TWC Tag Team Tournament TATW Semi Final

**Dux** · December 07, 2015, 10:53 AM

I think I will have to reconsider my position. Joe's and Mith's arguments have swayed me.

However, Themzr does raise an interesting point. Why do we allow this army to be destroyed completely by letting the mountain pass be blocked by a single cavalry unit? The rule specifically states only bridges and river crossings are allowed to be blocked.

**Egyptian_Viking** · December 07, 2015, 11:28 AM

Originally Posted by Dux

I think I will have to reconsider my position. Joe's and Mith's arguments have swayed me.

However, Themzr does raise an interesting point. Why do we allow this army to be destroyed completely by letting the mountain pass be blocked by a single cavalry unit? The rule specifically states only bridges and river crossings are allowed to be blocked.

Yeah I don't really like that move either. The retreat is clearly denied on purpose. I always thought that the rule allowing to block river crossings and bridges was there so you didn't have to move away from such positions in case you wanted to attack an enemy. And by blocking a river crossing you can change the direction of the retreating army, allowing for more tactical thinking. I never thought it was meant for destroying units. But even if it was meant for this, then what Dux says also kind of matters; There never was a river crossing or bridge here. Thus what Joe did is not specifically covered by the rule.

Allowing a move like this will further increase the already unbalanced advantages of being the attacker. If you win, you can completely destroy thousands of surviving units and 10 star generals just by blocking their way. This is not a siege battle where the defending army has to die if it loses. I strongly vote for not allowing defeated units to be destroyed by purposely blocking their retreat. And not only in this Hotseat but in all Hotseats.
I even prefer to let defeated armies retreat without being blocked or having their path altered at all if avoidable, but that may be difficult to play by.

**Mithridate** · December 07, 2015, 01:22 PM

For the record, best and simplest would be for Joe to just replay that bit if he is willing - but that he does not at all have to.

Originally Posted by Egyptian_Viking

I even prefer to let defeated armies retreat without being blocked or having their path altered at all if avoidable, but that may be difficult to play by.

This is excellent, simple and graceful - have all the muffins!

Removes the need of like three rules and imo, improves hotseating overall.

**joerock22** · December 07, 2015, 12:39 PM

I blocked off the mountain pass before and Mordor didn't object, but if it will bring this issue to a close, then I'm willing to replay without doing that. I agree that it a bit unrealistic. Perhaps it was not so unrealistic before, when only a few hundred orcs survived.

**Mithridate** · December 07, 2015, 01:05 PM

I would be a little careful about conflating this ambushing and defeat problem with cutting off/denying retreat as they are separate issues. It is however a good discussion to have, if unfortunate to have now.

Originally Posted by joerock22

I blocked off the mountain pass before and Mordor didn't object, but if it will bring this issue to a close, then I'm willing to replay without doing that. I agree that it a bit unrealistic. Perhaps it was not so unrealistic before, when only a few hundred orcs survived.

It has been allowed before which makes it odd to not do so now, particularly since in other hotseats we've always afaik allowed blocking passes and chokepoints even with no surrounding rules. However as before - when in doubt, hardline the rules ( that would allow Joe to do this, it says nothing of passes and only that you may not surround. The army is not surrounded.

The problem is not it being unrealistic ( it certainly is ) but where to draw the line, before we've drawn it at no surrounding but allowed cutting off retreat. ( but generally not allowed denying retreat by besieging ). Any other rules tend to just get complex and overbearing, not to mention very hard to enforce. I would argue besieging is different because then you use a single unit to block 9 squares which is even worse than surrounding ( you block 9 squares with 9 forces ). But in particular, because it forces the hand of a player without him being able to really do anything about it and engages a force that is undefeated and thus would have sallied to remove that small force and let their friends in and or be able to choose not to. It takes away player choice and control to an unreasonable degree due to mechanic weakness.

The defeated forced force is unable to do anything by itself ( attack ) and thus it is far more reasonable to block it with a force making them take another route or disband. As when it was defeated it kinda... well, deserved to just

ing die. So it really becomes a question of what prevention is reasonable to implement, how much control we are to exert over the game mechanics.

**Adanedhel** · December 07, 2015, 02:05 PM

I don't think the gameplay would suffer much if we ruled that blocking all passages is prohibited. The attacker already wiped out more than half of the opponents force, while in most cases sustaining very little damage himself. The advantage of winning a battle is already there, no need to add any more benefits to the attacker. Dux will decide what is best.

**joerock22** · December 07, 2015, 05:00 PM

I will wait for an admin ruling from Dux on the blocking the pass issue. I am willing to replay, but am not really excited about it, especially after reading Mithridate's post.

**Mithridate** · December 07, 2015, 06:05 PM

Originally Posted by joerock22

I will wait for an admin ruling from Dux on the blocking the pass issue. I am willing to replay, but am not really excited about it, especially after reading Mithridate's post.

It's not a big sacrifice here I think, +rep for being willing regardless. Also:
Welcome to the world of today and its moral choices, Do you accept the gift that I offer?

Where the choice is to shoot yourself in the foot and be a "good" guy or don't shoot yourself in the foot and be a terrible person

Btw about Rohan rushing Isengard: I can vouch for that, though when I did it we allowed lead battles. But 1v1 Rohan has rather major advantage, unless pressured from other fronts that is. Unless they've done major changes to the mod these last... two - three years? Never really played much Third Age, kinda poor for hotseating I think.

**Dux** · December 09, 2015, 03:38 PM

I have decided to hardline the rules and allow it. Even when I don't like it, I will allow it.

We can however change the rule to disallow blocking of passes, fords and bridges if that results in the total annihilation of a defeated army. Who is in favor and who is against?
Any chances to rules go, as always, in effect next turn.

**Chieftain Khuzaymah** · December 09, 2015, 04:25 PM

Well I can see how a blocking army of 50-150 men can not deny passage to an army of 1000+ men, even if they were defeated.

Isn't there a rule about laying siege to a settlement which has defeated units and undefeated units inside? If it exists and doesn't allow a single unit to besiege a fortress so the defender can not sally & move armies, I believe it is consistent to not allow blocking a retreat like this with a single unit either.

**joerock22** · December 09, 2015, 05:27 PM

We can however change the rule to disallow blocking of passes, fords and bridges if that results in the total annihilation of a defeated army. Who is in favor and who is against?
Any chances to rules go, as always, in effect next turn.

Dux's decision is fair (thought I admit that I am biased). Especially since this was allowed before and therefore Mordor had ample notice that I could do it again. He could have easily check with Dux last turn and asked for a rule change before he moved his army.

Originally Posted by Chieftain Khuzaymah

Well I can see how a blocking army of 50-150 men can not deny passage to an army of 1000+ men, even if they were defeated.

Here's a RL justification. Any student of military history will tell you that defeated armies are not organized forces. More often than not, especially in pre-modern times, the survivors routed from the field in all directions and were only able to reform (if at all) far away from the battlefield and after many days of running away. Many armies didn't reform at all.

So it's not like Mordor's surviving orcs are retreating in good order here...more like a slow trickle of disorganized and demoralized orcs. Even a relatively small number of pursuing Gondorian cavalry could wreak havoc. So it's not completely ridiculous that few or none of the orcs survive.

Isn't there a rule about laying siege to a settlement which has defeated units and undefeated units inside? If it exists and doesn't allow a single unit to besiege a fortress so the defender can not sally & move armies, I believe it is consistent to not allow blocking a retreat like this with a single unit either.

I've never seen a rule to prohibit that action. I've seen it used in Westeros hotseats especially. I agree that it is similar in that you are using a single unit in such a way that it has a major influence on the outcome of the game.

**Chieftain Khuzaymah** · December 10, 2015, 09:21 AM

Originally Posted by joerock22

Here's a RL justification. Any student of military history will tell you that defeated armies are not organized forces. More often than not, especially in pre-modern times, the survivors routed from the field in all directions and were only able to reform (if at all) far away from the battlefield and after many days of running away. Many armies didn't reform at all.

So it's not like Mordor's surviving orcs are retreating in good order here...more like a slow trickle of disorganized and demoralized orcs. Even a relatively small number of pursuing Gondorian cavalry could wreak havoc. So it's not completely ridiculous that few or none of the orcs survive.

Yeah, absolutely true. Moreover, if Boromir is a great strategist and wants to completely destroy the entire force of Mordor, he would send a couple hundred soldiers to each of the flanks right before he leads his armies into battle to block the escape routes for Mordor. Surprise flank attacks will disorient the enemy and leave no escape route. (However, technically this would allow completely blocking the enemy stack on its square without any escape possibility, which is not allowed.)

Unfortunately, the game isn't that advanced, especially in AR

So I understand the points in favor and against this.. Question is where you draw the line. I can honestly not answer this.

But I am in favor of making things clear for everyone so that we can also apply this to all hotseats to avoid misunderstandings/irritations.

---------------------------------

So, Mordor is up then.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9T...ew?usp=sharing

Harad retakes the undefended village Haranaer.