Remove this ad

Lead

Feb 16 15 6:44 AM

Tags : :

Yith posted these questions in a battle report, but I thought it best to answer them here. Here are the questions:

#1 In Rough going movement is reduced to half, so my Foot Men-at-Arms can only move 3". If that's the case, then since no unit can be within 3" of them then they can't ever charge anything. We assumed this must be wrong and allowed them to charge anyway, but I'd like to know how it really should work.

#2 The Ferocious rule allows Foot Men-at-Arms to ignore the Rough going for the purposes of combat, we couldn't see why this would be. They're heavily armoured and even if elite should be hindered by the bad ground. As an example at Agincourt the Foot Men-at-Arms famously became bogged down in a marsh and shot to bits by archers. Also I couldn't quite see what reference the name had to the rule. Any response?

#3 It seemed that for the same points value the Foot Men-at-Arms were much better than the Mounted ones. The Mounted gain 4" extra movement and Counter-Charge, but lose a point of Defense Value, 2 points of Defense, Ferocious and become impetuous with Wild Charge. Even in the open in our game the Mounted Men-at-Arms lost to a unit of Foot Men-at-Arms. It seemed that the Foot Men-at-Arms were the ultra-good unit in the game.
 
Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Remove this ad

#1 [url]

Feb 16 15 6:50 AM

And here are my responses….

1) They move to 3" away, and if the enemy unit has not moved before the MAA get to move again, they move their further 3" into contact. This represents their slightly clunky ability to manoeuvre when burdened with armour and weapons.

2) Ferocious = skilled individual fighters, rather than a unit relying on cohesion, hence they are equally good whatever the terrain. Your Agincourt example is really about movement, I would say, and is covered in my answer above. Ferocious? I tried a few titles but liked this one the best, and I think if you're the unlucky sod who is cornered by them in rough terrain, you'd think them pretty ferocious...

3) You played the Bloodbath scenario. MAA are very good in that scenario. Play a scenario requiring fast movement across the table and see if you still think they're worth the points. Different scenarios benefit different troop types, as explained in the rules, and sometimes you will think them to be 6 points wasted. They will always perform well in a fight though … it's just that not all scenarios require that (I've seen games won without any combat beyond a few bow shots, which I think is great). So my advice is to play a few more scenarios to see the best from different troop types., especially if you're thinking about tweaking points values.

Cheers.

Quote    Reply   

#2 [url]

Feb 16 15 11:01 AM

Foot [email protected] do seem to be the best on paper but first experiences can be deceiving. I've played LR a lot in the last 3 month and can tell you they are not invincible. In my last game a unit of foot [email protected] charged a Yeomen Schiltron, lost the combat and evaporated. Stick with the rules and try a few scenarios I'm sure you'll find uses for Mtd [email protected]

Jack,

http://pioneerpainting.blogspot.co.uk

Quote    Reply   

#3 [url]

Feb 16 15 12:35 PM

Thanks for the quick response.

On #2 and #3 those are more-or-less what I was expecting the answers to be and I can understand that things could be quite different with other scenarios.

#1 however I think is down to a fault in the way the rules are written I'm afraid. The term "within" is used in all cases and I'm afraid that produces all sorts of issues for me as you get stuck in the "less than" or "less than or equal to" confusion ... if you can't be _within_ 3" of someone then you can't be 3" from them, so you can't charge them if you are limited to a 3" move. I can see what you're trying to say, I'm just not convinced it's clear as it is.

Having said that, I really like the rules and certainly will be playing them some more!

Quote    Reply   

#4 [url]

Feb 16 15 3:57 PM

Depends on how you interpret take the meaning of words. Most dictionaries define "within" as "inside", so I personally would take "within 3 inches" to mean less than 3 inches.

Quote    Reply   

#5 [url]

Feb 16 15 5:52 PM

With a quick google search.

withinwɪðˈɪn/preposition 

  1. inside (something)."the spread of fire within the building"
    synonyms:insidein, within the bounds/confines of, enclosed by, surrounded by"within the walls of the prison"
  2. not further off than (used with distances)."he lives within a few miles of Oxford"
  3. Distances is #2 there... so within isn't "less than", it's "less than or equal to"



  4. (argh I hate this forum software)

Last Edited By: Yith Feb 16 15 5:54 PM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad

#8 [url]

Jun 30 17 6:05 AM

Foot MAA in Lion Rampant keep their attack and defence values in rough going, but still get reduced to an armour of 2. The equivalent troops in Dragon Rampant (Elite Foot) maintain their armour value of 4 as well. An interesting difference, and one I came unstuck with last night when playing Lion Rampant ;)

Quote    Reply   

#9 [url]

Jun 30 17 10:15 AM

Pretty sure you got that wrong. Ferocious ignore rough ground effects for combat so keep Armour 4.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help