PDA

View Full Version : Losers taking a panic test.



Master Stark
22-04-2009, 05:06
When a unit loses combat, does it take a courage test?

And if it fails, it rolls on the panic table on page 50?

Does it just make one roll on the table, or does it make one roll for each point it failed the test by?

dtjunkie19
22-04-2009, 05:13
It's a panic test first, then depending on the result, a courage test.

And its only ever 1 roll regardless of how badly you lose the combat

Master Stark
22-04-2009, 05:57
So, the panic test is rolling on the panic table on page 50?

dtjunkie19
22-04-2009, 09:15
yes indeed it is

Master Stark
22-04-2009, 12:01
Sweet. Just the wording of 'panic test' and my background with WHFB caused me to think it might be some kind of courage test.

Rirekon
22-04-2009, 12:18
Slightly off topic (but related!); It feels a bit weird that it doesn't matter how much you win/lose a combat by, the end result is determined by a single unmodified die roll.

Jorgen_CAB
22-04-2009, 12:28
Slightly off topic (but related!); It feels a bit weird that it doesn't matter how much you win/lose a combat by, the end result is determined by a single unmodified die roll.

I think this is because they designed the game to play fast. The more you need to calculate modifiers and such, the slower the game plays.

I wondered the same thing myself. In the last game we agreed to that a +1 result was a draw, so you needed to win combat with at least two casualties. Though I don't think it ever happened... but I understand why you ask.

Before, in WFB... probably a long time ago you needed to cause 25% more casualties in one turn to cause a panic test. If I remember correctly... now, lots of people had problem with calculating that and it bogged the game down in each combat phase as well, so they removed that rule in later editions.

They couldn't very well give a -1 courage per casualty, and so they choose to go with the current rules. They also left fleeing an optional thing, which in itself will produce strange results from a realistic point of view.
In War of the Ring, units rather fight to the death than flee from the battlefield or so it seems.

I rather go with the logic that casualties represent loss of cohesion and fighting prowess in a formation, once the formation is removed from play it does not have to be destroyed, it just lost its importance to the battle and all the soldiers in that formation have either retreated, fled or been killed.

Whitehorn
22-04-2009, 12:30
It may feel bad that you get no modifier, but the loss of combat isn't that harsh.. you move out of combat and can recover next turn. Beats being overrun yes?

Rirekon
22-04-2009, 12:36
I guess I just feel that losing combat should be harsh, or rather it should be harsher the more you lose by.
I get that the casualties are the own reward, but it just doesn't feel right :)

Spider-pope
22-04-2009, 12:50
I dont know, a bad roll on the Panic table can be pretty harsh. I know from my personal ability to roll 1's at the worst possible time.

Jorgen_CAB
22-04-2009, 12:52
I think that I would view things like this... even though it might not be totally logic.

You charge your troops in and you slay more enemy than they do with you. They roll on the panic table and loose one more model and are disordered. Both formation are separated one inch.

So far I think everything is OK from a realistic point of view...

Next turn they fail their courage test and thus are still disordered and you charge again.

My logic dictates that you don't loose many models because their formation are busy retreating or fleeing. They will take heavy losses in the form of panicking troops and even more dead.
But it takes time to scatter them, some might still put up resistance. Some companies could still be in good order and so forth, this is all abstracted into the game mechanism.

In the third turn the survivors rallies and make a last stand, most probably they are dead meat by now, but they might have stalled you long enough to get their mighty cavalry to charge your flank and in turn destroy your now slightly depleted formation.

rakath
22-04-2009, 13:00
Before, in WFB... probably a long time ago you needed to cause 25% more casualties in one turn to cause a panic test. If I remember correctly... now, lots of people had problem with calculating that and it bogged the game down in each combat phase as well, so they removed that rule in later editions.


Yeah, and now in FB, sometimes a single casualty is enough to cause a whole elite plate-armored fighting unit of 30+ soldiers to flee away in fear. And being overrun by goblins armed with sharp blades of grass.

That is the main reason why I don't play FB ever again. It just felt that you can't fight to the end. Just try once, and then be destroyed because of a bad Leadership roll.



In War of the Ring, units rather fight to the death than flee from the battlefield or so it seems.


And this is one of the things why I love WotR so much.

Not being glued to CC forever is great too. You can actually try to maneuver out of a tight spot.