The Commander Series Forum

This came up in a game today, tried to find this in the errata and the forum, but no luck.

Do all lost units count towards the breakpoint, or only the ones used to determine the breakpoint in the first place.

i.e. recce/trucks/etc don't count towards the breakpoint total, but do they count as a loss?

Only the ones used to determine the BP

I can understand this reasoning, on the other hand, it says 'once you lose this many units...'. No exceptions listed, and by definition, anything you put on the table is a unit. To me, it makes some sense to read the rule like that. Any other opinions?

I'm with Dave. Recce, dead commanders, destroyed off-table arty and planes, etc don't count as far as I'm aware.

Like Kiwidave I've always played that only the loss of those units used in calculating the breakpoint will count towards reaching it.

However, whilst that makes sense to me, I can't tell you where I got it from. It's not what it says in the rules, there's nothing in the errata / FAQ to that effect and I can't find it stated here on the forum. Maybe it was in an old thread that's been pruned.

I think the main reason to exclude those units that don't count is that they are really easy to KO (transports etc) or really hard (Command). If you included things like trucks, then it makes the enemies job so mush easier, as trucks are dead easy to KO, the BP will be reached a lot quicker than if they are excluded.

Hopefully that makes sense....

We've always played that anything counts towards the breakpoint when KO'd on the table, whether or not it was used to calculate the breakpoint at the start of the game. No idea if this is right or not.

We never count those exluded in the list. Transport for example; or off board arty. If BP reflects any sort of "morale" how would on table troops know that some artillery 15 miles to the rear had been KO'd?

Thanks for all opinions. I'm still undecided, but I think I will go for the 'not counting the ones in the list' option. But I think I will make an exception for German motorcycles because they have an attack factor. Since you can use these to attack, or to support a close assault, it feels wrong if they are 'expendable' i.e. not included in the breakpoint.

Reminds me of a discussion on the Battlefront WW2 forum a few years back. Some gamey players were using soft transport to close assault tanks. The upshot was that they would not count towards calculating the breakpoint but their loss would count towards reaching it. This encourages historical tactics I believe, trucks etc being used to drop troops off then sent to the rear. I would have thought the sight of a line of burning trucks could have an adverse effect on morale (or perhaps make some troops more determined)

The way I see it, since soft transports aren't used to calculate the breakpoint they aren't counted towards it when destroyed.

In BKCI weren't soft transport units removed once empty? Has this been dropped from BKCII, or am I imagining things?

I agree that softies are not counted towards breakpoint. If they were your armies breakpoint would be higher.

We have been keeping our trucks on the battlefield in case the lads need to mount up again.

atNTM I remember Lukes trucks assaulting tanks flame war on Battlefront WWII forum and The Miniatures Page. It was very amusing to read.

I'm going to try and find time tonight to read the rulebook with regards to this point, to see if there is anything to clarify this one way or the other. As always, interesting to read various takes on this matter.

If we're not careful the Spokane boys will be using trucks as some sort of shield
We should be ok for a while though, quid is currently crusading against Rules of Engagement, wonder which ruleset is next on the hitlist.

As in the original post, there are two things to consider:
1) Are various units included in the breakpoint total. The rules are very explicit about this, some units are not included when calculating your breakpoint. I think we all agree on that.
2) What counts as a loss when determining if you have reached your breakpoint. The book just says 'once you have lost this many units'. It's this point I want to clarify.
Having thought about it again, I still haven't decided. If you include all units, it becomes very lucrative to go and kill loaded transports. If you don't, transports become 'expendable' and can be used in ways they would never be used in real life. While losing any unit is never a good thing, paying 10 points for a 'movable barrier' might appeal to some players.

Oh well, trucks are 15 points. So go buy Horses (or Mules), at 5 points they are a real bargain.

Note: Just playing advocate here. Generally a pointy stick will soon sort this kind of thing.

"paying 10 points for a 'movable barrier' might appeal to some players"

Don't play those people, or if you have to, come well armed with pointy sticks

Or have the "Offside" houserule. Empty trucks cannot move to be the closest unit to the enemy.

I think I'm going to have to develop, with KD's able assistance, a new "Offside Moveable Barrier Sharpen More Pointy Sticks" houserule y'know.

Daft feckers - need to get out more - and realise that games are s'posed to be fun...and that winning isn't everything. They probably didn't get picked much at school - by team captains, teachers, totty etc

22) What counts as a loss when determining if you have reached your breakpoint. The book just says 'once you have lost this many units'. It's this point I want to clarify. "

Having just read the book with regards to the above, I agree that it does need clarifying.

"If you include all units, it becomes very lucrative to go and kill loaded transports."

As it should IMHO. I would say that they are completely legitimate targets. Remember, that if you hit a soft-skin towing an AT gun for example and destroy the soft-skin, the AT gun is destroyed as well, so why not a soft-skin full of infantry?

As regards un-armoured soft-skins, I would say that they should counted towards units KO'd with regards to the breakpoint total. Why? As an example, if I was with a unit in the Desert on the attack and my transport was knocked-out with my ammo/supplies etc on-board, I think it would affect my morale.

The rules regarding breakpoint are very specific on page 36.

"To determine the breakpoint of a battlegroup count all units except command, recce, soft-skinned transport vehicles, aircraft and off-table artillery"

I'm not confused.

A movable defensive wall of horses. I think you guys are onto something here. Anyone want to play in a tournament?

As I say my take on it, and I am reading between the lines, is that soft transport does not count against the break point. So, if you lose a truck w/ a platoon of infantry aboard and the infantry are taken out, then you are 1 pt closer to your break point.

Now, having thought about the post above about people using soft transport as ballistic protection, I agree that something should be in place to prevent a "pointy stick" playing of the rules.

I was just being silly with the softskin shield comment definate pointy stick if used but this comment from Paul is more like what I'm talking about

'We have been keeping our trucks on the battlefield in case the lads need to mount up again.'

This sort of tactic is as far as I'm aware ahistorical soft transport was kept as far from the front as possible either sent to the rear when the troops debussed or this was done some distance away. The Brits even did this with armoured halftracks. May have been different in the Desert where Paul's games are based but I've not read of instances of troops jumping in and out of trucks to move around the battlefield in NWE, this was done behind the lines. With soft transport not counting towards the breakpoint there is little to discourage players from doing it though. So my preference would be for the calculation to remain as is but losses of soft transport to count.

That's the point, right? Transports are not 'expendable', and there should be some incentive to keep them out of harms way.
Command/recce/etc are inherently very valuable units, so you want to avoid losing them anyway. There's another thread where Pete mentions that losing a command unit is punishment enough, and he's probably right. For transports, that's less so, and that leads to ahistorical behaviour.
I'm not so sure about the German motorcycles. I have this image of early war recce companies on motorcycles driving everywhere, guns blazing. Or is that just me imagining things, and did they dismount just as quick as troops in trucks? They remain the only soft transport with an attack factor.

German m/c combos, Kubels and Schwimms were fitted with MGs but in my view these were designed to get them out of trouble against light opposition. If they got into a real fight they would do it on foot although due to their role as Recce troops the transport could well be a lot closer by. My reading of this sort of thing suggests that any unit that got into a firefight whilst mounted in softskins or light armoured vehicles came out worse off e.g. 1st Airborne Recce and 9.SSPAA at Arnhem, the Carrier Platoon of 1/Worcesters at Geilenkirchen.