Tactical Command | View topic - Intermingled Formations

Page 1 of 2

[ 28 posts ]

Go to page 1, 2 Next

View unanswered posts | View active topics View unread posts | View new posts | View your posts

Intermingled Formations

Muad'Dib

Post subject: Intermingled Formations

Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 10:27 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 12:06 am
Posts: 34
Location: UK

Hello all.

Reading through the new E:A handbook 2008 (excellent work Markonz et al!) I noticed that the Intermingled Formations rule 1.12.10 has not been cleared up.

"Seems clear to me" you may say, but read on...

I think the original rule in the published rulebook suffered from "developer blinkers", in that JJ thought his intention was clear to all when he wrote it, and therefore the final result was not as explicit as it should have been. ?

In short, the rule allows the attacker in an assault to declare any enemy formation within 5cm of his original target to count as "joined" to his target as a "super-formation" which can be assaulted in one go. ?

This is to prevent odd situations like a large ork formation surrounded by a large number of tiny imperial formations, but only able to attack one in an assault. So far, so good.

However, I am sure that JJ's intent behind the rule was that the "additional" formations each had to be a legitimate target of the assault when considered seperately. ?In other words, you could only consider these formations suitable for "intermingling" if your attacking formation ended up within 15cms of them after the assault move.

I have tried to show this in the attached diagram. ?

The red formation launches an assault against the blue formation. ?The green formation is within 5cm of its blue comrades, and also within 15cm of the red attackers after their engage move. ?Therefore the reds may declare the blue and green formations intermingled in the ensuing assault.

The black formation, although within 5cm of the blue formation, is out of range (>15cm) of the attacking reds, and therefore may not be considered for intermingling.

Unfortunately the rule as it exists does not spell this out, which seems to have led to some situations as bizarre as those the rule was written to avoid. ?The erroneous interpretation would allow the black formation to be considered for intermingling, and would be broken if their side lost the assault.

In particular, some players have interpreted the Intermingling rule to mean that if I assault a large formation, I can count this as "intermingling" with a second (or third! or fourth!) formation which lies on the other side of the battlefield which my troops may not even be able to see, let alone "attack". ?Yet if I win my clipping assault with the big formation I can effectively break half his army in one go as well.

I'm suggesting the rule be "clarified" rather than "changed" since I don't believe this was ever the intention. ?Along the lines of :

"If there are one or more formations
within 5cm of the target formation, then the attacker can choose to include one or more of them as the target as long as he places at least one attacking unit within 15cm of them as for a normal assault. ?The attacker may choose which of the eligable formations to include in the intermingled formation and does not have to include any of them."

The handbook seems like an ideal opportunity to finally clarify this rule.

Top

Dwarf Supreme

Post subject: Intermingled Formations

Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 10:42 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 8:45 pm
Posts: 11149
Location: Canton, CT, USA

I could be wrong, but I think the way you're interpreting the rule is the intended way. It makes sense to me that the black formation could not be considered intermingled.

_________________
"I don't believe in destiny or the guiding hand of fate." N. Peart

Top

Evil and Chaos

Post subject: Intermingled Formations

Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:04 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire

I could be wrong, but I also think that JJ intended that the black formation in your example would be valid for intermingling.

It's represented of rolling up a flank, or somesuch.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Top

nealhunt

Post subject: Intermingled Formations

Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:24 pm

Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA

However, I am sure that JJ's intent behind the rule was that the "additional" formations each had to be a legitimate target of the assault when considered seperately. In other words, you could only consider these formations suitable for "intermingling" if your attacking formation ended up within 15cms of them after the assault move.

This wasn't something that was overlooked. As you can tell from the responses so far, it was discussed repeatedly, going back at least to the old boards ca. 2004; even earlier by my recollection.

There are mixed opinions on how older discussion that included JJ's intent developed. It was prior to the last retrievable board archives and memory is fallible. Many people believe that intermingling was also supposed to allow an assault to "roll up" a flank and break formations even when they weren't directly threatened by the assault, e.g. the threat of being overrun causes them to bug out, even if they haven't taken any incoming fire. I'm one of the ones that remembers the far-distant intermingling was definitely intended.

Can it be cheesy and extreme? Yes. Nearly every regular board participant has a story about some rather remote formation being broken due to an unfortunate placement of units.

But it's also easily avoided. Most people only fall into the intermingling trap once and then never again. It's very much a "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me" sort of issue. After the first time, risking intermingled formations is either 1) a calculated risk, or 2) negligence on the part of the player.

All that said, a lot of people still don't like it and house-rule it exactly as you say - all target formations must have a unit in assault range from the attacker to be intermingled. Personally, I would have no problem playing someone who wanted to use that for a house rule.

_________________
Neal

Top

Markconz

Post subject: Intermingled Formations

Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 4:04 am

Purestrain

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand

Thanks for the comments Muad'Dib. Everyone else appears to have answered this already so I will just add a couple of brief comments. As Neal says, a lot of people still don't like this rule as written (including myself and my own group for the record), and the modification you suggest is probably one of the more common house rules used by the Epic Armageddon community. However the final decision was that this was to stay as is this time around. As it is controversial and people keep asking about it, the following FAQ entry was added (see back of the Handbook page 83):

FAQ 1.12.10 Intermingling
Q: Is the intention of the intermingling rule that all the enemy
formations assaulted must have a unit within 15cm of the attacker after
charges, AS WELL AS within 5cm of the prime enemy formation?

A: No, the intent was precisely that a poorly positioned and supported battle
line could be "rolled up" by a flanking attack. There were multiple discussions
about to what extent it should be allowed and the rules as written reflect the
intent that an entire line can crumble whether or not the units in question were
directly threatened.
Some people have played a houserule that all intermingled enemy formations
must have a unit within the 15cm of the attacker after charges (and if not the
enemy formation in question is dropped from the assault), as well as within
5cm of the prime enemy formation, but this is not part of the official rules.

Whether the rule is actually a good one that reflects what it purports to is debatable (and to my mind I can see little to recommend it), but the rule as written in the Handbook is indeed deliberate and not a mistake.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/

Top

BlackLegion

Post subject: Intermingled Formations

Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 4:53 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe

Yes. But it is important to note that if the black formation had another formatioi n withing 5cm this formation wouldn't be able to be intermingled, because it is not intermingled with the original attacked formation.

I am correct?

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

Top

Muad'Dib

Post subject: Intermingled Formations

Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 2:07 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 12:06 am
Posts: 34
Location: UK

Thanks for the responses all, I guess that settles that. Seems a bit odd that distant units will deliberately stay away from a large one to avoid being "rolled" with them if they break, I thought the "add a BM if within 15cm of a loser" rule accounted for that.

I'll continue with the "house rule" interpretation...

Top

nealhunt

Post subject: Intermingled Formations

Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 2:44 pm

Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA

(Muad'Dib @ Jan. 03 2008,13:07)

QUOTE

I thought the "add a BM if within 15cm of a loser" rule accounted for that.

Just to be clear, you don't get a BM for being within 15cm of the losing formation. You only get a BM if you were in a position to support the actual attack. From 1.12.7 with emphasis added:
Finally, any formations belonging to the losing side that
were in a position to have lent support (ie, they were
within 15cms of an enemy unit in the assault) receive one
Blast marker each...

_________________
Neal

Top

Moscovian

Post subject: Intermingled Formations

Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 4:16 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6414
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA

(Muad'Dib @ Jan. 03 2008,08:07)

QUOTE

Thanks for the responses all, I guess that settles that. ?Seems a bit odd that distant units will deliberately stay away from a large one to avoid being "rolled" with them if they break, I thought the "add a BM if within 15cm of a loser" rule accounted for that.

It actually makes perfect sense in a real life battle situation. Small formations tend to gravitate toward other friendly formations in order to have that extra level of security, covering their flank, lending support, communications, etc.

In a situation where the distant formation gets broken, your morale would drop considerably when combined with an assault that is going poorly for 'your side'. Breaking IMO would be completely understandable since now you are forced to reassess your tactical position on the battlefield, supply lines, flanks, and so on.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

Top

Muad'Dib

Post subject: Intermingled Formations

Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:55 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 12:06 am
Posts: 34
Location: UK

@nealhunt: Quite right. Slip of the keyboard *ahem*

@Moscovian: IRL generals wouldn't deliberately space units apart so as to minimise one panicking when it saw its buddies run away. They might do it to mimise damage from enemy artillery, increase coverage etc. As you say, smaller units gravitate towards larger ones, but they certainly shouldn't in E:A according to the intermingling rule.

The E:A general is "wise" to keep his units 6cm apart for the rule, without a convincing real world reason why he would do so.

Top

Moscovian

Post subject: Intermingled Formations

Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 7:53 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6414
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA

I think you missed my point. I am saying that the rule works to match real battle behavior when formations are close to each other. As Neal mentioned above, keeping them that close doesn't have to be a mistake - it can also be a calculated risk. Formations close together also have the opportunity to support one another when initiating an assault.

Close together. Positive is mutual support. Negative is... well, see the above.
Far apart. Positive is you don't get lumped in one assault. Negative is you are out of position to support one another.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

Top

Markconz

Post subject: Intermingled Formations

Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 12:52 am

Purestrain

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand

From what I've seen it is the historical wargamers who object to this more than most, so the 'IRL' argument just doesn't hold up in my view. Quite the opposite, as I hinted before the rule just doesn't do a good job of reflecting the historical effects it claims to.

Yes historically, breaking troops certainly could have morale effects on friendly troops, but the manner in which this can happen in EA does not match the typical parameters of those sort of situations (only much rarer exceptions, and the exceptions should not become the typical parameters in a set of rules). IN EA:

*Troops within 15cm of the enemy and engaged - autobreak, which is ok.
*Troops not engaged by enemy, but within 15cm of enemy - 1 blast marker (so may break), which is ok.
*Troops within 5cm of friends but potentially any distance from enemy (even 60cm is not uncommon if you have a skirmishing screen of recon/scouts...) - autobreak if the enemy chooses, and this is not ok.

I think everyone could easily accept that troops within 5cm of breaking friends but not within engage range (15cm) of the enemy could gain a BM (and potentially break if their morale is already shakey), but the current automaticity of the breaking according to enemy decision is bizarre relative to other morale effects in EA. Furthermore, quite how the enemy is able to decide whether or not they break troops that are are literally kilometres away and far from enemy action is an open question, especially when troops right up close to the enemy within 15cm are much better off than their colleagues at a safe distance. A BM (or even no effect) instead of automatic breaking would be a much better general historical simulation than the current rules. It just doesn't make sense, and it's so easy to fix to boot.

I've noticed that in battle reports posted here where these 'cheesy and extreme' (Neal's words) situations occur, the players in question typically house rule it on the spot and assume the intent of the rule must be that stated by Muad Dib. Frankly I hope this is fixed next time around so less people have to play with house rules. I like playing by the book, but if all my opponents want to house rule this then it's not like I have an option, even if I disagreed with them. Even defenders of this rule seem to be clutching at straws with 'yes but once it's happened once you can learn to avoid the rule quirk' type arguments. When we are talking about a mechanism supposedly based on general historical principles, players shouldn't have to learn to avoid a rule quirk.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/

Top

nealhunt

Post subject: Intermingled Formations

Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 3:15 pm

Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA

Keeping it a flat 15cm-from-attacker leaves other, equally goony exploits in place. A horde army could easily surround a valuable formation, being intimately intermingled with it, yet still have the guarded units more than 15cm from the formation edge, making it impossible to assault except by exceptional circumstances or abilities.

"Oh, look, my Deathstrikes are 16cm away from your forces. Even though their entire screen of 100+ men were just crushed in assault and the DS are threatened with being overrun at any second, they stand their ground and don't even gain a blast marker."

The difference is that the potential "victim" of the exploit can avoid it under the current rule. Under the flat-15, the victim cannot avoid it.

I don't think the matter of whether it can be avoided is "grasping at straws." I think it's a very important factor. If the opponent can manipulate the rules and there's nothing I can do, it hurts the game. It's cheesy/beardy/unfair/not fun. On the other hand, if it is something I can actively prevent then it requires a true mistake before the opponent can take advantage of it. I may still feel like it's cheesy/beardy/unfair/not fun, but it was partially my fault for allowing it to happen and the righteous indignation can only go so far.

In choosing between a significant but preventable exploit or a minor but unpreventable one, I think the system is better off with the preventable one in nearly every occasion.

_________________
Neal

Top

Print view

Previous topic | Next topic

Page 1 of 2

[ 28 posts ]

Go to page 1, 2 Next

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:

Intermingled Formations

Who is online