Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: FM13  (Read 82 times)

martin goddard

  • RFCM Admin Supporter
  • Hog the Limelight
  • *
  • Posts: 5254
    • View Profile
FM13
« on: December 18, 2020, 10:49:45 AM »
The rules are still being planished.

Here are the new bits.
1. Morale has gone back to 2 casualties=problem rather than 2 then 1.
2. Possible to get 2 assets if first is successful. This is because more of the game detail has landed in the assets category. They must be different assets though.
3.Attacker can keep a unit off to appear at any table edge.
4.Many small details.
5. New asset "reserves".


Les has the conn



martin :)

Brian Cameron

  • Supporter 2021
  • Wild Boar
  • *
  • Posts: 140
    • View Profile
Re: FM13
« Reply #1 on: December 19, 2020, 02:59:20 PM »
Hola! My comments:

5, Scale.  8 bases is really 7 @45 and 1 of an officer and a few others so more like 320.

11. Markers ‘This is because tale each unit… ‘  Remove ‘tale’

Page 15 Shouldn’t game set up sequence be a new section (13)?  A bit awkward as it’s also Section 23 but that because of duplication.  I’d go for merging them but my approach to setting out rules is rather different to RFCM.

7. Placement of objectives – there’s an interesting illusion of a wide choice here when there’s only actually 4 alternatives.

11.  Defender deployment.  If it’s worth saying in Attacker deployment “Each unit can occupy 1, 2 or 3 squares’ it’s worth saying the same here.

14 Building the army.  Given that repetition appears to be the lifeblood of RCFM rules it seems odd that the only mention of the battle sheet is at the end of this section (in the ‘method’ box).  Worth a paragraph at the start of this section to introduce the concept.

16. Scenery, Specifics:
“Primary scenery may not overlap road or railway squares. The exception is that solid buildings must overlap the road.”
Below the bullet points: “Primary scenery (except solid buildings) may not overlap road or railway.”
These aren’t the same thing: there’s no mention of railways in the bullet point.

Photo 9 “Has no effect on line of sight (except scattered buildings, that do).”  Surely scattered buildings are primary scenery?

17.  General “An opponent may not select the General as a shooting target unless the General is on his own or the only eligible target.”  Should this say ‘paid for AP shooting’ as it otherwise seems to contradict the sentences immediately above.

22. Piggy chase.  Suggestion: If being the defender will so greatly disadvantage a player with a cavalry army, then at the end of the piggy chase, the player who wins the chase has no option except to pick defender if facing a cavalry army.

23. Sub-section 12 “The usual 3,4,5,6 deviation method is applied.” – might be clearer to say “The same deviation method as used for roads and railways is applied.”

26.  There’s a lot of overlap with section 16.

Could I just insert a personal comment.  Every time I’ve read through an RCFM ruleset I’ve found myself going back and forth.  I find it very off-putting.  If I’m reading a section on eg scenery (which includes setting it up) I don’t want to come across another section on the same topic later where much of the information is duplicated but some isn’t.  It means I have to keep going back and forth to get the complete picture.  Dead horse flogged!

Opportunity shooting.  “Opportunity shooting is carried out by the waiting player if any enemy are ever on a face of one of his squares.  This is done before those enemy do anything themselves.”  By ‘…done before…” does this mean shoot or assault as the target unit may have moved into the facing square?

39. “Once a rail entrance is used it cannot be used again by any re-born unit of either side. This means that only two re-born units might arrive by train. “  Not a problem as you can only have two re-born units.

Page 90 onwards.  Army lists.  Government army first half says “This army may have 0 or 1 cavalry unit. “ under additions.  I’m guessing this means the army may have 0 or 1 cavalry unit in its initial choice of units rather than applying to additions?

Adios amigos!

Brian