Observations from a first read

[Murderous Monkey]

So, after spending a happy hour or two with the rules I've had a few thoughts/comments/queries/suggestions which I've set out below. Where possible I've put the clause references to steer the reader to the section I'm discussing. At the end are a couple of extra thoughts that popped into my end while reading and made it into my scribbled notes.


Obviously I might have more after a second read but hopefully some of the below will be useful. As a side-note, I have largely ignored the combat rules thus far as I find it hard to visualise them without the profiles + musters.

1.1 Is 'general' actually used interchangeably with 'player'? It seemed to always refer to the Warlord/Warchief acting as the general and I wondered whether this might ultimately lead to confusion.

2.3.1 "Generals" I wonder if it should be amended so as to read "Generals represent the player upon the battlefield and there must always be one general selected in the Muster for [in] a Darklands Host" [new text bold and underlined, suggested deletion in square brackets].

2.3.2 I noticed that neither cavalry nor monstrous cavalry is listed as a unit and wondered whether these are omissions.

2.3.5.1 Models only need to be in coherency with another model in the unit, which is cool, but is there anything stopping units from being deployed in pairs with a 2" distance from the two models in the same pair but (say) 10" between each pair? If so, I completely missed it. I'm not suggesting this is a good tactic, but it seemed a slightly odd permission.

2.3.5.1 Is there a reason why models out of formation move at the beginning of an activation directly toward his unit? If the unit moves won't he get left behind perpetually (or does he get to move a second time when the unit moves)? Also the direction isn't totally clear to me - would I move towards a specific model in the unit of my choice, towards the champion, towards the nearest model, any direction I want so long as I end it nearer the unit than when I began?

2.3.7.2 Line of Sight - bullet point 8. I think there is an error here - as it specifies "unless the target warrior is within 6" or unless its base is not completely within the wood". Technically this condition is satisfied if a warrior is sitting on the other side of a 20" deep forest (but if he were partially within and on the other side would be out of sight).

4.3 I hope it's clear to a native speaker, but as you called turns 'hours' I wondered if a non-native speaker (or even just a less experienced gamer) might get confused as to whether you're discussing 'real time' or 'game turns' here!

4.4.1 Is 'unit' the correct term for when stuff is being positioned on the table? What happens to single models (or are they also 'units')?

4.4.2 Maybe consider clarifying when the test set out in the first bullet point is done? I think it could be read as either being when initial orders are given or when the unit is positioned. Placing it in the 'Positioning Restrictions' section suggests the latter but I wondered if the first was intended (in which case maybe consider moving this point overleaf to the 'Initial Orders' section).

4.4.2 Positioning alternates with units. If I 'join' a noble to a unit, is that done when the unit is positioned or is it a separate positioning?

5.1 orders are 'only ever turned over to reveal the unit's (or command's) orders when they are active and never before'. Does this mean a player is unable to look at his own face down order counters when deciding (1) whether to issue new orders, (2) which unit to activate or (3) when to retain the initiative?

5.3.2.1 Woe! Woe! is placed in a slightly odd location as it is not, as far as I can tell, a Victory Condition. It isn't a step that [directly] leads to winning and on a literal reading we would keep playing if all my units ran off (as we wouldn't test for 'Slaughtered' until the end of the next, presumably quite short, Hour.) I also note that the 'Death of a General' box on p5 is misleading - if there is no replacement then Woe! Woe! causes everyone to run away automatically - no 'could' about it!

8.1.2 "No further Attack actions may be declared by either player once the Attacking unit and the Defending units have declared attack actions" - perhaps consider clarifying (1) that this restriction applies only for such units, (2) that it only applies for the remainder of the current Hour and (3) whether any Defending unit that is 'ready' but for whatever reason elects not to declare an Attack action is prohibited from doing so later (perhaps they wanted to charge something else and figured everyone locked in combat would be dead anyway!)?

8.1.2 - is there any effect on the initiative if you declare a Defender Attack action?



it seems like a significant part of the strategy is determining which orders to issue and actions to take. I thought it might be helpful to have a table specifying how they link (essentially it'd be three columns - orders, actions and further actions with the order column also having entries for the bonus orders available to generals/commanders/etc). Just an idea!

glossary/index - equally you've gone to the trouble of using defined terms so it'd be awesome to have either a glossary or index setting them out. In legal documents, I normally define terms like "This", which is handy as it (a) stands out and (b) is easier to search for the actual definition since if you don't use the quotes you have to sift through the uses of the term to find the definition when indulging in a bit of electronic searching. It's a style point though and everyone has their own method!

Hope some of that's helpful,

Michael

[Rob Lane]

I've finally got time to start work on finishing up the QS rules, and first on the list is to address the forum.

1.1 Is 'general' actually used interchangeably with 'player'? It seemed to always refer to the Warlord/Warchief acting as the general and I wondered whether this might ultimately lead to confusion.

Yes it is, I shouldn't think it will cause confusion - after all, the players are the generals. Warlords and Warchiefs can be generals, which is the difference here.

2.3.1 "Generals" I wonder if it should be amended so as to read "Generals represent the player upon the battlefield and there must always be one general selected in the Muster for [in] a Darklands Host" [new text bold and underlined, suggested deletion in square brackets].

I'm happy with how it reads at the moment.

2.3.2 I noticed that neither cavalry nor monstrous cavalry is listed as a unit and wondered whether these are omissions.

Good spot, it's not really necessary (single miniatures are units) but I like it, so that word is in.

2.3.5.1 Models only need to be in coherency with another model in the unit, which is cool, but is there anything stopping units from being deployed in pairs with a 2" distance from the two models in the same pair but (say) 10" between each pair? If so, I completely missed it. I'm not suggesting this is a good tactic, but it seemed a slightly odd permission.

That is a very good spot! I've amended this now. Brilliant!

2.3.5.1 Is there a reason why models out of formation move at the beginning of an activation directly toward his unit? If the unit moves won't he get left behind perpetually (or does he get to move a second time when the unit moves)? Also the direction isn't totally clear to me - would I move towards a specific model in the unit of my choice, towards the champion, towards the nearest model, any direction I want so long as I end it nearer the unit than when I began?

It's at the start so that the warrior is not left behind by the unit again. From the paragraph above: "A unit cannot voluntarily leave a warrior outside of their join distance unless it is impossible for the warrior to remain within join distance during their activation." This also answers your second question - he can't be left behind. Regarding where he moves, it doesn't say he has to get within join distance, so I've said that. Other than that, he can go wherever you like so long as he is within join distance at the end of his move.

I'll make this paragraph clearer in the final QS rules though.

2.3.7.2 Line of Sight - bullet point 8. I think there is an error here - as it specifies "unless the target warrior is within 6" or unless its base is not completely within the wood". Technically this condition is satisfied if a warrior is sitting on the other side of a 20" deep forest (but if he were partially within and on the other side would be out of sight).

Yes, good spot. I'm all for making things technical! Fixed.

4.3 I hope it's clear to a native speaker, but as you called turns 'hours' I wondered if a non-native speaker (or even just a less experienced gamer) might get confused as to whether you're discussing 'real time' or 'game turns' here!

Well, it's actually called battle hours, but from our experience once you're in game it doesn't have an effect.

4.4.1 Is 'unit' the correct term for when stuff is being positioned on the table? What happens to single models (or are they also 'units')?

Single miniatures are also units.

4.4.2 Maybe consider clarifying when the test set out in the first bullet point is done? I think it could be read as either being when initial orders are given or when the unit is positioned. Placing it in the 'Positioning Restrictions' section suggests the latter but I wondered if the first was intended (in which case maybe consider moving this point overleaf to the 'Initial Orders' section).

That is a good point. I think I'll put this under "Initial orders", next section.

4.4.2 Positioning alternates with units. If I 'join' a noble to a unit, is that done when the unit is positioned or is it a separate positioning?

This may have changed since you raised this point, but currently it reads: "Nobles that have Joined a unit when mustered must be positioned on the battlefield within the unit they have Joined."

5.1 orders are 'only ever turned over to reveal the unit's (or command's) orders when they are active and never before'. Does this mean a player is unable to look at his own face down order counters when deciding (1) whether to issue new orders, (2) which unit to activate or (3) when to retain the initiative?

No, it just means they're not turned over. I've clarified this though.

5.3.2.1 Woe! Woe! is placed in a slightly odd location as it is not, as far as I can tell, a Victory Condition. It isn't a step that [directly] leads to winning and on a literal reading we would keep playing if all my units ran off (as we wouldn't test for 'Slaughtered' until the end of the next, presumably quite short, Hour.) I also note that the 'Death of a General' box on p5 is misleading - if there is no replacement then Woe! Woe! causes everyone to run away automatically - no 'could' about it!

You are correct in that technically it is not a "victory condition", but it still has a place where it is because there is no other place for it. Perhaps the term "Victory Condition" needs to be changed. There are a few issues regarding the victory conditions at the moment which I am correcting, so I'm not going to go into exhaustive detail here: suffice to say, it's changing. Regardless, this is good feedback for me also.

8.1.2 "No further Attack actions may be declared by either player once the Attacking unit and the Defending units have declared attack actions" - perhaps consider clarifying (1) that this restriction applies only for such units, (2) that it only applies for the remainder of the current Hour and (3) whether any Defending unit that is 'ready' but for whatever reason elects not to declare an Attack action is prohibited from doing so later (perhaps they wanted to charge something else and figured everyone locked in combat would be dead anyway!)?

Very good point, and I've added a few lines to ensure this is not too confusing.

8.1.2 - is there any effect on the initiative if you declare a Defender Attack action?

In terms of what? The combat sequence - 8.2 - shows which units have the initiative.

it seems like a significant part of the strategy is determining which orders to issue and actions to take. I thought it might be helpful to have a table specifying how they link (essentially it'd be three columns - orders, actions and further actions with the order column also having entries for the bonus orders available to generals/commanders/etc). Just an idea!

Yea, I need to do all sorts of summaries and what not!

glossary/index - equally you've gone to the trouble of using defined terms so it'd be awesome to have either a glossary or index setting them out. In legal documents, I normally define terms like "This", which is handy as it (a) stands out and (b) is easier to search for the actual definition since if you don't use the quotes you have to sift through the uses of the term to find the definition when indulging in a bit of electronic searching. It's a style point though and everyone has their own method!

Yea, again, that's on my to do list!

Hope some of that's helpful, Michael

Very much so! Thank you for taking the time, and apologies for the length of time it's took me to respond.

More please ;o)

Cheers

[Murderous Monkey]

Thanks for the responses. I realised that I never got round to reformatting the list of points I emailed you. Did they get through?

Will have a read of the revised rules, hopefully this weekend!

[Rob Lane]

Thanks for the responses. I realised that I never got round to reformatting the list of points I emailed you. Did they get through?

Hmm, don't think they did. There's still time to amend if necessary - see if you can post them here dude.

[Rob Lane]

Right, this is a follow up from Murderous Monkey on e-mail that I've decided to post here for clarification.

I saw your response on 4.4.2 (about mustered joined nobles) and think I was trying to ask when the noble gets positioned (rather than where) - essentially would I have 3 drops or 4 (in a hypothetical list).

Yea, this has been addressed: "Nobles that can Join a unit - if they have not already been mustered as such - may do so when they are positioned. Nobles that have Joined a unit when mustered must be positioned on the battlefield within the unit they have Joined."

1.1 Equally, is it wise to have “warrior” interchangeable with both “unit” and “miniature”? I think it could very easily lead to confusion (think about the difficulty with what ‘model’ means in GW games with respect to characters riding monsters) and I’m not sure what the benefit would be of the terms being so interchangeably?

Yes, it is absolutely - it's not been confusing at all within playtesting. I'm open, as always, to looking at examples of where it could be confusing. By all means try to find such ;o)

1.2 I pondered whether people really new to gaming might want to know that 2d10 calls for the aggregate total of the two rolls – not sure if that’s excessive!

Probably a bit excessive, but it's noted! The rules (I hope) show what to do with the result, whether two add the rolls together and so forth.

1.3 “Attack Contact is defined as two bases touching but in 3.3.1.1 it is an attack range of 0”. I think it might be confusing to have multiple definitions for the same defined term. Also, is there anything wrong with just calling touching bases “base contact” – the meaning is so obvious we’d never have to look it up!

Yes, because a) people may not realise that base contact means that an Attack may well take place and b) "base contact" is an ugly term - where possible I'm trying to use evocative words that actually mean something intuitive. I've actually spoken about base contact because it's something that people already know of course, so I think it cuts down on confusion if nothing else.

The attack range of 0" is a short hand for attack contact - can't really fit that onto the profiles due to lack of space, really. I've added the 0" explanation to 1.3 since you read the rules I think. I don't think it's confusing to be honest, as it's explained, but once again, if you find a specific example of where it could cause major confusion, let me know.

At the end of the day, the rules do need to be clear, but I also want them to be evocative. It's a fine line.

2.3.1 The descriptions of generals and commanders make it look a little like the profiles specify whether a character is a general or a commander. In particular at this point the reader hasn’t seen the profile for any models, which makes the reader’s job quite a bit more difficult – is it worth thinking about inserting a ‘profile’ section much earlier to give the reader a heads up?

The problem there (for the QS rules) is lack of space, really. If it becomes an issue then I'll address it.

2.3.3 Feral acuity – worth repeating the attack order only restriction in the initial order/issue order sections if not already there?

Already done.

Also, the army structure is quite different from many other games. Might it be worth having a flow chart to explain how it works (showing a small command for the general, one or two commanders and an individual operating outside the command structure)?

Yea, that's going to happen in the full rules, and possibly as part of the muster rules when I get around to revising them over Christmas. Expect lots of flow chart summaries in the main rules, too!

Individuals are not part of a command or a commander so it is technically impossible to issue orders to them (the general can only order commanders and units in his command). Is that intended?

This was fixed in 7.11.1.1.

2.3.1.2 “Infantry, Monstrous Infantry, Cavalry, Beasts, Monstrous Beasts and some War Engines are vassals.” This line directly contradicts some of the text in the 2.3.2 which states that “mounted Warlords and Warchiefs are the most obvious mix of class”. Assuming this means they are also cavalry then it makes 2.3.1.2 incorrect as they cannot be both nobles and vassals. I’m not sure why Warlords and Warchiefs need to be part of the Warrior Class table though? Wouldn’t it be easier to not mix command roles with unit ‘type’ from a definitions perspective?

"Noble" and "vassal" denote a warrior's Privilege, not class. Mounted warriors have the class and privilege of the rider, until the rider's death; so in the case of mounted warlords and warchiefs, they're nobles and whatever class they are, and not cavalry. For the time being that will suffice, I do envisage this becoming a problem when warlords are riding mighty monstrous beasts, but we'll see what happens when it happens.

It's a bit confusing though, I'll admit - I'll amend the "mix" text because that's saying something that's not true!

2.3.5.1 Worth specifying that the join distance is 2” unless otherwise specified (rather than ‘almost always’)? I didn’t spot this on the profile or anywhere else, so how are player supposed to know which units are in the ‘almost always’ category and which aren’t? Also, why use ‘join distance’ rather than ‘coherency’? I know it’s nice to be unique, but having common/intuitive terminology makes teaching games a lot easier.

Good spot - amended.

"Coherency" means a whole lot of other things besides people being close to each other; it's to do with the action Join, also.

2.3.5.2 Why do Champions, Banner Bearers and Heralds have a restriction specifying that they cannot leave the unit? It seems to suggest that other models can. Do you just mean that they can’t become forced messengers?

Really, because I don't want there to be confusion between nobles and unit command warriors. It's kind of superfluous, but it's there for reinforcement.

2.3.5.2 references to ‘a host banner bearer’ and ‘a host herald’ – can you have more than 1 of each?

What do you mean? Banner Bearers and Heralds will only really come into their own in the full rules, and you can only have one host banner bearer/herald, but this is explained in the muster rules. I may well need to add it in here though...

2.3.5.6 In the mounted warrior section you tell the reader which attributes to use from each model but I don’t think you’ve explained the attributes conceptually at this point, which makes it a little more difficult.

2.3.6.4 You mention that if a mount is an individual then it can survive the death of its master and fight but is otherwise removed. I’m not sure how to check whether this is the case, but all the mounts I’ve seen so far are vassals and get removed (including Karnun-Beasts, the Toracx and the Ipracx). Is that intended? Some of those guys are the price of a small infantry unit or a warchief.

2.3.6.4 – re wounds for a rider, doesn’t this screw a unit of cav who could either (1) absorb excess wounds from a man falling off his horse which would potentially kill more than just one rider) or (2) slow the unit down massively if the rider survives (they can’t voluntarily leave him behind)

All sorted now, the mounted rules have been overhauled.

2.3.7.2 Line of Sight – “if a warrior can draw line of sight to a unit”. Is there a rule specifying whether this means a single model in the unit, half the unit/etc? If not, I can hear the arguments now (No! You don’t have LOS to the unit because you can’t see this guy – he’s hiding!)…

Good point! Amended to make clearer.

2.3.7.2 Line of Sight - bullet point 5 can conflict with bullet point 2 (if I have models involved with 30mm, 60mm and 100mm then I can an intervening model both does and does not block line of sight).

You'll have to explain this one further - you've lost me.

2.3.7.2 Line of Sight - bullet point 6 “warriors with equal or larger size bases” – worth specifying the size relative to the sighting or target warrior? Otherwise it is a bit unclear.

Good spot, missed that. Added in.

2.3.7.2 Line of Sight - bullet point 7 if my missile troops are on a hill, looking at a unit on another hill but a hill in between, am I able to see the target? By RAW, the answer is no.

This is correct - the hill in between the two hills blocks the sight line, because if it didn't, units on a hill would be able to see units beyond the hill (i.e., hiding behind it). These are QS rules - I'll expand upon terrain rules in the main rules.

2.3.7.4 Would it be on the profile if a model is naturally unsighted?

Yes.

2.3.7.5 Consider rephrasing to “Line of sight cannot be drawn to unseen warriors under any circumstances…”

Yea, bad grammar there! Changed it.

2.3.7.6 Consider deleting “In the interests of clarity,” – this rules just govern it, no?

Aye, superfluous - removed.

2.3.7.6 “Beyond” an obstacle isn’t hugely clear as a concept. What if the nearest point of the model isn’t beyond cover but much of it is? I am also confused by the requirement that the model be completely within 1” of the obstacle, as the smallest base in the game is more than 1” in diameter this condition can never be met by a straight obstacle.

Yea, there's a few issues here, I'd spotted that myself. I will amend for the printed rules.

2.3.8 You refer to PACE and FLIGHT but I think you still haven’t told the reader what they are or where they’re located?

Dunno if you saw this version: "Moving a warrior in any way is called a Move or Movement. It is equal to, and mostly governed by, a warrior's Pace and Flight attributes - which are found on their profile -".

2.3.8.1 First two sentences are in conflict. The act of moving cannot be equal to the Pace/Flight attribute. The maximum distance could be but that would also be false as the maximum is adjusted by the action being taken.

Yea, changed it. Good spot! I'm liking your attention.

2.3.8.1 Sorcerous Moves – last sentence missing capital letter at start - “invocations”.

"Invocations" aren't capitalised, just like "weapons" and "armour" aren't, in the rules.

2.3.8.2 This conflicts with 2.3.8 (discussed above). It also shows the difficulties with defining both the action of moving and the movement attribute itself as the ‘Move’.

Sorted above.

2.3.8.5 Specify that models face the opposite direction when moving backwards?

Already done...

2.3.8.6 Should the rules specify whether or not a model’s move must be finished completely before moving the next model in a unit? This could obviously be very important so it’s nice to be definite on this point.

Yea, good point. Added.

2.3.8.7 Why do you specify that no part of a warriors base may travel through another warrior’s base during the move but not use the same precise language re: impassable terrain?

No idea. Changed it.

2.3.8.7 In you explanatory text you mention that people cannot enter and exit an enemy’s attack range in the same move. (1) You definition of Move in 2.3.8 is not linked to specific actions so I can technically comply by moving in, pausing and then moving out and (2) this doesn’t address situations where I start in the attack range. Not sure if that’s intended?

Yea, changed "Move" to "activation" instead. Good spot. Added something to address 2 also.

2.3.8.8 The difficult terrain rules seem odd. I am statistically slower if I move through two small pieces of difficult terrain than if I spend my entire move in a single large piece of difficult terrain. Not sure this is intended but certainly seems unusual (and especially odd as moving though both pieces of difficult terrain at the same time would not have slowed me down further).

Not sure what you mean - "If a warrior's movement is interspersed by Difficult Moves - for example, if he moves across rough ground, then open ground, then more rough ground - he must perform the Difficult Move Roll separately for each Difficult Move."

Additionally, this is one of the only circumstances where rolling low is good (you are rolling for how much you reduce your remaining Move by (again – this definition now refers to the distance that can be moved and not the move itself)). Also, rounding up means you can end up unable to move any further.

Ah, now that's wrong. The rules are mixed up; it should be rolling high that's good. It now reads "A Difficult Move reduces a warrior's remaining Move to a variable amount, determined by rolling a D10 for the unit as a whole (and not for each individual warrior), called a Difficult Move Roll.". I've switched "by" for "to". So if you roll low, it's reduced to a quarter, not by a quarter.

Bloody good spot, that.

2.3.8.9 As with Feral troops, worth stating the order restrictions in the initial orders and issue new orders section.

Yep, good one. Done.

2.3.8.9 worth using charges as an example of a circumstance when flyers do not have to perform a direct move (note that they will therefore always count as swift chargers as they’ll just fly in a circle first).

Indeed, but they're not allowed to change direction when they charge.

2.3.8.9 Also, why can’t flyers choose to charge on the ground? Ophios could, for example, stop them charging by denying them the ability to make a fly action in its next activation. Is that intended?

No, that's an oversight. Amended.

3.2 Several mosters have a constitution above 100, so the statement that attributes are listed as a value between 1 and 100 is incorrect.

Good point. Amended with the word "usually".

3.2 P, Pace or Fl, Flight – “A warrior may Move up to its Pace…” This statement is not always correct as the distance a model can move is affected by actions.

Good point. Amended with the word "usually".

3.3 Should this specify one or more weapons/shot weapons (some models do have more than just the one!).

Yea, I've added a few words in to that effect.

3.3.1. Does the name ‘combat weapons’ suggest they are used in hand-to-hand combat? A firefight still sounds like combat to me…

Yes, and I've only used the word "suggests". That stays ;o)

3.3.1.1 Attack contact give a different definition to that in 1.3 – which is intended?

Think that's an old issue - seems to be the same to me at the moment.

3.3.1.1 If every weapon has an attack range of at least 0”, how can a weapon have a weapon without an attack range at all?

Yea, that's an error. It should read "Weapons without an attack range at all (i.e., declared as “-”) may not be used during an Attack action.". Must have been brain dumping.

3.3.1.2 Not sure if the profile should make it clear how many hands people can use for the weapons and/or which weapons multi-hand models can swap out to use a shield? Wasn’t sure if some horrible squidmen might raise this question later…

'Tis a good point actually; I think I'll add something in to profiles to make sure. I think in the back of my mind, I'm seeing people looking at miniatures' hands and working it out for themselves. I guess I should know better than that... I'll amend profiles to suit.

4.1.1 should refer to ‘elevated terrain’ rather than just ‘elevated’ to conform to descriptions in the LOS section.

Agreed. Changed!

4.1.1. Water – consider changing “most” to “non-amphibious” as otherwise how will units know which category their warriors are in?

Yeppers, changed. Amphibious has now become a trait also.

4.1.1 Open Ground – section number already taken by ‘terrain features’ on the same page? Also dual definition of Move rears its head once more.

Good spot, changed.

Dual definition of Move is fine for me here, if it's in italics it's an action, if small caps it's an attribute. I do need to make this clear somewhere actually...

4.3 I hope it's clear to a native speaker, but as you called turns 'hours' I wondered if a non-native speaker (or even just a less experienced gamer) might get confused as to whether you're discussing 'real time' or 'game turns' here! Also number of models can be the largest limiting factor (not ‘is’) as there are plenty of us with far too many toys already!

Yea, understood; but to be fair, I think people will make that distinction. If it causes issues I'll change it to battle hours throughout the rules.

4.4.2 When you specify that units cannot be placed within 2” of another unit – would this be more precisely phrased as ‘no unit may be positioned such that any warriors in that unit are within 2” of a warrior not in their unit [unless the relevant units are joined or bound].

I think that's a clarification too far - bound units are one unit in any case, as are joined units, so I'm happy that what is written is understood.

5.1. Consider referencing the orders given if not in command range when deployed?

Done alreadd.

5.2.1.1 Why do units have their state and vigour ‘determined’ at the start of the Hour if they are actually always reset to a single level?

Some forthcoming rules will affect vigour and heart states.

5.2.1.2 Is it worth changing the winner of the initiative test to be the higher roll rather than the lower? This way if both players pass the roll then the general with the highest authority is more likely to have succeed?

No, because that's a direct disadvantage if generals die, and all attribute tests are "lower = good".

5.2.1.2 Should the General that doesn’t win the initiative not be able to reroll a failed initiative test or did you want to limit the power of the reroll?

Yep, if you fail, no re-roll. The re-roll's there, but only if you can control your host in the first place...

5.2.1.3 ‘Perform Compulsory Actions’ – you could read this requirement as forcing a player to activate units with outstanding compulsory actions in priority to those without compulsory actions (just says before “any actions are chosen to be performed”).

Not sure what you mean here - a unit has to be chosen to activate first, and then compulsory actions are performed.

5.2.1.4 The restriction on retaining the initiative is an example of why using ‘general’ to mean both the current general and the player is a mistake as they have different restrictions here (the player can try to retain once per turn, but each general/commander only once per game).

It's not a mistake to use "player" and "general" interchangeably, as that is deliberate ;o) Pedantry aside, the mistake lies in the wording. I've changed it to "Generals and commanders may only attempt to Retain the Initiative once each per battle, and only one attempt to Retain the Initiative may be made per battle hour."

Also note that it’s arguable that a commander can try to retain a second time if promoted to general (or is unable to ever retain if the previous general already retained and the commander didn’t ever try to retain). Also not clear how you decide which model is attempting to retain the initiative (you can still use the best authority that you’re in range of and do not have to be in anyone’s command range).

This has been clarified subsequently; I've added in "Replacement generals, unless they are commanders that have not already retained, may not attempt to Retain the Initiative."

I've clarified the Authority issue.

5.3.3 Dead Warriors and Casualties might be better if they begin “[Dead Warriors/Casualties] are defined as warriors having… [new text bold + underlined].

Added "warriors".

7.3.1.2 Not sure what the test is intended to be? Should I end nearer any enemy unit of my choice, should I end my move closer to the enemy unit that was nearest my unit at the beginning of the action, should I be closer to an enemy model than I was a the beginning of the action (but I could have changed models)? When do I get to measure (there’s no take backs, remember?) and how does this get tested by models/units (i.e. if everyone runs away apart from one model who advances slightly, if this allowed – note that I’m just asking, I think the casualty removal rules might make it a bad plan!).

It's as it reads; you're reading too much into it. I don't want the game to play everything for you, which is why there's no black and white rules here. Start your Walk/Run/Fly action, but ensure you Move closer to an enemy unit than when you began it.

7.4.1 Move definition creeps in again!

It's no issue for me.

7.7.1.1 Does this mean almost all monsters don’t need LOS to charge as trample attacks are sightless strikes?

Sightless strikes mean you can Attack an enemy in your sight arc or blind arc with that weapon. It's got nothing to do with LOS.

7.7.1.2 Para 1 doesn’t described the process for sightless strike units?

Same answer. Do you mean something else?

7.7.1.2 “Charging Multiple Units” para 2 – is it clear which units are the ‘initial Charged units’?

Yea, now sorted that; charging multiple units needed an overhaul and have made sure that's clear.

7.7.2.1 First sentence to begin “Each of” to avoid all warriors in a unit being obligated to turn to face the same model and charge just one guy (although it would definitely suck to be him…)

Good spot.

7.7.2.3 3rd and 4th para – have I missed the description of when you adjust the charge distance for difficult moves (you might not have enough move to reach when move is reduced part way there but not perform a ‘Failed Charge reaction’).

Yea, needed to add that in - a very good spot, thank you!

7.7.2.4 “Charge into Arcs” – not sure how this provision can ever be relevant if you have to move directly towards the centre of the model or do you pick a part of the enemy’s base to move directly towards (I think “Directly towards” is a bit unclear as a concept throughout the rules).

Yea, directly towards is an issue there - just changed it to "towards".

7.7.2.4 Not clear whether you stop moving if you enter the attack range of a model in an enemy unit that is not an initial charged unit as it isn’t a charged unit unless you stop (and you only stop for an attack range from a model in a ‘charged unit’)

"Engagement" has now been explained comprehensively; I saw that this was unclear a while ago and addressed it. See the call out box "engagement types" in the new versions.

but you can’t move through attack ranges and yet you can’t voluntarily stop (and you voluntarily chose your attack path, so were you forbidden from choosing it!)?

You can - it states categorically that Charging warriors can move through attack ranges.

Base contact is clear from the ‘contacting other warriors section’. Also not clear whether you can pick charge targets that removes a warrior from the join distance (you might not know when you start the charges…)

You can't - it's clear in the "...but Remain within Join Distance!" section, which I think is quite an old passage.

7.7.2.4 Also not clear what the closes t enemy unit is for the crazies who can’t stop themselves! Unit closest to any single model? What if there is a split (e.g. 1 model is 1” but the other 2-9 models are 1.5” from a second unit).

This is now explained properly.

7.10.1 I have a note to reread the combat rules and check whether the brace action only helps models in armour and/or with parry dice (are strike dice ‘parries’?). Too tired at the time of writing to do so however!

It helps everybody. Parry Dice have now been removed... it was too clunky and confusing.

7.10.1.3. Do you halve dice before or after aggregating them for combined attacks?

They're halved whenever they are Braced, so at all times!

7.11.1 Does it matter that nobody can ever issue orders to individuals? They aren’t in the generals command and are not themselves commanders.

That was a mistake - addressed it already.

7.11.1 should this end “may be issued to each unit or command during each activation” (there’s a difference between 1 per unit and 1 to each unit, although I’m not sure it would be relevant except for an indecisive general!).

Yea, sorted.

7.11.1.1 Para beginning ‘ordered commanders must…” – what is the timing of this requirement? Is it done first as a compulsory action or at any time?

It's done at any time during the commander's activation. Issue New Orders actions are inconsequential actions, and as long as they're not done during another action then they can be done whenever the commander wishes - but only during his activation.

Can you circumvent the need to issue new orders by moving the imminent recipients first (and out of range) and/or moving the commander out of range too. What if it’s impossible to issue orders (perhaps your weary the commander by fighting back in melee or using one of the spells that wearies him). The test is only conducted once, so I can control which units have to receive the orders by being canny this way. Not sure that was intended?

It's kind of not what you're thinking, so I don't think it's an issue. Generals can issue orders to any unit within his command range.

Also, what happens re: units with a dead commander? No provision for a general/other commander ordering them directly?

Brilliant - I've not even sorted out "commander death" here; thank you for this, I'll address it directly!

7.11.1.2 Why is there a modifier for the general issuing orders to a unit without going through the commander if he is unable to do so?

Simply put, loyalty. Many commands comprise units that don't trust the general as much as their own commander. History is littered with examples of such things!

7.11.1.2 Not clear if Beasts, Monstrous Beasts & War Engines are within the permission or the exception?

Yea, was unclear. I've clarified.

7.11.1.2 A pressed messenger may only voluntarily make a March action. What if they can fly? Also they can only make March actions. How do they therefore take a join action to rejoin the unit?

Yea, clarified on both counts. Flyers make good pressed messengers...

7.11.1.2 As written, only a sorcerous general can command a nearby sorcerer to send an order via invocation. Which is odd, as he could do it himself more effectively and without penalty? (Also should it say “any sorcerer within his command range”?)

It says command range (must have changed that already), and I've ensured non-sorcerous generals can command sorcerers.

7.12.2.1 What does “where possible” mean in this context (especially in relation to charges!#)?

Yea, this is sorted. The relationship between Binding and Bind unit is loose, and only more and more playtesting will iron out issues. Basically, "where possible" means what it means. If you can do it, do it. If you can't, don't.

What is the acuity of a bound unit?

Individual to the Binding/Bind unit. I've clarified much of this in the new versions.

If I unbind a bound unit and both are active, do I have to completely resolve each in turn or can I switch between them for actions and further actions (e.g. action – action - further action – further action).

Good point. They're separate units; player can choose which to go first, but you can't mix their activations. I've clarified this.

8.2 explanatory box should say strike dice and not hit dice?

Awesome, that's a legacy word right there...

it seems like a significant part of the strategy is determining which orders to issue and actions to take. I thought it might be helpful to have a table specifying how they link (essentially it'd be three columns - orders, actions and further actions with the order column also having entries for the bonus orders available to generals/commanders/etc). Just an idea!

Already done, dude!

glossary/index - equally you've gone to the trouble of using defined terms so it'd be awesome to have either a glossary or index setting them out. In legal documents, I normally define terms like "This", which is handy as it (a) stands out and (b) is easier to search for the actual definition since if you don't use the quotes you have to sift through the uses of the term to find the definition when indulging in a bit of electronic searching. It's a style point though and everyone has their own method!

Yea, that's something on my mind also... a glossary and index will be there for the QS, just got to get it sorted really.

Phew! Mate - thanks for all that, it's been fantastic. Thank you.

I do recommend that you pick apart the latest versions... and the muster rules, too!

[asoshnev]

@Murderous Monkey:
Do you want to edit my grant proposals maybe?..
This was amazing - thank you!

[Murderous Monkey]

Glad to have been of some help! It's been a little too long since I wrote that for me to remember what I meant in the sections that didn't make sense to you Rob but I'll read the revised draft carefully over Christmas and see if any new comments pop up or if I remember exactly what I was thinking in relation to some of my more cryptic comments.

I don't know that I'll be able to play a game over the holiday (off to see the family by train and not convinced that resin travels all that safely), which will make it a bit harder to think through the rules in detail, but I should be able to give everything a close read (so long as I can print it before Friday afternoon).



@asoshnev sounds a bit outside my comfort zone unless the proposals relate to wargames - but thank you very much for the compliment!

[Rob Lane]

Glad to have been of some help! It's been a little too long since I wrote that for me to remember what I meant in the sections that didn't make sense to you Rob but I'll read the revised draft carefully over Christmas and see if any new comments pop up or if I remember exactly what I was thinking in relation to some of my more cryptic comments.

I don't know that I'll be able to play a game over the holiday (off to see the family by train and not convinced that resin travels all that safely), which will make it a bit harder to think through the rules in detail, but I should be able to give everything a close read (so long as I can print it before Friday afternoon).

v10.4 will be part of Friday's update but as soon as I get it PDFed up (which should be today) I'll send it you via e-mail dude ;o)

Thank you so much for your help! Just what I needed.

Cheers

[Murderous Monkey]

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:

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.

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?) 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)?

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).

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!

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?).

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).

Death of a General box
- should be "weakens" not "weaken" in opening line?
- last line of 1st para should be "where before was"
- 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...

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!

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."
- 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.
- 5th paragraph, first sentence - should it say "not within join distance of another warrior from that unit at the beginning of the activation"?
- 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.

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. 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)?

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?

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).
- 8: should this say "within 6" of the sighting warrior or unless..."

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]".

2.3.7.6 missing word - "under any circumstances and they effectively cannot be seen at all".

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?

Also, how does casualty removal work regarding units in cover?

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)?

2.3.8.2 first sentence is not always correct as it is dependent on the action being taken.

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?

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).

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.

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.
- 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?
- 9th bullet point is the last line meant to be 'partially' or 'completely' within a wood?

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!

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.

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?

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?

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).

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.

5.1 2nd paragraph - this doesn't seem to cover individuals yet?

5.1.1 3rd paragraph - should it be "when they are activated" rather than "when they are active".

Vigour State box
(delete "either" - I think you can only use it when you have two options?)

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.

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?

5.3.1 - delete the last paragraph - it is covered in 5.3.2.1?

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?

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)?

7.3.1 - is there a reason why models have a minimum move distance?

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?).

7.5.1 same query re point of a minimum move distance.

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?

7.7.1.2
- amend first sentence to be consistent with any change to 7.7.1.1
- 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? What about a situation where most of one unit is close but a single model from another unit is super close? 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?!?

Feral Units box - 3rd paragraph should it end "closest enemy unit to him that his unit is able to engage by charging"?

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!
- 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. (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. 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? 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.

7.8.1 Can you turn to face after making the ground move?

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)?

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.

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.

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.

7.11.1.1 Issuing New Orders to another Command - should this deal with the situation where you have a dead commander?

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?

7.12 a few typing errors throughout ("immediately it is created")

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!)).

7.12.1.4 - last paragraph, should this mention that the unit's activation would end (as it becomes weary)?

7.12.2
First para - what if they can't perform the same action (e.g. goads who have bound a flying unit?)
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."? 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? 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".

7.12 and 7.13 why are the processes for 'unbinding' and 'leaving' so different? It seems unnecessarily confusing?



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 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

[Rob Lane]

Cheers Michael! Am currently working on this now... should post a full reply tomorrow.

Thanks very much for working on this so much, it's greatly appreciated!

Cheers

[Rob Lane]

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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!

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.

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.

- last line of 1st para should be "where before was"

Yea, sorted.

- 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.

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!

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.

- 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.

- 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!

- 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.

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).

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...!

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.

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.

- 8: should this say "within 6" of the sighting warrior or unless..."

Yep! Good spot.

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".

2.3.7.6 missing word - "under any circumstances and they effectively cannot be seen at all".

Yea, I'll change that.

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.

Also, how does casualty removal work regarding units in cover?

It's "easier targets" first - (9.2.5.5).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

- 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.

- 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.

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...

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.

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!

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).

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.

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.

5.1 2nd paragraph - this doesn't seem to cover individuals yet?

Yea good point! Missed it.

5.1.1 3rd paragraph - should it be "when they are activated" rather than "when they are active".

Yep!

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.

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.

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.

5.3.1 - delete the last paragraph - it is covered in 5.3.2.1?

Yea, it's redundant now.

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.

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).

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".

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.

7.5.1 same query re point of a minimum move distance.

Same answer...

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...

7.7.1.2
- amend first sentence to be consistent with any change to 7.7.1.1

No change...

- 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"...

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!

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!

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.

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...

- 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.

(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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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...

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.

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."

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.

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.

7.12 a few typing errors throughout ("immediately it is created")

I like that phrase ;o)

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.

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.

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.

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".

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...

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.

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.

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.

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!