Murderous Monkey wrote:Hello,
I had a decent read of the rules over Christmas (although I didn't quite finish as work turned out to not completely agree that I was on holiday and is still rather busy so I've not caught up on hobby time just yet) and have come up with some extra comments. So, without further ado:
...and many thanks for doing so Michael, it's greatly appreciated!
Right, on with the show...
Murderous Monkey wrote:1.1 - Do the rules ever explain what the various forms of formatting mean? I thought it might be useful to set that out in the game terms section if possible so that it's nice and clear to the reader.
No, but it's something I plan on doing - should be in the printed version and v10.5.
Murderous Monkey wrote:1.3 Last sentence before "Don't Pre-Measure", is it intended to read "The distance between two warriors in warrior contact or attack contact is considered to be 0"." (It seemed like it was missing contact after warrior and I wasn't sure if the terms were meant to be in bold?)
Yea, "contact" was missing.
The terms are meant to be in bold, I use bold to draw attention to the important concepts.
Murderous Monkey wrote:Additionally, I'm not sure I follow this conceptually? Isn't the definition backwards (i.e. don't you know you are in warrior contact/attack contact because you are touching and therefore 0" apart, rather than know you are 0" apart because you are in warrior contact/attack contact)?
It's to do with warrior profiles; the 0" is there to match warrior profiles, where some attack ranges are listed as 0" of course. It's just that really, so that people associate seeing 0" with attack contact.
Murderous Monkey wrote:2.2.1 Last line of the first paragraph - should this be "will also have a champion" not "can also have a champion" as according to 2.3.5.2 a unit must always have a champion (so if there isn't one then there isn't a unit left either).
Yes, good spot.
Murderous Monkey wrote:2.3.1.1. I thought it was simpler to write "A general may lead any non-allied unit in his host, even those in another noble's command" rather than "A general may lead any unit in his host, even those under a commander, except for allied units." Not exactly a big comment either way though!
Nah I like that - good work!
Murderous Monkey wrote:2.3.1.2 Would it be easier to delete the last paragraph? I'm not sure it is actually correct (e.g. aren't nobles on foot either infantry or monstrous infantry?).
No, they're warlords or warchiefs. It's a bit of a superfluous statement, I'll grant you, but it's worth going the extra mile to suggest such things!
Murderous Monkey wrote:2.3.2 Equally, would Warlord and/or Warchief be better set out as subclasses? I didn't have time to word search through the doc to check that would make more sense but it seemed logical? I noticed that Individual is listed as a subclass and it seemed to be the same as Warlord/Warchief (i.e. in reality a type of noble).
To be fair you're probably right here; the definition has bothered me, in that it's probably superfluous, but changing it will require a fair amount of work so it's going to stay for now as it doesn't hurt anything and I'm running out of time to get the rules sorted. I'll definitely look at this for the main rules.
Murderous Monkey wrote:Death of a General box
- should be "weakens" not "weaken" in opening line?
nah, should be "weaken" - its because the "warrior" is plural. "the resolve of his warriors weakens" is acceptable, but its better to be "weaken" for me.
Murderous Monkey wrote:- last line of 1st para should be "where before was"
Yea, sorted.
Murderous Monkey wrote:- consider whether it is clearer to say the units are deemed to have an authority of zero when determining which unit leader takes over unless the only remaining units are beasts, monstrous beasts and/or war engines? I suspect it's just my job makes me prefer to express things mathematically where possible...
Hah - yea, I think that's a step too far. There may be a better definition in the main rules, but for now it's all right.
Murderous Monkey wrote:2.3.4 Do Loathsome, Fearsome, Terrifying or Fearless get used in the kickstarter rules? I couldn't think of anything but probably just missed it!
Loathsome does (+1 to strike in combat), but Fearsome, Terrifying and Fearless are main rulebook issues... I'm sure you're all looking forward to psychology!
Murderous Monkey wrote:2.3.5
- 2nd para to instead read "Warriors may not voluntarily end their [activation/movement] further than their join distance from another model in their unit."
Yep, that's much better wording.
Murderous Monkey wrote:- 4th para wording doesn't seem completely clear? I'm not sure if this is dictating how casualties will be removed, if you are required to move the bulk of a unit towards a straggler (perhaps rather than towards the enemy) or anything else? It feels like a line that could lead to people interpreting the rules quite differently.
The object of the rule is to ensure that a unit can't voluntarily leave warriors behind, unless some other rule interferes; I'll probably address it better in the main rules - for now it'll suffice.
Murderous Monkey wrote:- 5th paragraph, first sentence - should it say "not within join distance of another warrior from that unit at the beginning of the activation"?
Yea, it should!
Murderous Monkey wrote:- 5th paragraph, the warrior is required to perform an action that enables him to perform a Direct Move toward his unit. Can the warrior freely choose which movement action to take? Is it limited by the order the unit is under? Is there a requirement to choose the order that gets him to move into join distance if he has a choice or orders which could or could not affect it? Additionally, what does "Direct Move towards his unit mean" in these circumstances? The rules effectively say that Direct Move just means 'in a straight line' but I don't know whether I am required to move towards any model in the unit, towards the nearest model (presumably itself in formation), towards the champion, towards nobody in particular so long as I end my move closer to somebody in the unit than I began or something else? Again, this seems like it could lead to arguments - the rules require something but it isn't perfectly clear what the player is required to do.
Well, to give further directives here is a clear example of "railroading" a player; as the rule states, the player has the choice to perform an action that enables him to perform a direct move so that his warrior's in join distance. To be in join distance means he can be in join distance of any warrior from the unit, so again he has the choice. Only time will tell if it leads to arguments, but as (through the huge amount of games we've had) it's hardly ever happened (if at all to be honest) I'm not worried about it at the moment.
Murderous Monkey wrote:2.3.5.2 - the last line of banner bearers and heralds states "even if he is a host [banner bearer/herald]" which suggests you could have two host banner bearers. Is that correct? For some reason I thought you were only a allowed one of each but I can't remember what gave me that impression.
It could be in the muster rules, but either way, it doesn't really matter. The rules could handle two host banner bearers/heralds (has to for allies I think).
Murderous Monkey wrote:Additionally, do the rules ever require the differentiation between "a mustered banner bearer" and a "banner bearer" or the herald versions? If not it seems like we adding defined terms without any real benefit (which can only lead to confusion)?
Yes, when they die; the mustered banner bearer could well have benefits when mustered which the unit warrior doesn't have (for example, a champion has +1 attack when mustered, but a champion that takes over doesn't); whilst I haven't actually used this rule anywhere yet for banner bearers and heralds, I believe in giving myself options everywhere...!
Murderous Monkey wrote:2.3.6.3 suggested rewording of 1st sentence of 2nd para "Provided that the mount is an Ardent Mount, enemy models may choose to Attack either the mount or the rider as they wish". Also, just to check... is this true for both shooting and melee?
I think it can be written either way so I'll stick with what I've written there. It's true for melee of course (as it's Attacks) but shooting is slightly different - it goes on the highest skill first (see shooting at mixed units) but to be fair, it could be a lot clearer here. I'll get to work on that in both this section, the shooting section and the invoke section.
Murderous Monkey wrote:2.3.7.2 Lines of sight.
- So, my earlier comment about rules 2 and 5 having the potential to be in conflict is based on a scenario like this:
a 30mm base model wishes to see a model with a 100mm base that is quite some distance away, but a model with a 60mm base is very close and completely blocks the physical lines on the table to the 100mm base model. Rule 2 states that this model does not block line of sight because it has a smaller base size than the target model but rule 5 states that the model does block line of sight (because it is equal to or greater than the base size of the sighting model). The rules don't tell me which rule to prioritise or whether I apply both (presumably therefore blocking line of sight).
I gotcha. The answer is that, if 2 is larger than 5, the sight line's not blocked. So I'll make that clearer here:
"5: Warriors - now called blocking warriors - with bases larger than or equal in size to the sighting warrior block the sight line, as long as the Target warrior's base is smaller than or equal in size to the blocking warriors"A blimmin' good bit of detective work, that.
Murderous Monkey wrote:- 8: should this say "within 6" of the sighting warrior or unless..."
Yep! Good spot.
Murderous Monkey wrote:2.3.7.3 This paragraph doesn't seem to be correct (e.g. are all warriors 'by definition' sighted - you say there are naturally unsighted warriors later in the paragraph?). Suggested rewording below:
"Most warriors are sighted and thus can see or draw lines of sight. However, some hours during battle (such as the hours of darkness) and some effects (such as those from certain invocations) restrict how far such warriors can see. Additionally, some warriors (perhaps because they are blind or partially sighted) are always restricted as to how far they can see. This will be noted... [no further amends]".
Yea I'll change it to "Most".
Murderous Monkey wrote:2.3.7.6 missing word - "under any circumstances and they effectively cannot be seen at all".
Yea, I'll change that.
Murderous Monkey wrote:2.3.7.7 - Beyond an Obstacle. I'm not clear how this rule works as it requires the target warrior to be completely within 1" of the obstacle to claim cover, but the smallest base size is wider than 1" so it is unlikely this rule will ever come into effect? Might it be worth copying the system set out in the "Larger Warrior" section below it?
It's the diagram that's the key: look at that. It's to do with "side swiping" (i.e., you can only partially see a warrior's base outside of the obstacle). It's not majorly clear but at this stage I'm not prepared to do another diagram - that'll have to wait until the main rules.
Murderous Monkey wrote:Also, how does casualty removal work regarding units in cover?
It's "easier targets" first - (9.2.5.5).
Murderous Monkey wrote:Cover Diagrams box - last paragraph mentions that the Thegn gets cover from the bow-drunes due to the larger based Werwulf, but surely quite a few of them simply can't see him (line of sight rule 5)?
Yea absolutely, but those that can see him are disadvantaged by the larger based Werwulf.
Again, this is the "side-swiping" as mentioned above.
Murderous Monkey wrote:2.3.8.2 first sentence is not always correct as it is dependent on the action being taken.
Yea, I've made sure that's clear.
Murderous Monkey wrote:2.3.8.4 I wasn't sure why the rules need to cover moving backwards as it seemed easier to 'move forwards' and turn to face at the end of the movement but I'm not sure you can turn to face at the end of a move backwards? Is this to do with disengaging from combat or something else that I've missed?
It's to do with disengaging, which isn't in the QS rules but will appear in the main rules... heh.
Murderous Monkey wrote:2.3.8.7 Is it intended that no part of a warrior's base can Move through any enemy model's attack range? I wasn't sure if the restriction was intended to only prohibit a model leaving the enemy model's attack range (so part of the base could leave, just not all of it).
Yes. It's also to do with the main rules.
Murderous Monkey wrote:2.3.8.8 - my earlier query about the intent of the Difficult Move rules was whether it is intended that the rules penalise a model more for moving through several very small pieces of difficult terrain than a single large one. Equally the rules penalise a model equally whether it's entire move is through difficult terrain or only the first 1/2". For example:
- (scenario 1) a model starts it's move at the edge of a forest and wishes to move through the forest - it rolls a 5 and moves to 0.0001" of the opposite edge of the forest. The next hour it tries to move out of the forest and into open ground. The unit again rolls a 5 and therefore moves the same distance, even though this time most of the distance covered is a nice field rather than a tense forest.
- (scenario 2) two models wish to cross a forest. One model is moving through a single forest, which is very big and the model's entire move will be in the forest. The second model is moving through a series of 1" wide forests, with 1" of open ground between each strip of woodland. Model one makes a single difficult move roll, but model 2 makes several and is therefore required to move slower, even though more of its path is made up of open terrain. Obviously this example is slightly silly, but it would be very easy to be penalised if you wanted to dash from one wood into a second nearby wood/rock field/etc.
That's very odd. I've got Difficult Moves completely wrong, and I really don't know why... I must be going mad. I'm playing it one way, but I've written it differently, you see - it's only the part through the difficult terrain that's penalised!! That's why scenario 2 seems odd. I need to change that... it'll be reworked in v10.5.
Bah. That's a good bit of persistence there as well! Nice one.
Murderous Monkey wrote:2.3.8.9
- fourth bullet point is not clear - is this intended to say (1) that you can't run or march unless you cannot fly for some reason or (2) that flyers can never perform a run or march action because they would (unless unable to fly) choose to fly anywhere that was a long way away. Technically the text reads as the second option but I thought the first might be what was intended.
It's basically the second way. I've reworded it.
Murderous Monkey wrote:- 6th and 8th bullet points seem slightly inconsistent - flyers cannot be required to make a direct move under any circumstances (including when charging) (6th bullet point) but at the same time cannot change direction when charging (8th bullet point). As direct moves are defined as being a move in a straight line this seems a bit inconsistent?
Yea, completely! It should say "except when Charging" in 6th bullet point. Cracking spot, that.
Murderous Monkey wrote:- 9th bullet point is the last line meant to be 'partially' or 'completely' within a wood?
It's "within" - no distinction is made, so both.
Murderous Monkey wrote:3.1 Hands - should this be "the number of hands (or equivalents!)" - I am thinking of the chap holding a variety of weapons in his tentacles!
Yea, good point ;o) Uuthüll is his name! He has 6... er... equivalents...
Murderous Monkey wrote:3.4.1.5 "An attack range of 0" is called attack contact" is inconsistent with 1.3 ("Warrior contact occurs if two bases are physically touching on the battlefield and this is also called attack contact or even base contact"). section 3.4.1.5 describes a range but 1.3 describes a distance.
Same difference to me. But I'll add in "range" to 1.3 also.
Murderous Monkey wrote:3.4.1.8 - Example - do we need to specify that Penda is wielding Naegling single handed or did I imagine that it can be used with one or two hands?
That's covered in the profiles - you'll see!
Murderous Monkey wrote:3.4.1.2 When do you cycle weapons? Could you use a shield when shot at and when in melee later in the turn not use it? At the moment I think this is permitted?
It's under 8.1.1.1 (shoot actions have a similar section).
Murderous Monkey wrote:4.1.2 This paragraph is not always correct? Surely you move up to 1" for each point of Move value? Referring to PACE is inaccurate because it does not take account of actions or flyers. This is an example of a situation where it is confusing for the defined term "Move" to mean both the process of moving a model and the stat which determines how far you can move. Quite apart from this, it seems odd to specify the distance warriors can move here as warriors always move up to 1" for each point of their move value (as difficult moves reduce the move value directly).
Yea I'll stick "under normal circumstances" before "warriors Move" and I'll change to Move rather than Pace. That's a legacy of when Move was added of course.
Additionally, it's just a reinforcement paragraph really - just re-iterating Movement.
Murderous Monkey wrote:4.4.2 5th bullet point. This states where nobles mustered with a unit must be positioned but it doesn't yet say when. The players need to know whether they would have to deploy the noble at the same time or if their opponent would position a unit in between placing the unit and placing the model. Equally, the players should be told whether the rule is different for nobles not mustered with a unit.
Doesn't matter - it's not mentioned because it doesn't matter. Nobles are units. Nobles can be positioned as a unit on their own, like any other unit, or within a unit.
Murderous Monkey wrote:5.1 2nd paragraph - this doesn't seem to cover individuals yet?
Yea good point! Missed it.
Murderous Monkey wrote:5.1.1 3rd paragraph - should it be "when they are activated" rather than "when they are active".
Yep!
Murderous Monkey wrote:Vigour State box
(delete "either" - I think you can only use it when you have two options?)
"Either" can be used for more than one option, as long as you stick an "or" in there.
Murderous Monkey wrote:5.2.1.4 - opening line of 4th paragraph should read "Generals and commanders may each only attempt to Retain the Initiative once per battle" - current language could be read as only one attempt collectively rather than 1 each.
Yea, bit of a split infinitive in there too - my pet bugbear. I've changed it.
Murderous Monkey wrote:5.2.1.6 - 2: Ravaged, should this be phrased as determining whether the host is Ravaged or else moved entirely into 5.3.2.1?
It determines whether they're Ravaged; being Ravaged is not a victory condition, as pointed out before, it just leads to a victory condition check.
Murderous Monkey wrote:5.3.1 - delete the last paragraph - it is covered in 5.3.2.1?
Yea, it's redundant now.
Murderous Monkey wrote:6. Do the list of orders need to include fly (Flyers always get it and nobody else can have it?) or Recover (Sorcerous units always get it and nobody else can? Equally, does Join need to be listed in 6.4.1?
Yes, if only for completeness' sake; regardless, there may be an invocation that gives a warrior the ability to Fly, and perhaps a warrior can Recover (that's why it's quite a neutral term and not a sorcerous term) through the use of some artefact. They're kind of like programming functions, are actions. If an artefact gives someone the ability to recover wounds, they can just perform a Recover action.
Murderous Monkey wrote:Action Matrix - I didn't quite make it through section 8 onwards - is there protection against units taking infinite action loops (e.g. attack, invoke, attack, invoke, etc or shoot, volley shoot, shoot, volley shoot, etc)?
Yep. You can only perform an action once, although you can attack, shoot and invoke sequentially if required (i.e., you can't attack, shoot, attack, you must attack, attack).
Murderous Monkey wrote:7.3.1 - is there a reason why models have a minimum move distance?
Yes, to ensure they move and thus fulfil the idea that they've performed an action (no take backs). Plus, it makes sense. They can't Walk 0".
Murderous Monkey wrote:7.4.1 - equally why the minimum move distance? If I don't want to go too far I could just run in a circle? Should 'beset' be formatted in some way (i.e. is it a defined terms of some sort?).
See above. Yes, you can run in a circle, but if you do you're clearly insane, and you've still performed an action that has lodged in your brain. (i.e., further actions enter your consciousness).
Beset will probably become a reaction in the main rules.
Murderous Monkey wrote:7.5.1 same query re point of a minimum move distance.
Same answer...
Murderous Monkey wrote:7.7.1.1 this seems oddly phrased. At this point I know which unit I am attempting to charge with as it is the only active unit? Surely there are just pre-requisites for validly declaring the charge action?
Absolutely, it keeps opponents in the loop. If it's defined in the rules that you identify the charging unit, players must do so, and expect their opponent to do the same. Then it's "no take backs" time.
Trust me, I've played Warhammer battles where pinning down who was charging what was impossible...
Murderous Monkey wrote:7.7.1.2
- amend first sentence to be consistent with any change to 7.7.1.1
No change...
Murderous Monkey wrote:- 2nd bullet point. The requirement to charge the nearest enemy unit that is not in combat is tricky. 1st, what does this mean? The unit with a model closest to the champion or the unit closest to any model in the charging unit?
It's not really tricky - it does what it says on the tin.
"...the Charging unit... must Charge the nearest enemy unit its champion can see that is not in combat (unless there is no other choice), which then becomes the Charged unit..."
Not sure what's unclear there.
However - I must change "champion" to "unit leader" here, currently Nobles would be under the champion's direction, even though they could be the ones taking the test! So this discussion has been useful of course. I may even find a better term than "unit leader"...
Murderous Monkey wrote:What about a situation where most of one unit is close but a single model from another unit is super close?
Tough, the unit leader calls the shots. He leads the unit - therefore he must lead the unit. To be a unit leader must mean something!
Murderous Monkey wrote:Also, as charge range is not a factor I could be prevented from charging a unit I can reach because it is in combat and forced to charge something I will not get into combat with, which seems a bit odd? Does nobody in Darklands want to help their friends?!?
It's more to do with what the unit leader wants to do than anything else, really. Sod his mates!
Murderous Monkey wrote:Feral Units box - 3rd paragraph should it end "closest enemy unit to him that his unit is able to engage by charging"?
Yea, I'll go for that.
Murderous Monkey wrote:7.7.2.5
- should failed charge reactions be put in the rules for charges? Also the name seems misleading as the charging unit doesn't seem to react to the failure to engage... it just runs as close as it can!
Possibly, I may well have over-engineered that. Reactions would be bare without it in the QS though...
Murderous Monkey wrote:- Contacting Other Warriors (1) 'attack contacts' is now a verb rather than a range or a distance (and presumably means getting into base contact?), which is a 3rd meaning for the same 'defined term' - I worry that having the same term used to mean a large number of things is likely to increase the amount of debate regarding the interpretation of rules.
Yea I get you - I'll alter the wording.
Murderous Monkey wrote:(2) I was looking at the stipulation that you cannot charge over impassable terrain and remembered the language about being unable to draw an engagement line over impassable terrain (7.7.2.3) - what is the point of the engagement line? Is it needed? It seems odd that the engagement line determines whether a failed charge reaction occurs given that nobody has to charge along the engagement line.
Firstly, you must understand that some rules are in place that are "future compatible"; i.e., they'll be affected by a rule in the future, even though that rule may not be written yet. It ensures I don't have to retro-fit rules (although I'm not saying that won't happen because I'm not omniscient) as well as being good practice.
Secondly, the engagement line is simply a line drawn from a Charger's sight arc that ensures the engagement distance can't be measured through enemy warriors, etc.
Murderous Monkey wrote:Equally, you can be in a catch 22 when calculating the engagement line as it MUST be the shortest distance but CANNOT be outside a line of sight arc and cannot cross a base or through impassable terrain - what happens if the shortest line doesn't fit the prohibitions?
No - again, the engagement line is just there so that you can measure the smallest engagement distance.
I can see what you're getting at though; I've added [/i]"If the engagement line cannot be drawn to the Charged unit because of those restrictions, the engagement distance is considered to be 0”."[/i] at the end of para 2.
Murderous Monkey wrote:The player isn't instructed to find the shortest line that does meet the requirements so you end up very confused (or in an argument if you're young/competitive enough to be so inclined). I wonder whether failed charge reactions are needed at all.
Yes he is - "The Charging unit's player must measure in a straight line (called the engagement line) the smallest distance between both the Charging unit and the Charged unit". By definition, the engagement line must then adhere to certain criteria, as outlined.
You've lost me here, did you read this right?
Murderous Monkey wrote:7.8.1 Can you turn to face after making the ground move?
Gotcha; yea, it's covered under movement, you can turn to face whenever you like if you're not compelled to move directly.
Murderous Monkey wrote:7.9.1 what is the advantage of electing to not roll all of a model's recover dice (i.e. why do we have the option to only roll some)?
No idea, must have written that whilst asleep... I'll make sure it's a "must" roll.
Murderous Monkey wrote:7.10.1 being braced is absurdly powerful when you do the maths as it makes it incredibly easy to survive being hit. If you do the maths on Melusines or Duguth it becomes pretty crazy (even if they're hit by an incredibly hard hitting beastie). This feeds into the modifiers for easy and difficult - they really are absolutely HUGE.
Well, you're talking profiles here, and profiles have changed quite a lot, certainly in terms of parry dice (you'll see!); and don't forget, you must be on a Hold order to Brace. Thus, it's a real bind for the attack minded.
I hear you of course, but in our games, being Braced has not been an issue. If it becomes one, I'll change it...
Murderous Monkey wrote:As a general observation, all the Further Action sections are confusingly phrased as each section is worded as though the restrictions on the next action is cumulative (may only [x, y, z] afterward in the same activation but 7.1.2 tells the player to only look at the most recent action.
It does need further work and playtesting, but for now I'm happy with it.
Murderous Monkey wrote:7.10.1.3 how does modifying dice numbers work with respect to aggregated attacks? For example, if I have a unit of 10 infantry with 1 attack dice each and elect to brace and are then attacked early in the next hour (while still braced) - will I end up rolling 5 dice or 10 (if I round before aggregating then they can't go below 1 dice each). If 5 then note that this makes it more efficient to be in contact with several units as you can divide attacks to try and minimise the number of dice that are lost when the halving occurs after aggregation. If 10 then note that certain units will always be best off trying to fight while braced.
You make a good point here and it's something I need to address. Being Braced is a defensive measure and so Attacks must be lost. I'll have a thunk about this - it may even be that warriors with only 1 attack will have to forego that attack to be Braced, and I'm also going to add in that a Braced warrior makes difficult strikes.
"Should a Braced unit Attack, their attack dice are halved and all strikes are difficult strikes. Should a Braced unit Shoot, their shoot dice are halved and all shots are difficult shots. Should a Braced unit Invoke, their invoke dice are halved and all invokes are difficult invokes. All fractions are rounded down with no minimum, so some warriors could lose all of their attack dice, shot dice or invoke dice by being Braced."Murderous Monkey wrote:7.11.1.1 Issuing New Orders to another Command - should this deal with the situation where you have a dead commander?
It's already done - it includes "the champion of a unit in a leaderless command"; whilst normally he should issue orders to commanders, if they die he can issue orders to champions of units within the dead commander's command.
Murderous Monkey wrote:Order tests box. This contains modifiers for a general commanding a unit directly (either by not going through the commander and an additional penalty in respect of a leaderless command), but 7.11.1. does not give the general permission to order a unit from another command directly?
See above.
Murderous Monkey wrote:7.12 a few typing errors throughout ("immediately it is created")
I like that phrase ;o)
Murderous Monkey wrote:7.12.1 last paragraph - how is allied unit defined again? I note that if it is defined by reference to the realm/kindred of the general then this language would permit, an allied unit binding an allied unit from its own realm/kindred (e.g. goad handler would be unable to bind a manticore - note that I didn't check if Ysians could ally to anyone but the point would still stand!)).
An allied unit is one within an allied command, it's got nowt to to with possible allies; it's to do with the created host.
Murderous Monkey wrote:7.12.1.4 - last paragraph, should this mention that the unit's activation would end (as it becomes weary)?
Yea, probably should. I'll add it in.
Murderous Monkey wrote:7.12.2
First para - what if they can't perform the same action (e.g. goads who have bound a flying unit?)
I'm going to ensure this can't happen via profiles, but ideally there should be a rule here to cover it; I'll add it into the main rules though.
Murderous Monkey wrote:Attributes - I don't think this paragraph is clear. Should the first sentence be "Warriors in bound units have their Move determined by reference to their own PACE or FLIGHT attribute and the action the [bound unit/binding unit or bind unit (as applicable)] is taking."?
Yea, good point, it's unclear. I've changed it to
"Bound warriors Move at their own Pace or Flight value and the action they are performing".
Murderous Monkey wrote:Note that you indicate that flight can be relevant, but I'm not sure I can think of a binding unit that flies which indicates bind and binding units don't always take the same action, unless you are thinking only of charging units?
Future proofing...
Murderous Monkey wrote:I am not at all sure what is meant by the second part of the sentence "but Movement is always controlled by the Binding unit's unit leader".
That's to do with charging of course.
Murderous Monkey wrote:7.12 and 7.13 why are the processes for 'unbinding' and 'leaving' so different? It seems unnecessarily confusing?
It's because Nobles have a lot more freedom than vassals, really; I do need to playtest this extensively though, so I'll keep a good eye on this.
Murderous Monkey wrote:I didn't get to read through section 8 onwards properly (only the bits I cross referred to in passing) but I wasn't completely sure I followed how you distribute dice under 9.2.3.5 (shooting at a mixed unit). I think you hand out dice 1 at a time to each figure in the unit in the order determined by the shooting player (only moving to the 'next' model in the difficulty queue when the 'current' model has been hit). If so, this makes a bit of a mockery of the more difficult shots as you would always get to apply your best dice against harder targets (i.e. if they have enough hits for one per each model in the unit and a single hit is on a highly skilled noble then his higher skill is unlikely to help him at all)? In fact, now I think about it, the higher skill is a handicap as the higher rolls (included those precious 9s) are most likely to be assigned against the more skilled models if at all possible...
I think you've read it wrong, but can't be sure. It's not about the number rolled, it's about how many shots have hit.
The "harder" target (say, a noble within a unit) has shots applied to him last. For example, if the unit is ten strong + one noble, and twelve shots apply to the unit, eleven shots are applied to the unit and one to the noble. Similarly, if eight shots hit the unit, eight are applied to the unit and none to the noble.
The noble's skill is irrelevant in terms of shooting the unit itself, of which he is a part; he could be shot by a stray arrow thanks to that, but the unit gives him a lot more protection than being on his own. Let's put it another way: he's better off in the unit, especially a big unit, because otherwise he could get a lot more than one shot hitting him if he's on his todd...
Note also that there will be a "look out sir!" type of thing in the main rules, although that probably won't apply to mere arrows.
Murderous Monkey wrote:I was about to proof read this but pasted it into word and it's over 3,500 words so I'm going to abandon that effort and go back to work. Apologies for any typing errors and if anything doesn't make sense then feel free to send me an email asking me to explain my thinking.
Michael
Mate that's bloody awesome, and thank you.
You've really gone through it (well, up to attack) with a fine tooth-comb and made the rules clearer for everyone - so on behalf of everybody on the team, thanks!
Right. I'm going to apply these alterations to v10.5, which should appear for download on Friday along with the Angelcynn and Fomoraic profiles.
Great work Michael!