Slitherine

Page 93 - Support shooting by Battle Troops now attracts a minus POA. Since only Battle Troops can provide support shooting why is this italicised?

Was the intention to exempt LF support shooters within a mixed BG from this minus POA?

Please clarify.

That's the way I interpreted it.
LF don't suffer a -POA.

If that's not right it needs to be in the errata

prb4 wrote:That's the way I interpreted it.
LF don't suffer a -POA.

If that's not right it needs to be in the errata

Why would you read it that way? The LF are battle troops. P17. The rule is not incorrect, merely has some words that don't add anything, so this doesn't need an erratum.

Why would you read it that way?

Because of the way it is worded and the seemingly inappropriate use of italics - hence my question.

V1 wording was 'Shooting in the impact phase' - less words and more clarity.

But thanks for the confirmation. LF within a mixed BG are most definitely Battle Troops.

this doesn't need an erratum

Oh yes it does if you want it to be actually played that way.
As written right now the only sensible interpretation is that LF don't suffer a -POA.
If that is not the intention it needs to be in the errata.

This is the sort of thing that puts new players off. You read a rule, it might be oddly written but the intention is quite obvious. Then you play an expert who says, it doesn't mean what is written, in fact it means the complete opposite because of this phrase here in a completely different part of the rule book.

So, put it in the errata or clarify that LF don't suffer a -POA, but don't ignore this as not a problem.

Peter

The LF are battle troops. P17.

What is in the rules makes it clear doesn't it? Or do we want an errata entry that says "Please read P17 of your rule book"

So, put it in the errata or clarify that LF don't suffer a -POA, but don't ignore this as not a problem.

I agree with Peter on this. Having Battle Troops in italics implies some special emphasis or meaning which could be misleading - particularly for new players.

It would do no harm at all to include this within a FAQs or errata document to clarify that all support shooters suffer a negative POA.

Oh yes it does if you want it to be actually played that way.
As written right now the only sensible interpretation is that LF don't suffer a -POA.
If that is not the intention it needs to be in the errata.

The intention is that support fire from LF does not suffer a -POA.
It would have been clearer to replace "battle troops" by "Medium foot" - I was trying to be consistent by calling all non-skirmishers "battle troops" - but shouldn't have bothered in this particular case.

terrys wrote:

Oh yes it does if you want it to be actually played that way.
As written right now the only sensible interpretation is that LF don't suffer a -POA.
If that is not the intention it needs to be in the errata.

The intention is that support fire from LF does not suffer a -POA.
It would have been clearer to replace "battle troops" by "Medium foot" - I was trying to be consistent by calling all non-skirmishers "battle troops" - but shouldn't have bothered in this particular case.

This will need an errata then because at present the LF (who are battle troops) will get a minus.

Terry has gone mad. Only battle troops can shoot in the impact phase.

It's partly why I asked the question. In early play testing Terry's preference was not to penalise LF as they only get 1 dice per 2 bases. I suspected the intent of the wording but agree that changing it to MF support shooters will give the clarity and result Terry required.

So not mad - just poorly worded. And remember - it is always easier to edit than create. That's why you can't check your own work.

So on a a 1 base frontage LF impact shooting is more effective and on a 3 base frontage equally as effective. Seems a bit mad to me
Checking for typos is not the same

I'm sure Terry will explain his rationale in due course. Or be persuaded by your post and leave the rule as written.

Against armoured foot or heavily armoured mounted they are even better

I'm sure Terry will explain his rationale in due course. Or be persuaded by your post and leave the rule as written

There are a number of 'rationale' behind the decision:
1) Supporting light foot get very little benefit for their points - They can't shoot during the shooting phase - They only get 1 dice per 2 bases during the impact phase - and they only get to fire against mounted. Considering they're 5pts per base against (probably) 6pts per base for supporting medium foot, they're expensive for their effect.
2) The historical rationale is that the light foot are likely to be shooting from the front of the BG as the enemy approach, and only drop back to the 3rd rank just before the charge contacts.
3) Where their is a choice of taking a BG of all HF and MF or taking 2/3 HF/MF and 1/3 LF you would be much less likely to see players taking the 2nd option. Not giving them the -POA is a slight push in favour of that option.

So on a a 1 base frontage LF impact shooting is more effective and on a 3 base frontage equally as effective. Seems a bit mad to me

Deliberately contacting the end of a line so that only 1 base fights is a ploy to avoid casualties in the impact phase. If not giving LF a -POA is an incentive for players to contact with at least 2 bases then I'm happy with that!

Can't LF shoot during the Shooting Phase if they are in the second rank of a BG? Let's say a BG of 6 Heavy Foot with three supporting LF Bows is deployed with 3 HF in the front rank, 3 LF in the second and the last 3 HF in the third. Last year I asked if this was a legal formation (version 2.0). The answer was along the lines of, "Any base can be deployed anywhere in the formation".

Terry G.

Of course they can but LF in a mixed battle group are battle troops, not skirmishers

TERRYFROMSPOKANE wrote:Can't LF shoot during the Shooting Phase if they are in the second rank of a BG? Let's say a BG of 6 Heavy Foot with three supporting LF Bows is deployed with 3 HF in the front rank, 3 LF in the second and the last 3 HF in the third. Last year I asked if this was a legal formation (version 2.0). The answer was along the lines of, "Any base can be deployed anywhere in the formation".

Terry G.

They can indeed. However, this tends to compromise the close combat effectiveness of the unit (losing dice) so it's rarely seen in practice. The only time I've used that is when a unit of 4 lancers broke off from my supported legion one base down and disrupted.