Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Continuing the comments on PITS 2012.  (Read 800 times)

Leslie BT

  • Supporter 2020
  • Hog the Limelight
  • *
  • Posts: 2049
    • View Profile
Continuing the comments on PITS 2012.
« 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

Leman

  • Supporter 2020
  • Hog the Limelight
  • *
  • Posts: 1784
  • If it's too hard, I can't do it.
    • View Profile
Re: Continuing the comments on PITS 2012.
« Reply #1 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?

Sean Clark

  • RFCM Admin Supporter
  • Hog the Limelight
  • *
  • Posts: 2172
  • In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king
    • View Profile
    • Buckets of Dice
Re: Continuing the comments on PITS 2012.
« Reply #2 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.


Leman

  • Supporter 2020
  • Hog the Limelight
  • *
  • Posts: 1784
  • If it's too hard, I can't do it.
    • View Profile
Re: Continuing the comments on PITS 2012.
« Reply #3 on: November 04, 2019, 02:07:19 PM »
As in “the soldiers were lead by a capable general,” i.e. he was very good at sculpting and casting the wee men.  ::)

Colonel Kilgore

  • RFCM Admin Supporter
  • Hog the Limelight
  • *
  • Posts: 4529
    • View Profile
Re: Continuing the comments on PITS 2012.
« Reply #4 on: November 04, 2019, 02:20:09 PM »
Very good!

Brian Cameron

  • Domestic Pig
  • *
  • Posts: 98
    • View Profile
Re: Continuing the comments on PITS 2012.
« Reply #5 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

Sean Clark

  • RFCM Admin Supporter
  • Hog the Limelight
  • *
  • Posts: 2172
  • In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king
    • View Profile
    • Buckets of Dice
Re: Continuing the comments on PITS 2012.
« Reply #6 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  :)

Leman

  • Supporter 2020
  • Hog the Limelight
  • *
  • Posts: 1784
  • If it's too hard, I can't do it.
    • View Profile
Re: Continuing the comments on PITS 2012.
« Reply #7 on: November 06, 2019, 07:07:04 AM »
TBH I don’t 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.

John Watson

  • Supporter 2020
  • Hog the Limelight
  • *
  • Posts: 385
    • View Profile
Re: Continuing the comments on PITS 2012.
« Reply #8 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.

Sean Clark

  • RFCM Admin Supporter
  • Hog the Limelight
  • *
  • Posts: 2172
  • In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king
    • View Profile
    • Buckets of Dice
Re: Continuing the comments on PITS 2012.
« Reply #9 on: November 06, 2019, 04:22:02 PM »
I doubt you'll find even £30 rule sets without at least one mistake in them.

Leman

  • Supporter 2020
  • Hog the Limelight
  • *
  • Posts: 1784
  • If it's too hard, I can't do it.
    • View Profile
Re: Continuing the comments on PITS 2012.
« Reply #10 on: November 06, 2019, 09:53:20 PM »
I don’t think we’re 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.

Sean Clark

  • RFCM Admin Supporter
  • Hog the Limelight
  • *
  • Posts: 2172
  • In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king
    • View Profile
    • Buckets of Dice
Re: Continuing the comments on PITS 2012.
« Reply #11 on: November 07, 2019, 12:34:11 AM »
I concede the point there Leman....that is pretty bad.


Leman

  • Supporter 2020
  • Hog the Limelight
  • *
  • Posts: 1784
  • If it's too hard, I can't do it.
    • View Profile
Re: Continuing the comments on PITS 2012.
« Reply #12 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.

Stewart 46A

  • Supporter 2020
  • Hog the Limelight
  • *
  • Posts: 1520
    • View Profile
Re: Continuing the comments on PITS 2012.
« Reply #13 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.

Sean Clark

  • RFCM Admin Supporter
  • Hog the Limelight
  • *
  • Posts: 2172
  • In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king
    • View Profile
    • Buckets of Dice
Re: Continuing the comments on PITS 2012.
« Reply #14 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!