COs vs HQs

[richafricanus]

I am curious about the reasoning behind the game mechanic that the CO must move last and all other movement ends when the CO fails a Command Test?

We're really enjoying our BC games but have been making some club rules to simplify and speed up games, but want to make sure we don't break anything or lose any of the best aspects of the rules with our changes.

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

It's not a mechanic as such, CO can activate at any point in the order but if he fails then the turn is over. Hence activate last.

[Big Insect]

It has always been thus ....

It applies across all 3 of the 'Commander' rules sets (so it is a 'core' rules mechanism - that was probably brought across from the rules 'genetic' root-stock e.g. Warmaster).

I believe the idea (originally) was that as the CO usually (not always) has a higher CV than the HQ's it constrains a player from always leading with their CO, as that way they are more likely to achieve their orders.

Also, as units being ordered by an HQ, where the HQ fails their command roll (& doesn't get a blunder) can subsequently be ordered by the CO. So there's a degree of game-play logic to it all. There are also implications for Command unit movement.

Being allowed to play your CO, HQs, FAOs & FACs in whatever order you like is an interesting idea, but its not the way the rules are constructed.

Cheers
Mark

[richafricanus]

Great thanks Mark.  Appreciate you taking the time to respond.

[Ithoriel]

Being allowed to play your CO, HQs, FAOs & FACs in whatever order you like is an interesting idea, but its not the way the rules are constructed.

We have always played that the player decided which Command Element would be used next. Possibly a hangover from Warmaster that was used often enough to become a house rule? It never seemed to cause any problems.

If I can get my gout under control I must get in a game of BKCIV soon. It's been far too long since my Germans hit a gaming table.