Slitherine

From page 9-1 (PC version):

"If a CMT is required to make a charge against certain troops, it must be taken if required for any of the battle groups that can be "legally" contacted in the chosen direction of charge, including by stepping forward bases."

Does this mean that LH must pass a CMT to charge enemy skirmishers in a situation where the LH could step forward into non-skirmishers behind the enemy skirmishers? Would it also mean that they must charge into the non-skirmishers behind the enemy skirmishers if the enemy skirmishers evade leaving the non-skirmishers in the charge path.

It certainly sounds like this will make it much harder to use LH to drive back enemy skirmishers that are supported by non-skirmishers. Seems like it will be much harder to make troops like knights charge without orders.

Chris

I think this is answered on 9-5, skirmishers don't need to step forward in these circumstances.

kevinj wrote:I think this is answered on 9-5, skirmishers don't need to step forward in these circumstances.

The skirmishers do not have to step forward but that is not the same as they cannot legally do so. So I think they would still need to test according to the wording on page 9-1.

Chris

kevinj wrote:I think this is answered on 9-5, skirmishers don't need to step forward in these circumstances.

The skirmishers do not have to step forward but that is not the same as they cannot legally do so. So I think they would still need to test according to the wording on page 9-1.

Chris

Always interesting to see questions raised by a new version of a rule set for an area where the wording hasn't changed

nikgaukroger wrote:Always interesting to see questions raised by a new version of a rule set for an area where the wording hasn't changed

Shows what happens when you haven't read a particular section recently in the V1 rules Also shows why it would be really nice if some form of change indication was included in the V2 rules.

I think I've always played it that the charger only had to test if they explicitly wanted to contact the troops it would need to check for, not that it must test if it could contact them by stepping forward. The wording seems to imply that they must test and if they passed therefore must contact the non-skirmishers if those were uncovered by the enemy skirmishers evading . Is that correct?

Chris

batesmotel wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:Always interesting to see questions raised by a new version of a rule set for an area where the wording hasn't changed

Shows what happens when you haven't read a particular section recently in the V1 rules Also shows why it would be really nice if some form of change indication was included in the V2 rules.

Crossed my mind that it was a previously undiscovered issue, or that we'd all been doing it wrong for years

I think I've always played it that the charger only had to test if they explicitly wanted to contact the troops it would need to check for, not that it must test if it could contact them by stepping forward. The wording seems to imply that they must test and if they passed therefore must contact the non-skirmishers if those were uncovered by the enemy skirmishers evading . Is that correct?

Chris

I am tending to think that there is a contradiction within the rules between 9-1 and 9-5

I will try and think of why you shouldn't have to test (and so need not step forward) as I think that is better for the game.

On a positive note if you've spotted something that needs a tweak it can now be done reasonably soon through an update - assuming the benefits of the e-docs is to be properly utilised

nikgaukroger wrote:On a positive note if you've spotted something that needs a tweak it can now be done reasonably soon through an update - assuming the benefits of the e-docs is to be properly utilised

Well that was the original plan. But how that pans out now that there will be a printed version remains to be seen. Especially as the printed version will not be printed from the same file.

rbodleyscott wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:On a positive note if you've spotted something that needs a tweak it can now be done reasonably soon through an update - assuming the benefits of the e-docs is to be properly utilised

Well that was the original plan. But how that pans out now that there will be a printed version remains to be seen. Especially as the printed version will not be printed from the same file.

Abannan will accept PDFs as input according to their web site, and I suspect anyone doing POD or otherwise generating hard copy will also be able to do so as well. So if Slitherine did the master source for the printed version as a PDF, I expect they could essentially use the same master source and then do any minor tweaks necessary for the digital and final hard copy formats separately from that for each update.

Chris

rbodleyscott wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:On a positive note if you've spotted something that needs a tweak it can now be done reasonably soon through an update - assuming the benefits of the e-docs is to be properly utilised

Well that was the original plan. But how that pans out now that there will be a printed version remains to be seen. Especially as the printed version will not be printed from the same file.

That problem could have been avoided entirely if Slitherine chose a digital distribution with hard copy capability, instead of all these insane compromises that leave us with three digital platforms, a POD hardcopy with a different file origin, and a huge migrane from the end-user.

If the digital rules aren't going to be updatable as announced, then what's the point of going digital? So we can enjoy the pleasures of the -wonderful- interface we're all saddled with?

My impression from talking to JD was updates would be once a yearish to main rules and a slow release and update of lists

philqw78 wrote:My impression from talking to JD was updates would be once a yearish to main rules and a slow release and update of lists

That was my understanding too, but unless Slitherine plans to bind and deliver a new Print to Order update to the rules every year, I'm at a loss to see how they're going to manage this. As RBS said, it's more complicated now.

Jhykronos wrote:

philqw78 wrote:My impression from talking to JD was updates would be once a yearish to main rules and a slow release and update of lists

That was my understanding too, but unless Slitherine plans to bind and deliver a new Print to Order update to the rules every year, I'm at a loss to see how they're going to manage this. As RBS said, it's more complicated now.

Unless they live in a dream state of believing that in a year's time everyone will see the light and convert digital.