Support Shooting POA - V3

This forum is for any questions about the rules. Post here is you need feedback from the design team.

Moderators: hammy, philqw78, terrys, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Moderators, Field of Glory Design

Post Reply
petedalby
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3100
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:23 pm
Location: Fareham, UK

Support Shooting POA - V3

Post by petedalby »

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.
Pete
prb4
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 138
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 4:19 pm

Re: Support Shooting POA - V3

Post by prb4 »

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
grahambriggs
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3056
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am

Re: Support Shooting POA - V3

Post by grahambriggs »

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.
petedalby
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3100
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:23 pm
Location: Fareham, UK

Re: Support Shooting POA - V3

Post by petedalby »

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.
Pete
prb4
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 138
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 4:19 pm

Re: Support Shooting POA - V3

Post by prb4 »

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
nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: Support Shooting POA - V3

Post by nikgaukroger »

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" :lol:
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
petedalby
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3100
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:23 pm
Location: Fareham, UK

Re: Support Shooting POA - V3

Post by petedalby »

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.
Pete
terrys
Panzer Corps Team
Panzer Corps Team
Posts: 4226
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 11:53 am

Re: Support Shooting POA - V3

Post by terrys »

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.
grahambriggs
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3056
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am

Re: Support Shooting POA - V3

Post by grahambriggs »

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.
philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8812
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Re: Support Shooting POA - V3

Post by philqw78 »

Terry has gone mad. Only battle troops can shoot in the impact phase.
phil
putting the arg into argumentative, except for the lists I check where there is no argument!
petedalby
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3100
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:23 pm
Location: Fareham, UK

Re: Support Shooting POA - V3

Post by petedalby »

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.
Pete
philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8812
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Re: Support Shooting POA - V3

Post by philqw78 »

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
phil
putting the arg into argumentative, except for the lists I check where there is no argument!
petedalby
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3100
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:23 pm
Location: Fareham, UK

Re: Support Shooting POA - V3

Post by petedalby »

I'm sure Terry will explain his rationale in due course. Or be persuaded by your post and leave the rule as written. :?
Pete
philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8812
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Re: Support Shooting POA - V3

Post by philqw78 »

Against armoured foot or heavily armoured mounted they are even better
phil
putting the arg into argumentative, except for the lists I check where there is no argument!
terrys
Panzer Corps Team
Panzer Corps Team
Posts: 4226
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 11:53 am

Re: Support Shooting POA - V3

Post by terrys »

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!
TERRYFROMSPOKANE
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 226
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 2:44 pm

Re: Support Shooting POA - V3

Post by TERRYFROMSPOKANE »

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.
philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8812
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Re: Support Shooting POA - V3

Post by philqw78 »

Of course they can but LF in a mixed battle group are battle troops, not skirmishers
phil
putting the arg into argumentative, except for the lists I check where there is no argument!
grahambriggs
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3056
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am

Re: Support Shooting POA - V3

Post by grahambriggs »

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.
Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions”