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 - LawrenceG

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 29
Rules Queries and Clarifications / Re: Dismountables
« on: January 31, 2024, 11:21:32 AM »
What fuss has there been?

I could field 52 bases of mounted hoplites, but I don't think making yourself combat shy until you (in effect) discard a yellow card is a great way to spend 10 points a base.

Automatically dismounting if you are shot at might actually be an advantage.


If the pursuing troops are deemed to have not charged then they can claim all the advantages of standing to receive as the latter is having not charged, etc. (per QRS, glossary says have not declared a charge FWIW and that is what is used when playing as even if you declare a charge you may not actually charge due to the move sequence).

So if you make an undeclared forced charge you are standing to receive?

Rules Queries and Clarifications / Re: UG destroyed and pursuit
« on: January 30, 2024, 04:32:32 AM »
5. UGs that destroyed opponents that were fighting on two or more of front, left flank, right
flank or rear OR with bases facing in more than one direction have an option to pursue
directly ahead.

So all of them have the possibility of pursuing.

Rules Queries and Clarifications / Re: SUGS charging camps.
« on: January 30, 2024, 04:22:13 AM »
Skirmishing infantry are still infantry.


That answers one of the questions, but what about the restriction to charging only if the camp is within a base of breaking?

Rules Queries and Clarifications / SUGS charging camps.
« on: January 29, 2024, 08:06:55 AM »
A camp is not a TUG but is treated as a TUG for combat.

pdf 6.M.2 "A fortified camp may only be attacked by infantry or elephants; other camps can be attacked
by any enemy, including skirmishers."

So skirmishers can attack camps, but is this ability to attack limited by the restriction on SUGS charging TUGS (i.e. only when nearly broken)?

Can infantry skirmishers attack fortified camps? Looks like they can, but not entirely clear because the "including skirmishers" is omitted.

A countercharge moves you towards the enemy without contacting them, so you might form the impression that this means you don't fight.

However, the enemy charge takes place after the countercharge and this will contact your unit. Then everybody fights.

Rules Queries and Clarifications / Can you discard in the charge phase?
« on: January 27, 2024, 09:04:20 AM »
According to my opponent, it is generally accepted in Australia that you cannot discard in the charge declaration subphase, because 5.A.2 only mentions declaring or stopping a charge, or passing.

I note that 1.A.6 says you can discard in any subphase involving card play.

Which one applies and why?

List Queries / Re: Mixing General Training
« on: January 19, 2024, 09:53:02 PM »
But can still prompt an action in a sub-general's command with the usual additional colour card.

There are also PBS & Scouting advantages to a Professional army commander in an army with otherwise Instinctive generals.

It seems any professional general can prompt an action by any non-allied UGs. pdf 2.B.9

List Queries / 4203 Middle Warring States Wuqiujiu - clubmen
« on: January 09, 2024, 09:07:57 AM »
A bit late now, but ...

I was converting over some armies to the new lists and I noticed that the Wuqiujiu - clubmen are unprotected melee expert.

The DBMM army lists describe these thus:

The small state of Chungshan had troops alled wu-ch ' iu-chiu in iron armour wielding iron clubs "whatever they hit they smashed and wherever they went they met no resistance".

Unfortunately they don't give the source.

"iron armour" sounds like it should be at least protected and "whatever they hit they smashed" sounds more like 2HCC than melee expert.

Also if they were intended to compensate for lack of chariots by taking on enemy shooty chariots, protected 2HCC would make more sense than unprotected melee expert (vulnerable to shooting and no special anti-mounted capability). Even being superior they are worse against mounted than the normal average protected long spear infantry, and only marginally better against LSp infantry.

Is there other evidence that they were vulnerable to missiles and not that great in melee?

I think the argument that they should is because shooting is what they do when they charge - it's their "method" or "battle drill".

Given the above, is allowing shooting when a forced charge is "marked" under consideration for a future version?

It appears nothing is gained and the game is potentially made less enjoyable by not allowing it.

Or is something gained?

There could be a slight command (in)decision to be made.
If your opponent passes in the charge declaration phase and you want to shutdown their ability to subsequently declare a charge (or hold a forced charge), you can pass as well. This means your forced charges trundle off but don't get their shooting. Pretty niche, but I have used the Pass-then-forced-charges a few times to prevent potential enemy charges/holds that I wanted to pause/deny.
Players could still use this trick (and without losing own shoot and charge, yay!) to prevent potential enemy charges/holds that they want to pause/deny. They couldn't use it to stop opponents using their shoot and charge, though.

Given the above, is allowing shooting when a forced charge is "marked" under consideration for a future version?

It appears nothing is gained and the game is potentially made less enjoyable by not allowing it.

Or is something gained?


6.C.5 says "Front rank bases in contact with an enemy flank but not as a valid flank charge may ignore the 1BW restriction to align with the front edge of the file contacted if all other restrictions are obeyed."

6.C.8 says "Side edge contacts that were frontal charges may only align into frontal supporting file positions, not flank positions." Only frontal supporting file positions implies the front edge of the file cannot be aligned to.

Probably the intention is both kinds of frontal position are allowed, so it would be worth tidying this up at some point.

Ah. Errata to the errata.

Are updated rules being released in the new year, or will the current versions plus errata continue for the foreseeable future?

Rules Queries and Clarifications / Re: MOVING CHARGERS COUNTERCHARGE MOVE
« on: December 07, 2023, 12:52:21 AM »
Strictly, the wording imposes a requirement on what happens if you do change direction, but no requirement on what would have happened (or not happened) if you had not changed direction.

Worth making the "if the original direction would not contact the target" explicit.

At the same time, make explicit the unwritten rule that only the minimum change of direction is permitted.

I also note that you can contact any UG that moved in the specified ways, it does not have to be your original target. Not sure if that was intended.

FWIW it seems strange to me that "charge" is not on the list when countercharge and intercept are. 

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 29