LAST CALL FOR FEEDBACK

[nikgaukroger]

Now that Warfare has been and gone we are, finally, in the final stages of getting the update sorted.

So this is now the last chance for feedback.

Comments on the proposed points re especially welcome.

30th November is realistically the cut off for comments to be taken on board, so best not delay.

Hopefully we can get an update document sorted and available by the end of the year or very early in the new year. At the very least we will say which of the proposed updates will be included and which have not made the cut, plus an updated points list (and spreadsheet) so that competitions and those who wish to can use them ASAP in the knowledge that they are official.

As ever, many thanks for all the contributions to date.

[RonanTheLibrarian]

We do have a 1683 competition at Abingdon on December 10. Given the players most likely to be involved, I'm not sure there will be any more comments, but something might turn up vis-a-vis dragoons, or something equally "later 17C".

[nikgaukroger]

Sorry the line has to be drawn somewhere and we have been at this for 12 months (or a bit more) now.

Of course if something catastrophic were to be identified at the December outing we'd act, but it would have to be pretty clear cut I think.

[nikgaukroger]

I'd add that now would also be a good time to flag any areas of the existing rules were a new clarification would be useful.

We are planning to include the current clarifications into the update document so everything is in one place, so a good time to add any new ones IMO.

[nikgaukroger]

Reminder time.

So this is now the last chance for feedback.

Comments on the proposed points re especially welcome.

30th November is realistically the cut off for comments to be taken on board, so best not delay.

[dene]

Hi Nik,

Now that a lot more battle groups can take 50% casualties and still fight on is there any mileage in changing the cohesion test to "-1 per 25% lost" as per FOG AM?

Sorry to bring up a new item at the 11th hour.

Regards Dene

[nikgaukroger]

I'll check, but I think it was mooted but rejected due to the different dynamics in FoG:R.

[hazelbark]

Please proof for typos.

[nikgaukroger]

DEADLINE IS TODAY

[viking123]

Nik,
Sorry for being so late raising this one but I thing a clarification is needed in respect moving rear rank bases to another rear rank position in a battle group.

The issue has come up on a couple of occasions in the past. It was raised at Warfare when I tried to move a rear rank base from an overlap position to a rear rank position in the main body of the Battle Group.

In the section on "Feeding more bases into an Existing Close Combat" on page 97 3rd point in the second column it says "If they are a 2nd rank base in a file that will fight as an overlap, troops of a type that normally fight in melee with 1 dice per base in the first 2 ranks cannot be moved into a front rank position." Whilst it does not specifically say you can move a rear rank overlap base to a rear rank position it is certainly implied. It would help if this could be made explicit or ruled against completely.

Bob

[nikgaukroger]

Hi Bob, OK thanks - we can have a look at this for you

[quackstheking]

Nik,
Sorry for being so late raising this one but I thing a clarification is needed in respect moving rear rank bases to another rear rank position in a battle group.

The issue has come up on a couple of occasions in the past. It was raised at Warfare when I tried to move a rear rank base from an overlap position to a rear rank position in the main body of the Battle Group.

In the section on "Feeding more bases into an Existing Close Combat" on page 97 3rd point in the second column it says "If they are a 2nd rank base in a file that will fight as an overlap, troops of a type that normally fight in melee with 1 dice per base in the first 2 ranks cannot be moved into a front rank position." Whilst it does not specifically say you can move a rear rank overlap base to a rear rank position it is certainly implied. It would help if this could be made explicit or ruled against completely.

Bob

I've always played that the base can move and indeed the bullet point following your quote says explicitly:-

Subject to the restrictions above, troops can be moved from non-front ranks, or from an unengaged end of a line to a non-front rank or other end of the line

This covers the fact that they are getting involved in the melee

Don

[viking123]

I have been challenged on several occasions the last was at Warfare when I have tried to do that.