RCFM

Rules => Patrols in the Sudan => Topic started by: Leslie BT on November 03, 2019, 12:10:19 PM

Title: Continuing the comments on PITS 2012.
Post by: Leslie BT on November 03, 2019, 12:10:19 PM
Martin or Stewart may have some slightly different comments but this is my reading of them.
Brian you have muddled the section on Gunboats.

There are two ways of using gunboats, one with no additional models. You then use the invisible models.
The second is when you have real additional models and bases on the gunboat.
These two methods allow you to use the gunboat in two different rolls, one a little more abstracted from the game maybe as support. The other when the gunboat is more involved in the game landing troops etc.
Scouts, Both statements are correct. For all other activities other than scouting scenery scouts are treated as being on foot. A number of mounted armies will have scouts mounted on horses or camels, the only effect of being mounted is to help dervish scout.
Since writing these rules Martin now has a new dining table made from thick planks of oak.
This one of Martins gambles where you may only have a couple of AP's to use, and it may be worth the gamble!
Yes the placement of the scenery scouted marker does need adding.
Martin, Stewart which is correct for opportunity shooting, Page 49 or page 59 / 59. A bit of help here please! Probably needs page 49 amending?
Ambushed is the only action that prevents opportunity fire, but you have to be able to charge into hand to hand. So if you appear and do not then make it into hand-to-hand fighting, you will have to contend with opportunity fire.
Morale, wounded and dead. The continuing effect is when the unit is below 1/2 strength add an extra D6, and when down to 1 or 2 bases add an extra D6.
Agreed the picture and the concept would be better together.
Fighting formations, yes probably be amended in another edition.
Agreed it should be roll D6 per base.

The formatting, grammar, etc are now being corrected better in the current rule sets. These were done ten years ago and they are prepared differently now.

As Martin stated earlier these were produced in a short time scale, this was unusual and now the rule-sets tend to take around 9-12 months to prepare, this does tend to reduce the problems in the text.

Thanks for your comments Brian
Title: Re: Continuing the comments on PITS 2012.
Post by: Leman on November 04, 2019, 08:04:50 AM
Does this mean a new version is on the way, or are you suggesting players just amend what they have?
Title: Re: Continuing the comments on PITS 2012.
Post by: Sean Clark on November 04, 2019, 09:17:51 AM
I don't think a new version is imminent.

As to grammar and spelling mistakes, I challenge anyone to show me a set of rules without them. I don't think I've ever seen one. No matter how good you are at spell checking or editing they will always creep in.

Title: Re: Continuing the comments on PITS 2012.
Post by: Leman on November 04, 2019, 02:07:19 PM
As in ďthe soldiers were lead by a capable general,Ē i.e. he was very good at sculpting and casting the wee men.  ::)
Title: Re: Continuing the comments on PITS 2012.
Post by: Colonel Kilgore on November 04, 2019, 02:20:09 PM
Very good!
Title: Re: Continuing the comments on PITS 2012.
Post by: Brian Cameron on November 05, 2019, 10:43:08 AM
Leslie - thanks for the clarifications, particularly on gunboats though I may now be tempted by one!

Sean - apologies - I wasn't being serious, grammar is something I generally banter about, but I should have flagged that better.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to trying the game.

Cheers,
Brian
Title: Re: Continuing the comments on PITS 2012.
Post by: Sean Clark on November 05, 2019, 12:22:08 PM
 ;D

Apologies if I came over as overly defensive but it's a bugbear of mine from the other end of the argument u suppose! I dislike poor grammar myself but feel for anyone puts a set of rules and immediately gets pointed to a spelling mistake by a customer  :)
Title: Re: Continuing the comments on PITS 2012.
Post by: Leman on November 06, 2019, 07:07:04 AM
TBH I donít regard spelling mistakes in the same way as poor grammar. There is a particular company from which I have bought a number of rules sets. The rules have some really interesting ideas in them, but are all (i.e the ones I have bought - 5 sets so far - yes, lesson not been learned) poorly written with grammatical errors which  make sections of the rules almost impenetrable. Much head scratching, crossings out and margin notes ensue before said rules can be played, and all for a lack of proof reading it would seem.
Title: Re: Continuing the comments on PITS 2012.
Post by: John Watson on November 06, 2019, 08:05:31 AM
I am afraid I am a total pedant on grammar, spelling and layout, especially if I've just paid 30 quid for a set of rules with lots of pretty pictures in it.
Title: Re: Continuing the comments on PITS 2012.
Post by: Sean Clark on November 06, 2019, 04:22:02 PM
I doubt you'll find even £30 rule sets without at least one mistake in them.
Title: Re: Continuing the comments on PITS 2012.
Post by: Leman on November 06, 2019, 09:53:20 PM
I donít think weíre talking one mistake here Sean. I have paid upwards of £20 for rulesets which would dismally fail GCSE English. It is really asking a lot of punters to part with their cash for a set of rules which contain so many grammatical errors that the intention of the rules cannot be gauged.
Title: Re: Continuing the comments on PITS 2012.
Post by: Sean Clark on November 07, 2019, 12:34:11 AM
I concede the point there Leman....that is pretty bad.

Title: Re: Continuing the comments on PITS 2012.
Post by: Leman on November 07, 2019, 09:54:46 AM
I am quite intrigued bye the sound of PITS and would like to get a copy of the rules in the future, with a view to having a naval landing party.
Title: Re: Continuing the comments on PITS 2012.
Post by: Stewart 46A on November 07, 2019, 03:16:33 PM
My first force was a Naval force, 3 x platoons of Marines and a pair of guns manned by sailors,
I then added the PP gunboat, a smaller force but able to get up river with additional gun support from the boat.
Title: Re: Continuing the comments on PITS 2012.
Post by: Sean Clark on November 07, 2019, 04:11:33 PM
You can take the man out of the navy, but not the navy out of the man!
Title: Re: Continuing the comments on PITS 2012.
Post by: Leslie BT on November 07, 2019, 07:31:08 PM
Game of PITS today, forgot how different this rules were in concept.

I hope that Stewart and Martin enjoy their game.

Forgot to place the scenery around the objective rather the around the British start edge.
Title: Re: Continuing the comments on PITS 2012.
Post by: Leman on November 08, 2019, 01:27:50 PM
I believe there is an alternative version of these rules about comfortable scouting in C18th France - Patrols in the Sedan............Iíll get my coat.  :-[
Title: Re: Continuing the comments on PITS 2012.
Post by: Nick on November 08, 2019, 02:44:04 PM
So all these PITS threads are inspiring me to get playing again and  start an Egyptian force to go with my British and Dervish forces.
Now I currently have the first (2004) edition of PITS. So my question is, is the 2012 edition sufficiently different to make it worth my while to buy, or can I just work out the minor changes by looking at the 2012 play sheet on the PP site?
PP will get my money either way, but clearly I can afford to buy more figures if I don't get the 2012 rules too.

Hope that makes sense,

Nick
Title: Re: Continuing the comments on PITS 2012.
Post by: Stewart 46A on November 08, 2019, 03:33:42 PM
I canít remember the original version but in my opinion the 2012 version will have sufficient changes to have made  it worth play testing and producing
Title: Re: Continuing the comments on PITS 2012.
Post by: Nick on November 10, 2019, 09:10:38 AM
Yes, I think I will go for the newer edition.
Iíve been using Black Powder for bigger battles in the Sudan, which is okay, but for smaller actions I think it is time to go back to PITS.

Nick
Title: Re: Continuing the comments on PITS 2012.
Post by: Leslie BT on November 16, 2019, 07:34:51 PM
I have had a couple of games and here are some questions.

For the falter test can the Anglo-Egyptian player use volley firing or is it simple shooting?
When Dervish appear as a result of a successful "scout" how close to the scouter can they appear?
How many Dervish unit half's may be placed on the scenery each turn?
Title: Re: Continuing the comments on PITS 2012.
Post by: Stewart 46A on November 16, 2019, 07:47:50 PM
Les, I donít have my rules to hand but I think
1. I think it Depends how far the dervish are from the British unit, and is it not a D6 number of bases that can shoot?
2. I think itís outside opportunity shooting
3.new units appear as result of the event role, I think max of two units too occupied a scenery pice
But we can discuss further next weekend
Not plaid it since the 2017 weekend

Stewart
Title: Re: Continuing the comments on PITS 2012.
Post by: Leslie BT on November 16, 2019, 09:32:16 PM
1. we had a unit of 6 bases, we rolled 6 dice and had 4 success, so we fired four bases, the unit was Anglo-Egyptian deployed in line.
2. Outside opportunity range would be at short range distance. If they are mounted scouts with carbines this would be at 4 inches, if foot 6 inches or is it measured from the dervish who might be spears. Rereading the dervish arrivals in Section 14 the distance is 1 inch. So I have found my answer.
3. Yes two half units and any deployed units. No limit on the number of deployed units other than the physical foot print.
Title: Re: Continuing the comments on PITS 2012.
Post by: Stewart 46A on November 16, 2019, 10:10:08 PM
Les, scouts are scouts, doesnít mater if mounted or foot , thatís for the look if you have a mounted or foot force.
Title: Re: Continuing the comments on PITS 2012.
Post by: Nick on November 17, 2019, 09:24:49 AM
So Iíve received the 2012 edition now. Definitely worth buying as the rule changes while not huge do make the game better. The layout and general production of the rules is higher quality too.

Nick
Title: Re: Continuing the comments on PITS 2012.
Post by: Leslie BT on November 17, 2019, 06:38:15 PM
Mounted scouts scout differently, 'Scouting scenery' 20 on the playsheet, Dervish player gets a +1 if the scouter is mounted. Same on page 45 of the rules. Or does this just mean any mounted unit scouting, not scouts?
As you say scouts are foot regardless.

Penny has dropped, not explained any where though.