Darkness Rising - Charlie's Mission #1

[Werebiscuit]

From the other thread:

(Neat little squad trick: As written, the rules would allow 8 stacked command units to go to each corner of the battlefield as pairs and still not allow individuals to be targeted with a >1/8 chance because they're all adjacent to another member of the squad. Could be useful under right circumstances. A leader and a paragon could order 6 non-command units forward and stay back themselves.)

You guys never cease to amaze me. Looks like I've got to issue a clarification:

If a squad is split into 'sub squads' spatially, units with Fire cannot target individual members of each subgroup, but they can select which *subgroup* they're firing at. There's no way I'd allow a rule that allows for an arrow to be fired randomly at a squad and not know whether the arrow will go North, South, East or West from the archer until after he fires.

As long as all units in a group are adjacent to at least one other unit (even diagonally), Fire can't target them individually. If there is a distinct gap between the two subgroups, the Firing unit can pick which subgroup to target.

I'll update the rules with these clarifications.

marbit would you rule units in a skirmish line ( one or two spaces apart ) as distinct subgroups ?

[MarbitChow]

marbit would you rule units in a skirmish line ( one or two spaces apart ) as distinct subgroups ?

According to the updated rules, yes.

The following formation can be targeted individually:

Code: Select all

X.X.X.X.X.X.X.X

The following formation can be targeted by pairs:

Code: Select all

XX.XX.XX.XX

The following formation cannot be selectively targeted at all:

Code: Select all

XX.XX.XX
..X..X..


Does that make things clearer?

[Werebiscuit]

marbit would you rule units in a skirmish line ( one or two spaces apart ) as distinct subgroups ?

According to the updated rules, yes.

What even if the whole unit moves as a line ?


I was thinking something like this

. G . G . G .
G . G . G

blue group =Unit 1 when it gets wounded and falls back leaving red group (unit 2) now exposed.

so if they were one group they wouldn't be able to be targetted individually but because they're 2 groups they now can ? even though they move as units ?

[Nnelg]

Fire doesn't work that way, it now targets stacks not individuals...as long as the stack holds a unit formation (even with gaps).

As Marbit has pointed out, this is incorrect.

I note your 2 squads as proposed have chester in 1 squad and his golems in the other. The golems will not move with the squad but stay adjacent to Chester thus the squads will either move as 1 squad or the golems will break squad movement thus breaking the unit...and we don't have command in the unit to restack.

You may not have noticed that the only other NPC in that stack is a gobwin. The PCs have freedom of movement, and can go where they wish without breaking the stack. So, the "stack" would, of course, move with Napier (not that I expect him to move much) but the PCs can do as they please.

Not to mention, every PC in that stack can act as a command unit. (It's something I just recently remembered.) If there is ever a need to restack that squad (and I doubt there will be), then any PC can call the regroup action.

[Nnelg]

so if they were one group they wouldn't be able to be targetted individually but because they're 2 groups they now can ? even though they move as units ?

Pretty much. If you want the screening effect, you'll have to use contiguous squads.

Which is why I put almost all the gobwins in one squad, rather than spread out into two. We can always tell the front gobwins to fall back by using a regroup action.

[Werebiscuit]

Nnelg ..all it changes in my strategy is that my units have to be more compact to benefit from unit properties...nothing more

Not to mention, every PC in that stack can act as a command unit. (It's something I just recently remembered.) If there is ever a need to restack that squad (and I doubt there will be), then any PC can call the regroup action.

This remembered rule is also incorrect according to the the quote below from the rules page 1 3rd post. Can you update to your correction source ?

Command Unit: Any unit with Leadership, Paragon or Caster.

none of the PC's have any of the listed abilities.

I also doubt there will be a NEED to restack PC's but boths squads will have to act as one due to the fact that chester and the golems are in different squads. We lose the benefits of a second squad.


With 2 or 3 units we do not need a regroup to re-organise so long as we re-organise by units rather than individually (my units are designed for that purpose) as long as there is command in each unit.. An order will do which is why I split Chester and Jaeger rather than having both command in one stack. And like you I spotted that PC's can organise themselves which is why I have them in their own stack.
if we find that Chester is getting hammered then all it takes is a regroup to fill his stack and reduce his hit chances. Note the chances go from 1 in 9 (since he'll not be front row) in my grouping to 1 in 12 in yours ( not a drastic change). Also note that the golems will soak most of the 1 in 9 chances (even unstacked). But let's not 'depend' on his group getting hammered till we know how many ranged they've got and how good they are.

[MarbitChow]

I forgot to include it in the rules (I'll change that shortly), but as part of the discussion of "what makes PCs special", I decided that all PCs are automatically command units (due to their having Free Will, which Erfworld equates to Warlords / Casters).

[Werebiscuit]

So does that mean we can micro manage Who's on the front line without regrouping, Marbit. Since that's what my smaller units were about ?

If so then it takes away any objections I had to the larger stacks..Nnelg.

[Nnelg]

We lose the benefits of a second squad.

What "benefits" do you speak of? Nothing is "lost" but the freedom of movement of a single gobwin.

[Werebiscuit]

We lose the benefits of a second squad.

What "benefits" do you speak of? Nothing is "lost" but the freedom of movement of a single gobwin.

see my post prior to this above

[Nnelg]

So does that mean we can micro manage Who's on the front line Marbit. Since that's what my smaller units were about ?

If so then it takes away any objections I had to the larger stacks..Nnelg.

Marbit said units will follow orders "intelligently". So I'm assuming I can say "Front rank fall back now!", and they will.

We lose the benefits of a second squad.

What "benefits" do you speak of? Nothing is "lost" but the freedom of movement of a single gobwin.

see post above

I'm seeing nothing.

[Werebiscuit]

So does that mean we can micro manage Who's on the front line Marbit. Since that's what my smaller units were about ?

If so then it takes away any objections I had to the larger stacks..Nnelg.

Marbit said units will follow orders "intelligently". So I'm assuming I can say "Front rank fall back now!", and they will.


You had that as a taking regroup order during the initial exchange

[Nnelg]

You had that as a taking regroup order during the initial exchange

Yes; Jaeger would simply issue a regroup order.

[Werebiscuit]

You had that as a taking regroup order during the initial exchange

Yes; Jaeger would simply issue a regroup order.

See there's where i thought the benefit lies. if we have smaller squads we don't have to regroup. As the group will move as a whole under a move order.
Those don't use up an action. Unless I'm misunderstanding again.

[Nnelg]

See there's where i thought the benefit lies. if we have smaller squads we don't have to regroup. As the group will move as a whole under a move order.
Those don't use up an action. Unless I'm misunderstanding again.

Right. But we don't have enough troops for that. If we had two stacks of Gobwins, we would. (Since then we could have two solid lines...)

But as it stands, we can't do that. So we need the entire line as one stack, so that we only have to spend one action regrouping it.

[Werebiscuit]

No Nnelg I understand that we need solid groups but consider...
###############
## . . ## . . ##. .
. . . . .B gG . . .
. . . . .Z CG . . .
. . . . . A gG . . .
. . . . . S. G G . .
. . . . . . . .J G . .
. . . . . . . . . G . .
. . ## . . ## . G##
###############


Where the colours represent different groupings
When the blue group is de-warded all the red group has to do is move across and the blue group can retreat through them.
we need 3 groups to move tlike this without leaving gaps
no regrouping only movement & withdraw

[Werebiscuit]

And it gets better if we leave a gap at the end to exploit adjacency stopping movement...assuming no agile units in the dwarves.

sorry left out Thomas the tank...he'd be part of the green group.

[Nnelg]

Ok, now I just don't understand what you're going on about at all. What was the point of having two groups, anyways?

I thought it was to minimize the length of time any one unit is exposed to the enemy, but splitting it lengthwise like that just doesn't make any sense...


Oh, and you still aren't making full use of Jaeger's Leadership bonus.

[Nnelg]

That clown has a burger shield that's bigger and better than this piece of garbage that I'm carrying. Hmm, can I have a cheeseburger too?

Since I was bored, I went ahead and put this together:


(Link in case the image doesn't show properly...)


Meh, sadly it'll probably be lost in the thread before those interested see it.

[Werebiscuit]

Ok, now I just don't understand what you're going on about at all. What was the point of having two groups, anyways?

I thought it was to minimize the length of time any one unit is exposed to the enemy, but splitting it lengthwise like that just doesn't make any sense...


Oh, and you still aren't making full use of Jaeger's Leadership bonus.

ok not every gobwin gets his +1 however it does limit exposure to the enemy. Especially if both groups move in one towards the center and exploit adjacency stopping movement. Then we get more double coverage.

PS There were ALWAYS 3 groups.