Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - ShrubMiK

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 8
31
Player Discussion / Re: rulebook digital version
« on: July 01, 2022, 09:35:23 PM »
Well okay, fair point!

A bit ;)

32
Player Discussion / Re: rulebook digital version
« on: July 01, 2022, 12:57:03 PM »
"I'm pretty sure this would also benefit sales (of miniatures and rulebooks)."

The second point is arguable.

The first point is more relevant for games systems with their own proprietary miniatures.

33
Player Discussion / Re: Eumenes's challenge
« on: July 01, 2022, 12:40:46 PM »
Let's just add that Eumenes' armies were not exactly noted for always have tip-top command&control.

(In fact, I would argue that wargamers optimising for competitive play do generally go for historically unrealistic levels of command& control ability. Just my poor humble opinion!)

34
List Queries / Re: Later Sargonid Assyrian
« on: July 01, 2022, 12:31:43 PM »
Consider it this way: the advantages of "super heavy cavalry" are represented by other characteristics, mainly Shove and in some cases Devastating Charger.

I agree it is a bit counter-intuitive, especially when compared with close order infantry (which get an implied, situational shove).

35
Modelling and Eye Candy / Re: First Steps Into Battle
« on: March 31, 2022, 05:28:58 PM »
Very nice! Now I want to see if you can fit an Obelix onto a standard sized base :)

Getting rules wrong in your first few games is pretty much unavoidable...as long as you are having fun it doesn't matter. I blogged a few solo games back in 2020 and looking back at them now I see I was pointing out at least one rule I got wrong in each game. It is worth looking through some of the many after-action reports in this forum, I know I picked up some rules (or more understanding of how they apply in practice) that way.

36
Rules Queries and Clarifications / Re: Shooting at unprotected
« on: March 06, 2022, 10:35:27 PM »
bonus if: (unprotected TUG) or (unprotected SUG within 1BW)

37
Player Discussion / Re: Loose Archer
« on: March 03, 2022, 04:02:08 PM »
Sounds like...skirmishers?

38
Rules Queries and Clarifications / Re: Thanks to RJC and NG
« on: February 22, 2022, 11:08:41 AM »
Seconded, as somebody who has not played face-to-face yet the availability of knowledgeable people to answer questions has been extra invaluable.

Especially RJC who spent some time answering my very early questions by email even before I had got as far as joining this forum :)

39
Rules Queries and Clarifications / Re: Question re. +2 for melee flankage
« on: February 22, 2022, 11:06:21 AM »
Me again  8)

I'm happy the above is how it is being played and presumably author intent (especially since it was the same philosophy in FoG iirc).

But I'm still not sure this is clear from the rules...

The update to the clarries says that a supporti8ng file is not "fighting" and this has implications for e.g. p132 section M.
Which seems to say that (if the supporting file is a different UG) it should be allowed to wheel onto the flank?

Further down we have a statement that a frontal combat cannot become a flank combat. "Combat" seems to refer to file-to-file contacts so this as worded would not prevent the supporting UG wheeling onto flank?

40
Rules Queries and Clarifications / Re: 1400 to 1650 ad upgrades to rules?
« on: February 08, 2022, 10:45:53 PM »
Is Renatio et Gloriam what you are looking for? (see second topic down in news sub-forum)

41
Rules Queries and Clarifications / Re: Evading through supporting troops
« on: January 31, 2022, 09:41:26 AM »
The rule seems clear enough now. I think :)

The result may be counter-intuitive though - if the skirmishers start further forward, the shooters can shoot?

42
Rules Queries and Clarifications / Re: Question re. +2 for melee flankage
« on: January 31, 2022, 09:35:24 AM »
Excellent, ta very much!

That removes some potential cheesiness I thought I had spotted around charging and aligning, and who is currently the active player...which is always good.

43
Rules Queries and Clarifications / Re: Question re. +2 for melee flankage
« on: January 30, 2022, 08:37:55 PM »
Sorry to prod, but I still don't think this is clear enough for me to be confident I have it right. And I don't recall seeing a supporting file UG wheel onto a flank in any of the videos I have watched.

If somebody could just tell me plainly how it is actually played it would be much appreciated, ta!   8)

The key question re. p132 M: Section 2 seems to be whether a supporting file is considered to be "fighting" <the enemy UG it is touching>.
- "Common sense" says to me yes, it is rolling a dice ergo it is fighting. I would be very much tempted to just go with this and say wheeling onto the flank therefore is not allowed. But:
- p146 I: 1.  says that a supporting file is not itself engaged in a fight.
- p219 "Supporting file" glossary entry says that a supporting file is next to a file which is "fighting", which could be taken to imply that the supporting file itself isn't (although it does not say so definitively).
- p215 "Engaged bases" glossary entry distinguishes between bases "fighting", "providing necessary ranks", and "supporting files". This seems a stronger case for saying the answer to my question is no.
- p217 "Out of combat" glossary entry I'm now going to disregard. It's talking about UGs rather than files (although that comes to the same thing in Pacto), and "combat" is clearly its own concept deliberately introduced for a specific purpose.


 



44
Player Discussion / Re: Feigned Flight
« on: January 30, 2022, 08:10:41 PM »
#1 sounds right to me. Some descriptions of feigned flight suggest friends closing in on the flanks of the reckless follower (Carrhae?); but I'm sure I have seen aplenty that suggest less co-ordination, the tempters turn around, a shower of arrows, followed by a charge.

#2 I'm not sure about. Hastings seems more of an aberration. (Even discounting argument about what was a genuine retreat, what was a deliberately feigned flight, and whether pursuit was spontaneous or commanded). Cavalry breaking off and then charging again to gain a second advantageous impact combat might also be taken to represent this, at a certain level of abstraction.

45
Rules Queries and Clarifications / Re: Evading through supporting troops
« on: January 29, 2022, 01:32:22 PM »
Well...the shooting is actually taken to occur at 1BW, so you shouldn't need to have line of fire or even visibility of the starting position.

It does feel perhaps wrong that you should have to face two lots of shooting on the way in...was it historical for shooters to have skirmishers operating in front of them in this fashion? I'm not sure it was.

A compromise might be that if line of fire is not maintained throughout the charge, downgrade by one dice colour?

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 8