51 recurring

[martin goddard]

The previous 51 was an illusion. Bobby is  not dead. This is the 51 with make up on it.

[Colonel Kilgore]

Not to be confused with the earlier 51 + an extra sprinkling of handgunners, I presume?

[martin goddard]

Indeed more handgunners potentially.  The small change means that a general has a group of 3 hand-gunner bases. They are not transferred to any other generals. this is to prevent large "gangs" of hand-gunners happening.

[Colonel Kilgore]

this is to prevent large "gangs" of hand-gunners happening.

... unless they're 9-up Irish Kern...?

[Leslie BT]

Some is now 51.0, some 51.1, some 51.3 and some even new and never seen before.

Its all done to keep the play testers engaged and on their toes.

[martin goddard]

It ensures that if anyone is captured by Russian tourists looking for a Cathedral, will not be able to give away important information on hand gunners. Clever eh?

[Colonel Kilgore]

Some comments on the 15th July version of #51 (might be 51.3?):

a) Handgunners:
- can they take hits in place of their general, or in addition to those on the general's base? I'm thinking probably the latter, but some clarification might be helpful
- hand gunners "choose their targets at the rate of one hit per unit": given that each handgunner only fires once per turn, this presumably implies that each target unit can only be hit once per turn too? What if there are two handgunners firing, and just one unit in the target Ward?

b) Pikes:
- "any army using pikes... ... may have up to 2 retinue cavalry units": but the army list on Page 9 only allows for a maximum of 1 retinue cavalry unit per army: is there a contradiction here?
- page 63: "any army using pikes may have up to 5 pike-armed units" vs. page 10: "There must be 5 pike armed units"
- page 63; "Any army using pikes must have at least 8 levy units vs. page 10 "The army must have at least 7 levy units"
- page 63 does not include the limitations on maximum 1 gun; maximum 1 household foot unit that are listed on page 10

[martin goddard]

I will get that sorted today Simon. Edition 51+++???

[Colonel Kilgore]

I will get that sorted today Simon. Edition 51+++???

Or you could start counting back down again - that really would confuse any visitors to Salisbury 

[Leslie BT]

So are hand gunner bases lost when their general is HIT. This is regardless of whether the general makes the save or not?

Does having pikes change the compulsory units?

What benefit is there in a fight for using pikes?

[Stewart 46A]

Hi Les,
Handgunners - yes every time general is hit loose a base, no casualty placed if general is forced off table or dies the remaining hand gunner bases go off/come back with replacement general.

Pike units
There is a hole section on pike units, minimum of 5 units, no shooting, in a fight , you roll a number of D6 ,results vary against infantry or cavalry, every success enemy loose a D6 in the fight.

[Nick]

I like the way pikes work in the rules. Just not sure about the need for army composition restrictions when you use them though.

Nick

[martin goddard]

Good point Nick.
Several reasons for army restrictions.

1. To stop players saying "well might as well throw in a couple of pike units and see how it goes. Will put them opposite the enemy cavalry threat"
2. Armies in WOTR that used pikes or equivalent were usually poor armies compared to standard English armies. Doubly so at Stoke Field.
3. Players will have to make their army portray what those pike type armies were like. I have generalised so that players do not feel their army must be declared Lancastrian army at the battle of XXX etc. To which the opponent can show off his detailed knowledge by naming the guns at the battle and boring the other players.   Prevents further nit picking???

[Nick]

Thanks Martin. Makes sense. I hadn't thought about deliberate cavalry sabotaging tactics!

Nick

[Colonel Kilgore]

I hadn't thought about deliberate cavalry sabotaging tactics!

You must be a very nice person to play against

I, on the other hand, when reading through these drafts am always looking for potential loopholes that the less scrupulous might try to exploit...