadet

Nachrichten: 830
Registriert:
October 2006
Re:question about battle back Wed, 13 June 2007 18:39
sdafilli wrote on Wed, 13 June 2007 09:26


I see some inconsistency here. Sometimes a unit can ignore flags (and therefore bold) and can battleback, and sometimes it can't. My argument with these cards is that the defending unit should ONLY be able to battleback if a flag is ACTUALLY rolled and unit choese not to retreat. (cause unit is not bold, and only becomes bold if a flag THAT IS ACTUALLY ROLLED, is ignored).



No inconsistency if bold is just a condition of being able to battle back - which, I believe, it is. In order for a unit to be eligible to bb, it must both be bold and, also, not vacate its hex. So, not like being able to ignore flags, which is tied exclusively to boldness.

EDIT: and, I am well aware of your agenda here - to invalidate many many crushing defeats Laughing (that comment is taken in good natured fun, no?)

[Aktualisiert am: Wed, 13 June 2007 18:41]

      
sdafilli
Senior Member

Nachrichten: 206
Registriert:
April 2007
Re:question about battle back Wed, 13 June 2007 18:56
toddrew wrote on Thu, 14 June 2007 02:09

sdafilli wrote on Wed, 13 June 2007 09:26


I see some inconsistency here. Sometimes a unit can ignore flags (and therefore bold) and can battleback, and sometimes it can't. My argument with these cards is that the defending unit should ONLY be able to battleback if a flag is ACTUALLY rolled and unit choese not to retreat. (cause unit is not bold, and only becomes bold if a flag THAT IS ACTUALLY ROLLED, is ignored).



No inconsistency if bold is just a condition of being able to battle back - which, I believe, it is. In order for a unit to be eligible to bb, it must both be bold and, also, not vacate its hex. So, not like being able to ignore flags, which is tied exclusively to boldness.

EDIT: and, I am well aware of your agenda here - to invalidate many many crushing defeats Laughing (that comment is taken in good natured fun, no?)


lol lol I'm trying my best to salvage some dignity from those losses Laughing

But seriously, from what you saying then (i'll do this mathematically using the definition of equality Wink ):

bold=ignoring flags= battle back (and vice versa in any order)

we know that bold=ignoring flags (and vice versa- rules + Eric said so too)

My argument though lies in that bold CAN NOT be a condition of battling back only, but rather battling back is a condition of being bold AND not vacating its ground.

ie bold NOT EQUAL to battle back (and vice versa). If that WAS the case then if a retreating unit retreats into support and is still bold AND it can ignore flags, then it should also be able to battle back- which we know it can't according to the rules.

(hence also, ignoring flags NOT EQUAL to battle back - and vice versa)

[Aktualisiert am: Wed, 13 June 2007 18:59]

      
toddrew
Senior Member
Cadet

Nachrichten: 830
Registriert:
October 2006
Re:question about battle back Wed, 13 June 2007 18:56
ColtsFan76 wrote on Wed, 13 June 2007 08:28


I have never actually had this happen so I don't know. Once a unit is "broken" it seems according to the rules that only the battleback is effected.


I incorporate this strategy occasionally when I make a coordinated attack, but in order to maximize the number of attacking rolls I can dole out, must leave a unit unsupported. I try to arrange the attackers so that one will be able to gain ground and complete a triangle at some point during the battling, but also have a contengency plan whereby if the assault is unsuccessful hopefully a bb will produce a flag and allow the unemboldened unit to retreat back into a bold position. The second contingency plan is that if open to an attack from a cav, the unit will be able to retreat back into a bold position after the first attack. Now, I know the unit in question will not be able to bb, but, if that unit is also unable to ignore a flag, that flag may also result in a hit. So, as obscure as the situation may seem, it happens enough that I'd care to know if I should knock that out of the repertoire Very Happy

Quote:

So C&C logic means the simplest soultion is the correct one: flags can be ignored. BattleLore logic, on the other hand, is something entirely different - requiring the use of a crystal ball and unfathomble Lore tokens to cast the decipher spell.


Laughing

[Aktualisiert am: Wed, 13 June 2007 19:09]

      
toddrew
Senior Member
Cadet

Nachrichten: 830
Registriert:
October 2006
Re:question about battle back Wed, 13 June 2007 19:03
sdafilli wrote on Wed, 13 June 2007 09:56

But seriously, from what you saying then (i'll do this mathematically using the definition of equality Wink ):

bold=ignoring flags= battle back (and vice versa in any order)

we know that bold=ignoring flags (and vice versa- rules + Eric said so too)

My argument though lies in that bold CAN NOT be a condition of battling back only, but rather battling back is a condition of being bold AND not vacating its ground.

ie bold NOT EQUAL to battle back (and vice versa). If that was the case then if a retreating unit retreats into support and is still bold AND it can ignore flags, then it should also be able to battle back- which we know it can't according to the rules.

(hence also, ignoring flags NOT EQUAL to battle back - and vice versa)



Alright, Mr R. Herring - bold is equivalent to ignoring flags (i.e. able to ignore 1 rolled flag per subscript (superscript?) of boldness, which is why I love that devestating Fearless card - bold infinity Very Happy )

but, bold is not equivalent to ability to battle back, just a condition. Otherwise Dwarven units would always battle back, even when forced to retreat and subject to a follow up bonus attack.

[Aktualisiert am: Wed, 13 June 2007 19:04]

      
sdafilli
Senior Member

Nachrichten: 206
Registriert:
April 2007
Re:question about battle back Wed, 13 June 2007 19:23
Therefore in regards to the initial thread, I conclude that:

Always remember that bold=ignoring flags and
ignoring flags=bold

battle back= bold AND stay put (ie ignore flags)

Therefore, a defending unit that's retreated into support is still Bold (ie loses original bold status and it's "benefits", but regains this bold status again, with its "benefits" cause its supported) and therefore can ignore flags. But since bonus attack is part of same combat, and at start of this NEW attack, it has already vactated its original hex, it doesn't meet the conditions to battle back (and hence loses this "benefit").

NB: "benefits" continuously quoted in reference to it's use in rules regarding SUPPORT on p30

As for those, "fearless" (and the likes) cards, I think you can now apply this logic to them too.... and yes, I finally feel relieved (and reluctant Wink ) to agree/submit that those cards make units bold and allow for battlebacks provided unit hasn't moved during each same combat. Cool

[Aktualisiert am: Wed, 13 June 2007 19:24]

      
toddrew
Senior Member
Cadet

Nachrichten: 830
Registriert:
October 2006
Re:question about battle back Wed, 13 June 2007 19:33
sdafilli wrote on Wed, 13 June 2007 10:23



Therefore, a defending unit that's retreated into support is still Bold (ie loses original bold status and it's "benefits", but regains this bold status again, with its "benefits" cause its supported) and therefore can ignore flags. But since bonus attack is part of same combat, and at start of this NEW attack, it has already vactated its original hex, it doesn't meet the conditions to battle back (and hence loses this "benefit").




Well said - that's what I was trying to get across. But, still would like to hear some "official" confirmation that that is in fact the correct interpretation. I would be surprised if it wasn't, but certainly not flabbergasted Wink

Quote:


As for those, "fearless" (and the likes) cards, I think you can now apply this logic to them too.... and yes, I finally feel relieved (and reluctant Wink ) to agree/submit that those cards make units bold and allow for battlebacks provided unit hasn't moved during each same combat. Cool


The sooner you embrace those cards, the better Smile And, actually, mass shield has displaced fearless as my lore card of choice now. I've gotten that card off in some tight spots that have completely turned games around. Fearless is probably still more frequent due to it's cost and situations, but a properly played mass shield is a thing of beauty. For all intensive purposes it yields a cc as useless (and sometimes a command phase lore card too), the wise opponent typically foregoing any attacks that turn.

[Aktualisiert am: Wed, 13 June 2007 19:33]

      
ColtsFan76
Senior Member

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 3326
Registriert:
February 2006
Re:question about battle back Wed, 13 June 2007 19:44
Wow there was a lot of conversation on this thread since I went to lunch. I quickly scanned it so I am probably repeating something here.

However, "ignore a flag" and "bold" are interchangeable. They mean the same thing. Richard and/or Eric clarified this already.

The rules address only battlebacks. Once a unit breaks and runs, it no longer can battle back the rest of this particular battle. But a Dwarve continues to be bold by his nature even though he happened to run after the first attack.

So it seems by that logic (again, not necessarily BL logic), that a unit can continue to ignore flags during follow-on actions. The only thing that the rules preclude is battling back. Battling back is not a condition of bold, it is a result of it. So lacking battle back does not negate the bold status.

Eric? You out there?
      
yangtze
DoW Content Provider
Major

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 1842
Registriert:
July 2005
Re:question about battle back Wed, 13 June 2007 20:13
Sounds like the four of us have been playing it the same way, which is reassuring. We just need confirmation that a retreating unit forfeits it's right to battleback against a successful cavalry attacker if that cavalry attacks it again in the pursuit, but it can still be bold (i.e. ignore a flag) if supported (or dwarven, etc.) at the time of the second attack.
      
tom-le-termite
Senior Member

Nachrichten: 1795
Registriert:
May 2003
Re:question about battle back Wed, 13 June 2007 21:13
well. now i am confused...

I took the rule "loose the possibility to battle back if retreated this round" with no exception. dwarf, newly supported or whatever conditions doesn't give you a bold condition if you have already retreated this round.

therefore, a creature does not battle back on a pursuit attack from a cavalery (if the creature was the original target)...

[Aktualisiert am: Wed, 13 June 2007 21:14]

      
toddrew
Senior Member
Cadet

Nachrichten: 830
Registriert:
October 2006
Re:question about battle back Wed, 13 June 2007 21:32
tom-le-termite wrote on Wed, 13 June 2007 12:13

well. now i am confused...

I took the rule "loose the possibility to battle back if retreated this round" with no exception. dwarf, newly supported or whatever conditions doesn't give you a bold condition if you have already retreated this round.

therefore, a creature does not battle back on a pursuit attack from a cavalery (if the creature was the original target)...


Don't be too confused, everyone agrees with that.

But, the creature would, nay, must, ignore the first flag rolled on that subsequent bonus attack.

[Aktualisiert am: Wed, 13 June 2007 21:33]

      
Xalthon
Junior Member

Nachrichten: 4
Registriert:
June 2007
Re:question about battle back Wed, 13 June 2007 22:54
Hi, guys,

I don't want to be difficult, but I do not see how the quoted rule from p30 leaves much room for interpretation:

BATTLE BACK
"In melee combat, any defending unit that may ignore a flag (ie any unit whose morale is Bold) at the time of the attack is entitled to battle back."


With this being the relevant rule, it seems clear that a unit who does retreat can still battle back on a follow up attack if they are bold at the time of that follow up attack. As the other poster even acknowleges that a follow up attack is a separate attack and not a mere continuation of the initial one. For example, the calvary is not forced to attack that retreating unit -- he can attack a completely different unit.

The rule states that you only have to be Bold at the time of the attack. As long as you are still in the same hex where you were attacked (whether or not a follow up attack) you should be able to battle back.

What other rules are you guys looking at?

Furthermore, just from an intuitive viewpoint, doesn't it make sense that Bold and battleback status only be checked when the defender is actually attacked (and not earlier in the turn.

Bottom line is that I haven't seen anything to make me think the game intended to create this special situation where a unit is supported, i.e. bold, and cannot battleback. This is opposite all the rulings we have gotten from the Battlelore cards.

If I am missing some key point, please fill me in.

      
toddrew
Senior Member
Cadet

Nachrichten: 830
Registriert:
October 2006
Re:question about battle back Thu, 14 June 2007 00:31
Xalthon wrote on Wed, 13 June 2007 13:54

If I am missing some key point, please fill me in.




Here's the part about not being able to battle back during the current battle (which includes follow on actions) when forced off of the original hex:

rulebook, p.31


If the defending unit is forced off its hex, for any reason, during the initial Melee attack, its opportunity to battle back during the battle is lost, even if the unit falls back into another supported position once its retreat is completed.


It took me awhile to put all the pieces together, and I'm still not sure about them all Smile Trampling creatures, for example...
      
eric
-= Crew =-
Advanced Combat Training

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 3196
Registriert:
October 2002
Re:question about battle back Thu, 14 June 2007 00:42
To answer the question, which I think is "what happens when a cavalry makes a bonus attack on a unit that has just retreated into a supported position?"

1. Per the rules p31, left column "If the defending unit is forced off its hex, for any reason, during the initial Melee attack, its opportunity to battle back during this battle is lost, even if the unit falls back into another supported position once its retreat is completed." So yes, the retreating unit is indeed unable to battle back against the cav making the bonus attack.

The retreating unit will, however, be able to battle back against another attacking unit, later in the turn (but that is a different battle, not part of the same battle, unlike the bonus attack which was a follow-up action).

2. Being able to battle back is indeed conditionned on being bold and NOT vacating the hex you stand on, not just on being bold. So while the retreating unit now supported cannot battle the cavalry back during the cavalry's bonus attack, it is still Bold and able to ignore a flag if it so chooses, during this bonus attack.

3. In the case of the Fearless card specifically, being able to ignore all flags is equivalent to being able to battle back, but that is because ALL flags can be ignored, which guarantees that your unit won't vacate the hex unless you want her to.

To sum things up, being bold and being able to ignore a flag are equivalent; but being able to battle back isn't equivalent to being bold; being bold is just one of the two pre-requisites to being able to battle back; you must also not vacate the hex.
      
ColtsFan76
Senior Member

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 3326
Registriert:
February 2006
Re:question about battle back Thu, 14 June 2007 01:54
Yay! I finally got one right!
      
Xalthon
Junior Member

Nachrichten: 4
Registriert:
June 2007
Re:question about battle back Thu, 14 June 2007 04:41
So does that retreating unit (that retreats to a supported position) still ignore the first flag or not?
      
sdafilli
Senior Member

Nachrichten: 206
Registriert:
April 2007
Re:question about battle back Thu, 14 June 2007 04:45
Xalthon wrote on Thu, 14 June 2007 12:11

So does that retreating unit (that retreats to a supported position) still ignore the first flag or not?


yes (2 flags if dwarve, etc)
      
Xalthon
Junior Member

Nachrichten: 4
Registriert:
June 2007
Re:question about battle back Thu, 14 June 2007 05:27
Thank you, Eric, for posting the relevant pg. 31 rule.

I realize that I am outnumbered, including Eric from DoW, but I don't want to give in (yet). I don't know if Eric was involved with the game's creation, but with the retreated unit still being able to ignore the first flag yet unable to battleback, just reinforces how out of synch this situation is.

For instance, I can still read the pg. 31 rule that Eric cited, "If the defending unit is forced off its hex, for any reason, during the initial Melee attack, its opportunity to battle back during this battle is lost, even if the unit falls back into another supported position once its retreat is completed," as not relating to battling back on a calvary's follow up attack.

First, are we all in agreement that the calvary's follow up attack is now a different "battle"? The fact that the calvary can select a different target should be enough to demonstrate that it is separate and not tethered to the first attack anymore. Thus, not being able to "battle back during THIS battle" should not apply on the follow up attack since it isn't THIS battle anymore -- it is another battle and needs to be evaluated just like any other battle. Thus, if the defender is bold at the time of the follow up attack AND the unit does not move from THAT hex, then it should be able to battle back as normal.

Second, my take on the rule is that it was meant to address a loophole in the instance where an attacking unit is already *behind* the bold defender. The pg. 31 rule will now prevent that defender from retreating from the attack (but still ending up adjacent to the attacker) and battling back. Otherwise the rule from pg. 30 could have allowed the defender to battle back, which would have been silly (if you are so scared to run away, you should not be able to launch an attack).

The bottom line is that it seems to me that the rules are clear and necessary, but they focus on "this" battle so they do not have a continuing effect into a follow up battle.

I have an open mind about this, but I have not seen any rule that does not support my position.
      
sdafilli
Senior Member

Nachrichten: 206
Registriert:
April 2007
Re:question about battle back Thu, 14 June 2007 05:52
Xalthon wrote on Thu, 14 June 2007 12:57


First, are we all in agreement that the calvary's follow up attack is now a different "battle"? The fact that the calvary can select a different target should be enough to demonstrate that it is separate and not tethered to the first attack anymore. Thus, not being able to "battle back during THIS battle" should not apply on the follow up attack since it isn't THIS battle anymore -- it is another battle and needs to be evaluated just like any other battle. Thus, if the defender is bold at the time of the follow up attack AND the unit does not move from THAT hex, then it should be able to battle back as normal.




I think this is where you are getting unstuck...NO, it is not a different battle. Each unit can battle only once per turn (as per rules). But in certain situations, ie pursuiting cavalry, units are entitled a bonus ATTACK as part of SAME battle.

That's why if the pursuiting cavalry decides to make its bonus attack on same retreating defending unit, since the defending unit in this 2nd attack has already vacated its original hex during this BATTLE, it can't battle back. If it retreats into support, it can though ignore flags.

Remember, being bold only has 1 condition---> ignoring flags (and vice versa)

Battling back must meet TWO conditions ---> bold AND not vacating original hex
      
ColtsFan76
Senior Member

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 3326
Registriert:
February 2006
Re:question about battle back Thu, 14 June 2007 06:56
[quote title=Xalthon wrote on Wed, 13 June 2007 22:27]Thank you, Eric, for posting the relevant pg. 31 rule.

I realize that I am outnumbered, including Eric from DoW, but I don't want to give in (yet). I don't know if Eric was involved with the game's creation, but with the retreated unit still being able to ignore the first flag yet unable to battleback, just reinforces how out of synch this situation is.[/q]
Eric is the president of DOW. And not only did he have a heavy hand in its creation, Ithink the story goes he built his company around this one game; passing up the opportunity to publish it when he first obtained the rights so that he could build upon his experience of releasing other games. You can take his word as gospel. Wink

Quote:

For instance, I can still read the pg. 31 rule that Eric cited, "If the defending unit is forced off its hex, for any reason, during the initial Melee attack, its opportunity to battle back during this battle is lost, even if the unit falls back into another supported position once its retreat is completed," as not relating to battling back on a calvary's follow up attack.

First, are we all in agreement that the calvary's follow up attack is now a different "battle"? The fact that the calvary can select a different target should be enough to demonstrate that it is separate and not tethered to the first attack anymore. Thus, not being able to "battle back during THIS battle" should not apply on the follow up attack since it isn't THIS battle anymore -- it is another battle and needs to be evaluated just like any other battle. Thus, if the defender is bold at the time of the follow up attack AND the unit does not move from THAT hex, then it should be able to battle back as normal.

Incorrect. None of us agree that the "follow on" is a seperate battle. The "battle" is tethered to the attacker not the defender. A pursuit is a type of follow on action to the original battle even if the original target is no longer part of that battle. Further more, the rules are quite clear that this continuation of the main battle disallows the defending unit to battle back whatsoever - regardless of its new status. The rules explicitly close the argument you are trying to propose here.

Quote:

Second, my take on the rule is that it was meant to address a loophole in the instance where an attacking unit is already *behind* the bold defender. The pg. 31 rule will now prevent that defender from retreating from the attack (but still ending up adjacent to the attacker) and battling back. Otherwise the rule from pg. 30 could have allowed the defender to battle back, which would have been silly (if you are so scared to run away, you should not be able to launch an attack).

I don't know how you get this assumption at all. The rules cover any close combat engagement regardless of the attacker's position. The point of this rule is that cavalry can pursue. Regardless of where the defender is (baring the topic of terrain restrictions), a mounted unit can enter the just vacated hex and move and additional hex to chase down the retreating defender. This is where the scenario comes up that the rules address.

Quote:

The bottom line is that it seems to me that the rules are clear and necessary, but they focus on "this" battle so they do not have a continuing effect into a follow up battle.

I have an open mind about this, but I have not seen any rule that does not support my position.


The rule is on page 31 (I thing since that is the one you keep referencing). It specifically denies your argument from being valid. Sorry Smile
      
eric
-= Crew =-
Advanced Combat Training

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 3196
Registriert:
October 2002
Re:question about battle back Thu, 14 June 2007 07:32
Just to confirm: Yes, I was involved in the game's development and I confirm the ruling as I stated it above. A follow-on action (including a bonus attack) is part of the same "battle" as the initial attack.

Though yes, you are correct: the rule on page 31 could have been intended to close the loophole you stated; but it's not the case: What we wrote and what I stated above is what we intended.

      
mvettemagred
Senior Member

Nachrichten: 266
Registriert:
August 2005
Re:question about battle back Thu, 14 June 2007 14:24
Like Xalthon, I too was confused by some of the wording, but after re-reading all relevant rules, it's clearer to me now. Thanks, Eric, for clearing this up.

However, I must point out one unfortunately worded rule. On p. 19, second paragraph:

"A unit may only be ordered to battle once per turn; in some instances however, it may receive the opportunity to battle again, as part of the same order, during a successful Pursuit action." (Bold added by me)

So, if one didn't properly interpret the subsequent detailed rules regarding Follow-on Actions, Support and Battle Back, one could easily say that Follow-on Actions are a new battle, and that Battle Back would be available to a unit that had previously retreated and was attacked again by a Pursuing unit.

So, to be crystal clear, the rules should have said:
1. Each unit may be ordered once per turn.
2. Each ordered unit may battle once per turn.
3. Each battle may include one or more attack rolls, depending on the ability of the ordered unit to perform Follow-on Actions.
4. Follow-on Actions are a continuation of a battle, and not the start of a new battle.
5. If a defending unit vacates his hex for any reason, he forfeits his ability to Battle Back for the duration of the current attacking unit's Battle. If defending unit is attacked by a different unit later in the same turn and is eligible for Battle Back, he may do so, because this is a different Battle.

I think I've summarized everything correctly. Please poke holes as appropriate. Smile
      
eric
-= Crew =-
Advanced Combat Training

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 3196
Registriert:
October 2002
Re:question about battle back Thu, 14 June 2007 15:46
yes, the word you point out is unfortunate. it should have been "attack", not "battle".
Sorry for this.
      
DarkPadawan
Senior Member
Cadet

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 599
Registriert:
November 2006
Re:question about battle back Thu, 14 June 2007 20:37
I have a Deja-Vu experience when reading this thread...

we have all had this here some months ago and it was more or less the same discussion:
http://www.daysofwonder.com/de/msg/?goto=78235#msg_78235

I found it immediately by searching for "supported position" in all Battlelore Forums...

So I really recommend doing a little research in this forum upfront before asking the same things again and again...

Don't misunderstand me, if you think you don't want spend time searching old threads, it is also fine. Just ask and people will always help (like I did in the beginning of this thread), but there is so much information spread across countless threads, that you can easily find by just typing some keywords into the search field.

Dark.
      
mvettemagred
Senior Member

Nachrichten: 266
Registriert:
August 2005
Re:question about battle back Thu, 14 June 2007 21:56
There's a search feature? Shocked

Seriously, There are two things covered on this thread that were not on the other:
1. The unfortunate use of the word "battle" on p. 19 when referring to Follow-on Actions. As Eric said, that should have read "Attack". This will undoubtedly lead to confusion among newer players, especially those who don't find the answer via searching.
2. [New question] What's clear is, if a unit is forced to vacate his hex, he loses his Battle Back ability for that Battle. However, what if the unit vacates his hex voluntarily? For example, A Dwarven unit is attacked, and one flag is rolled. The Dwarven unit may choose to retreat anyway, for any number of valid reasons. Does the Dwarven unit still lose his Battle Back ability for the remainder of that Battle?

I suspect the answer is "yes", because even though the player controlling the Dwarven unit chose to retreat, it was still the attacking unit that triggered the retreat decision. However, I just felt like picking nits today. Razz
      
Caboose
Senior Member
First Lieutenant

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 1597
Registriert:
May 2004
Re:question about battle back Fri, 15 June 2007 12:58
mvettemagred wrote on Thu, 14 June 2007 13:56

There's a search feature? Shocked

Seriously, There are two things covered on this thread that were not on the other:
1. The unfortunate use of the word "battle" on p. 19 when referring to Follow-on Actions. As Eric said, that should have read "Attack". This will undoubtedly lead to confusion among newer players, especially those who don't find the answer via searching.
2. [New question] What's clear is, if a unit is forced to vacate his hex, he loses his Battle Back ability for that Battle. However, what if the unit vacates his hex voluntarily? For example, A Dwarven unit is attacked, and one flag is rolled. The Dwarven unit may choose to retreat anyway, for any number of valid reasons. Does the Dwarven unit still lose his Battle Back ability for the remainder of that Battle?

I suspect the answer is "yes", because even though the player controlling the Dwarven unit chose to retreat, it was still the attacking unit that triggered the retreat decision. However, I just felt like picking nits today. Razz


You are correct. If the dwarven unit retreats voluntarily, then the unit loses the ability to battle back for that battle. Since the 2 keys for battle back are 1) bold and 2) didn't retreat. And thus since condition 2) has been violated, it cannot battleback for THIS battle.

mvettemagred's last post basically sums it up pretty nicely.
      
Seiten (2): [1  2  >  » ]     
Vorheriges Thema:The sounds of music (part 2)
Nächstes Thema:Bold question
Gehen Sie zum Forum: