Slitherine

Page 86 - Diagram - why hasn't the rear, right flank base of Romans turned to the flank?

No mention in the new errata?

petedalby wrote:Page 86 - Diagram - why hasn't the rear, right flank base of Romans turned to the flank?

No mention in the new errata?

IIRC because it was treated as a rear attack. (It could just as easily have been treated as a flank attack, and in FOGR it would compulsorily count as a flank attack).

(Assuming that I am talking about the same diagram as you - don't have my rule book at work).

You need to look at your book then Richard.

Not that it makes any difference to the melee or the POA's tho.

point to add, if they had lined up correctly in the rule book they would not have 'looked' correct.

but then its friday night so I could be wrong

Lost Scrolls - Late Medieval Feudal Germans
Troops notes: Lighter men at arms should probably dismount as armored, not heavy armored, heavy foot.

gozerius wrote:Lost Scrolls - Late Medieval Feudal Germans
Troops notes: Lighter men at arms should probably dismount as armored, not heavy armored, heavy foot.

Nope - if you read the description the material difference is that they haven't got horse armour. They themselves are pretty well armoured but the armour is out of date.

philqw78 wrote:You need to look at your book then Richard.

OK, in that case, because the LH were in side edge to side edge contact and turned to face, this not counting as a flank charge. The Romans elected not to turn.

A bit confusing I admit, for those who look to diagrams to explain sections of the rules they are not intended to explain, but not actually an impossible situation.

rbodleyscott wrote:.. because the LH were in side edge to side edge contact and turned to face, this not counting as a flank charge. The Romans elected not to turn.

Obvious really

OK, in that case, because the LH were in side edge to side edge contact and turned to face, this not counting as a flank charge. The Romans elected not to turn.

Quite a challenge for them to have been in side edge contact in the manouvre phase given the position of the 2 bases labelled 'A'?

nikgaukroger wrote:

gozerius wrote:Lost Scrolls - Late Medieval Feudal Germans
Troops notes: Lighter men at arms should probably dismount as armored, not heavy armored, heavy foot.

Nope - if you read the description the material difference is that they haven't got horse armour. They themselves are pretty well armoured but the armour is out of date.

Then why would that not apply to the city "Lighter men at arms"? Same guys, different masters. Looks like a cut and paste error to me.

petedalby wrote:

OK, in that case, because the LH were in side edge to side edge contact and turned to face, this not counting as a flank charge. The Romans elected not to turn.

Quite a challenge for them to have been in side edge contact in the manouvre phase given the position of the 2 bases labelled 'A'?

Well, apparently they turned before the MF made contact. The Romans shrugged off the annoying side edge contact to focus on the impending charges developing to their front and opposite flank.

petedalby wrote:

OK, in that case, because the LH were in side edge to side edge contact and turned to face, this not counting as a flank charge. The Romans elected not to turn.

Quite a challenge for them to have been in side edge contact in the manouvre phase given the position of the 2 bases labelled 'A'?

Why?

gozerius wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:

gozerius wrote:Lost Scrolls - Late Medieval Feudal Germans
Troops notes: Lighter men at arms should probably dismount as armored, not heavy armored, heavy foot.

Nope - if you read the description the material difference is that they haven't got horse armour. They themselves are pretty well armoured but the armour is out of date.

Then why would that not apply to the city "Lighter men at arms"? Same guys, different masters. Looks like a cut and paste error to me.

Actually I had them as dismounting as heavily armoured originally but that then came under discussion (less because it's not justified, more out of general design principles). Obviously it was changed in the City Leagues list, but not in the Feudal list. To be honest I'm not certain anymore what we actually decided on, so not sure which version is the 'right' one.
At any rate it's not completely wrong to make the Lighter MAA in the City Leagues list slightly worse then those in the Feudal list (among other things they probably represent fewer actually people per base in relation to the rest of the Army here then in the Feudal list), so I'm inclined to let it stand as is.

Ghaznavid wrote:

gozerius wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:
Nope - if you read the description the material difference is that they haven't got horse armour. They themselves are pretty well armoured but the armour is out of date.

Then why would that not apply to the city "Lighter men at arms"? Same guys, different masters. Looks like a cut and paste error to me.

Actually I had them as dismounting as heavily armoured originally but that then came under discussion (less because it's not justified, more out of general design principles). Obviously it was changed in the City Leagues list, but not in the Feudal list. To be honest I'm not certain anymore what we actually decided on, so not sure which version is the 'right' one.
At any rate it's not completely wrong to make the Lighter MAA in the City Leagues list slightly worse then those in the Feudal list (among other things they probably represent fewer actually people per base in relation to the rest of the Army here then in the Feudal list), so I'm inclined to let it stand as is.

It is an error. As Karsten said, it was vetoed for the city list, but I forgot to alter the Feudal list. Mea Culpa.

Anyone hoping to get a tournament tiger out of this issue should be warned that it will propbably be changed to "Armoured" in the next version of the Errata sheet.

rbodleyscott wrote:It is an error. As Karsten said, it was vetoed for the city list, but I forgot to alter the Feudal list. Mea Culpa.

Anyone hoping to get a tournament tiger out of this issue should be warned that it will propbably be changed to "Armoured" in the next version of the Errata sheet.

Quick: when is the next tournament? Anywhere!

At the rate the errata come out, us tigers will have a long time to exploit this. Feudal Germans are the next Dom Rom/shooty cav/whatever.

Marc

babyshark wrote:At the rate the errata come out, us tigers will have a long time to exploit this.

Not this time.

rbodleyscott wrote:

babyshark wrote:At the rate the errata come out, us tigers will have a long time to exploit this.

Not this time.

He really meant it, the new errata is online. Guess Richard really does not like armoured Cv dismounting as heavily armoured HF.

Ghaznavid wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote:

babyshark wrote:At the rate the errata come out, us tigers will have a long time to exploit this.

Not this time.

He really meant it, the new errata is online. Guess Richard really does not like armoured Cv dismounting as heavily armoured HF.

Curses! Foiled again!

Marc