Page 1 of 1

Mysterious missing POA

Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 11:19 pm
by deadtorius
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.

Re: Mysterious missing POA

Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 11:40 pm
by Blathergut
It was a suggestion as a possible rules change/addition (not by Terry)(possibly Brett) to make extended lines more viable.

Re: Mysterious missing POA

Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 11:44 pm
by Blathergut
Here: (scroll down to Terry's first post)

http://slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=41131

Re: Mysterious missing POA

Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 11:46 pm
by Blathergut
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.

Re: Mysterious missing POA

Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 11:52 pm
by BrettPT
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

Re: Mysterious missing POA

Posted: Mon Apr 08, 2013 6:52 pm
by KeefM
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).

Re: Mysterious missing POA

Posted: Mon Apr 08, 2013 9:15 pm
by deadtorius
we shall see what we can do if I ever get time to play again :?