In a post regarding giving some incentive to extended lines, Terry had made a mention of a - POA for being shot at in extended line. No matter where I look in the rules or the QRC such a POA does not exist. Was this extra POA a suggestion or is it an actual new ruling?
Main reason I ask is that in our upcoming refight, Austria might be willing to try some river defence in extended line, the extra shooting protection would come in handy for us, along with the suggested don't drop a die from CT rolls. Just want to make sure I can use all the new ideas before I get caught in a bad situation with Frenchies shooting me up from Med range and then making with the charges.
Mysterious missing POA
Moderators: philqw78, terrys, hammy, Blathergut, Slitherine Core
-
deadtorius
- Field Marshal - Me 410A

- Posts: 5291
- Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 12:41 am
-
Blathergut
- Field Marshal - Elefant

- Posts: 5882
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:44 am
- Location: Southern Ontario, Canada
Re: Mysterious missing POA
It was a suggestion as a possible rules change/addition (not by Terry)(possibly Brett) to make extended lines more viable.
-
Blathergut
- Field Marshal - Elefant

- Posts: 5882
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:44 am
- Location: Southern Ontario, Canada
-
Blathergut
- Field Marshal - Elefant

- Posts: 5882
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:44 am
- Location: Southern Ontario, Canada
Re: Mysterious missing POA
Basic points (Terry's words):
For unreformed infantry I've been considering a few amendments which are:
1) Remove the -1 dice on CTs for unreformed infantry (and British) in extended line. They should not be penalised for fighting in their preferred formation.
2) Remove the –POA for firing at extended line at long range. – instead: ignore the first hit against extended line at all ranges....although I haven’t decided whether to additionally remove a hit for large units and superior units charging. Testing will be required.
3) All infantry face backwards if they retire 6MU – regardless of formation. A retire of less than 6MU will leave them facing the enemy. Note that this will also benefit reformed infantry in extended line.
For unreformed infantry I've been considering a few amendments which are:
1) Remove the -1 dice on CTs for unreformed infantry (and British) in extended line. They should not be penalised for fighting in their preferred formation.
2) Remove the –POA for firing at extended line at long range. – instead: ignore the first hit against extended line at all ranges....although I haven’t decided whether to additionally remove a hit for large units and superior units charging. Testing will be required.
3) All infantry face backwards if they retire 6MU – regardless of formation. A retire of less than 6MU will leave them facing the enemy. Note that this will also benefit reformed infantry in extended line.
-
BrettPT
- Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D

- Posts: 1266
- Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:52 am
- Location: Auckland, NZ
Re: Mysterious missing POA
We adopted (1) and (3) above at our recent Natcon tournament - worked well and I would support these amendments.
(2) - ignoring a hit - is a step too far IMO and likely would make extended lines overly powerful.
Cheers
Brett
(2) - ignoring a hit - is a step too far IMO and likely would make extended lines overly powerful.
Cheers
Brett
Re: Mysterious missing POA
BTB, there is already effectively an existing -ve POA for extended lines in as much as extended lines are a 6 to hit at long range (see the top of the "to Hit" table on page 53 of the rules).
-
deadtorius
- Field Marshal - Me 410A

- Posts: 5291
- Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 12:41 am
Re: Mysterious missing POA
we shall see what we can do if I ever get time to play again 
