Slitherine

Empgamer wrote:...snip...

13. Pike v Impact Foot - We read that in this case, IF will always (at least) be on a +POA v Pike, even if Pike are charging and IF receive?

No, pike vs Impact Foot is even POAs (assuming the pikes are 4 deep). Its irrespective of who initiates the charge, it's assumed the other will counter-charge. Pikes are the only infantry (other than another IF BG) than can match IF at impact.

Neil is correct. I've found it helps to charge the flanks or rear of a pike block at the same time as my legions go in, even if it's just LH. The LH are going to have a hard time, but you'll negate his 4th rank, and that makes all the difference.

Not sure why I didn't notice the pike IF thing. I must have gotten it into my head that it was spear vs IF which is relatively even. Pike are very tough and aren't scared of much in the way of close combat troops at all.

Of course.....missed that 4th rank +POA (a few times!!!) cancelling out (with the pike 3 ranks of more other +POA) the IF ++POA.

As a total aside it's nice to see Scythed Chariots being an effective troop choice. Seleucids likely to be seeing some action (in my case) under FOG.

I must admit I think the combination of POAs and the various troop factors under the lists have produced a game with some REAL period flavour.

I don't think it's that big a deal, almost any game now (any worth its salt) will have a support web-site and an auto-break QRS offered as an extra, or included as an update to an existing one will, I suspect, be just as welcomed as if it were in the rules from day one. In fact, to show the mechanics, I suspect quality rules will show the mechanism in the rules (percentages) and have the numbers in a QRS Very Happy

In the next version of my excel sheet (soon on the net), the autobreak and the 25% are calculated automatically.
Olivier

Good news, that's the army calculator I assume? Just found another reason not to buy a MAC. Works fine on my main (desktop PC), my laptop is a MAC though and iWork (the Apple Office hash) doesn't seem to like it. Maybe I need to treat myself to an Xmas Sony Vaio

Yes it's the same.
And as I work (slowly and painfully) on a complete version with VBA macro, Mac will be totally out of my range

Empgamer wrote:Good news, that's the army calculator I assume? Just found another reason not to buy a MAC. Works fine on my main (desktop PC), my laptop is a MAC though and iWork (the Apple Office hash) doesn't seem to like it. Maybe I need to treat myself to an Xmas Sony Vaio

I run it on my iMac (using Excel from MS Office for Mac) with no problems. Can't wait for the new-and-improved version.

Marc

I'm sure it would under Office, not really my point. Suspect I may be able to load Office on this MAC under bootcamp once I upgrade it to Leopard (which I have, just waiting for bugs to be ironed out). I'm sure it would work on Office for Mac but I don't have it and am loathe to buy it just for one spread sheet.

Absolutely TOTALLY OT but since I bought this Mac (the only benefit to me being the ability to shut the lid and open it up again and have it work instantly v the Windoze boot times) I've become less and less convinced of my preference for them over PCs, more so if you have a fair bit of legacy PC software. Good in one respect but I'm not sure the software compatibility trade offs are worth it. Might gift this to my wife and get a Windoze ultra portable instead.

Empgamer wrote:I'm sure it would under Office, not really my point. Suspect I may be able to load Office on this MAC under bootcamp once I upgrade it to Leopard (which I have, just waiting for bugs to be ironed out). I'm sure it would work on Office for Mac but I don't have it and am loathe to buy it just for one spread sheet.

Absolutely TOTALLY OT but since I bought this Mac (the only benefit to me being the ability to shut the lid and open it up again and have it work instantly v the Windoze boot times) I've become less and less convinced of my preference for them over PCs, more so if you have a fair bit of legacy PC software. Good in one respect but I'm not sure the software compatibility trade offs are worth it. Might gift this to my wife and get a Windoze ultra portable instead.

http://www.vmware.com/products/fusion/

Rgds,
Peter

Hmmm. Might have a look at that. Presume you just load that on and then install (PC) Office?

Would appreciate any clarification on the outstanding two points:

Shooting (2nd rank shoot as first) - Rules say (IIRC) that in some cases, 2nd rank (where 1st is not missile armed) shoot as if 1st rank (e.g. 1 dice per base etc?). Now, where a 3rd rank is also missile, in the shooting phase, and because the 2nd rank shoot as 1st rank, does this carry over to the 3rd rank which NOW shoot as if hey were 2nd rank (e.g. 1 dice per 2 bases) or does the 2nd as 1st not read across to 3rd as 2nd? We think not but can see how some may interpret it as such.

Double wheels: Can, for instance, a cavalry BG wheel, move, wheel and move or, when doing a double wheel, can the move not be split?

Empgamer wrote:Shooting (2nd rank shoot as first) - Rules say (IIRC) that in some cases, 2nd rank (where 1st is not missile armed) shoot as if 1st rank (e.g. 1 dice per base etc?).

But the rules don't say that. They say they count as the "first shooting rank" - which is not the same thing at all.

Now, where a 3rd rank is also missile, in the shooting phase, and because the 2nd rank shoot as 1st rank, does this carry over to the 3rd rank which NOW shoot as if hey were 2nd rank (e.g. 1 dice per 2 bases)

No

Double wheels: Can, for instance, a cavalry BG wheel, move, wheel and move or, when doing a double wheel, can the move not be split?

As the rules don't specify that the wheels must be at the beginning or end of the move, I son't see why not. In your first case, however, it would count (I think) as a double wheel. Maybe one for the FAQ.

Thanks Richard. I think the confusion with the first point (2nd rank shooters) was caused by lack of familiarity with/knowledge of the rules coupled with an eagerness to get playing.

Re the cav move - that's the conclusion we came to - a) you could do it and b) it constitutes a double wheel (in other words, even if the two separate wheels are within the bounds of what could actually be achieved with one wheel, to be counted as one wheel it has to be completed in one place/go and any second wheeling type movement constitutes a double wheel). In this case the move needed to be completed in two parts - one to angle the unit to pass friendlies, then move forward, wheel again to align with enemy to get most bases at Impact and then forward move to close gap to get in charge range for next turn.