Search the web
Sign In
New User? Sign Up
ARMATI · In support of the ARMATI historical miniatures game, by Arty Conliffe.
? Already a member? Sign in to Yahoo!

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...
Real people. Real stories. See how Yahoo! Groups impacts members worldwide.

Best of Y! Groups

   Check them out and nominate your group.
Having problems with message search? Fill out this form to ensure your group is one of the first to be migrated to the new message search system.

Messages

  Messages Help
Advanced
RV's, the State of the Nation   Message List  
Reply | Forward Message #31973 of 32779 |
Re: RV's, the State of the Nation

---Except Rob that it becomes deadly to have a rout when all units in
3 inches must test. Remember please that armies often have 4 0or 5
break points. A rout test that could break or debilitate three or
four key units in a go would transform the game! (For the worse )
Roy


In ARMATI@yahoogroups.com, "Robert W Jones" <ltcjones@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Rodge,
>
> I just assumed that "key" units are the meat of the army and as
they break it could potentially cause panic, maybe if the unattached
general is within the 3" of the breaking of unit, then there is no
check. This would probably be a good scenario rule. Just my two
cents into the thread.
>
> Rob
>
> Hope is not a method.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: rodger1uk
> To: ARMATI@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 11:07 AM
> Subject: [ARMATI] Re: RV's, the State of the Nation
>
>
> --- In ARMATI@yahoogroups.com, "Robert W Jones" <ltcjones@> wrote:
>
> > I would change 14b, so that whenever a key unit breaks, all
units
> check within 3" regardless of rout path.
>
> Hi Rob,
> This was discussed a while back but the 'area effect' at 3" (for
> reasons I cannot recall) was not taken up.
> Rodge
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>





Sat Jan 3, 2009 11:34 pm

aligern
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email

Forward
Message #31973 of 32779 |
Expand Messages Author Sort by Date

Happy New Year to all. After 3 month play testing and discussion here is an overview of where I believe we are at. The things that need work are evident. May I...
rodger1uk
Offline Send Email
Jan 3, 2009
12:56 pm

Rodge, I would change 14b, so that whenever a key unit breaks, all units check within 3" regardless of rout path. Rob ... From: rodger1uk To:...
Robert W Jones
light.colonel
Offline Send Email
Jan 3, 2009
1:56 pm

... check within 3" regardless of rout path. Hi Rob, This was discussed a while back but the 'area effect' at 3" (for reasons I cannot recall) was not taken...
rodger1uk
Offline Send Email
Jan 3, 2009
4:07 pm

The significance in Rob's comment is not the area of effect but that fact that at the moment a non-key Heavy unit causes panic however a key light unit does...
bright464
Offline Send Email
Jan 3, 2009
8:13 pm

It is a good point; the b) version of the rout test is not one I use. I think Steve P is best placed to comment on this. ... From: ARMATI@yahoogroups.com...
Rodger Williams
rodger1uk
Offline Send Email
Jan 3, 2009
8:32 pm

... There are hardly any non key heavy units. If there are any such as Sassanid levy then having them not cause rout throughs says 'Put a line of levy in front...
Roy Boss
aligern
Offline Send Email
Jan 3, 2009
11:40 pm

... <snip> Seems to have been adopted. <snip> Really? I seem to remember a debate on making stationary for bracing 'this turn' to match the terrain advantage....
ashley.solo
Offline Send Email
Jan 3, 2009
4:50 pm

I'm afraid that 'this turn' was not accepted after debate Ash, and this rule was not slipped in under any wire, it was agreed upon by the majority. Neither was...
Rodger Williams
rodger1uk
Offline Send Email
Jan 3, 2009
5:21 pm

Thanks for the advice Rodge. Despite your implication, playing the game is how I reach my conclusions. ... this rule ... bracing ... Behalf Of ... turn' to ......
ashley.solo
Offline Send Email
Jan 3, 2009
5:31 pm

What implication Ash? There was none meant. And if you have played the rule then you should see how it works. If anyone was doing the implying it was you with...
Rodger Williams
rodger1uk
Offline Send Email
Jan 3, 2009
5:35 pm

Hi Rodge, I just assumed that "key" units are the meat of the army and as they break it could potentially cause panic, maybe if the unattached general is...
Robert W Jones
light.colonel
Offline Send Email
Jan 3, 2009
4:57 pm

... 3 inches must test. Remember please that armies often have 4 0or 5 break points. A rout test that could break or debilitate three or four key units in a go...
Roy Boss
aligern
Offline Send Email
Jan 3, 2009
11:34 pm

Happy New Year too! As an aside some people did say 'I vote for this/i vote for that'. Was there a poll? Did anyone count the opinions? As a solo player, I...
ashley.solo
Offline Send Email
Jan 3, 2009
5:01 pm

Yes, there was a poll, and yes people voted. Yes, I counted the opinions. Have a look back at the posts in late August/early September to see the 'voting'...
Rodger Williams
rodger1uk
Offline Send Email
Jan 3, 2009
5:36 pm

Thanks for doing this Rodger. Lots of work here. I seem to have missed this proposal in the flurry: Rear Attacks Rear attacks occur when the attacker starts...
Christopher Leach
sausagesca
Offline Send Email
Jan 3, 2009
6:07 pm

Hi Chris, This was a proposal that was discussed after play testing found an anomaly (the inabilty to perform a charge from the rear that contacted the flank...
Rodger Williams
rodger1uk
Offline Send Email
Jan 3, 2009
6:53 pm

... happy New Year! Roy ... of ... the ... Shield ... must ... wide ... Keil ... with ... status ... 12a ... able ... conditions ... which ... (PH) ... cannot ...
Roy Boss
aligern
Offline Send Email
Jan 3, 2009
11:36 pm

Happy new year to all Thanks for the summary Rodge. Please find my comment below. Best regards Vincent ... VA: I playtested only twice, intended goal (more...
AUGER Vincent
auger_1964
Online Now Send Email
Jan 5, 2009
3:32 pm

Where are we with thoughts and ideas around Rvs? I've not had much chance to game over Christmas/New Year but last night's game has spurred me to provide my...
terroircathars
Offline Send Email
Jan 23, 2009
11:10 am

Hi Mark, We were discussing these again at club on Tuesday (although there are a lot of club projects underway just now getting in the way of Armati playing. A...
Mark Grindlay
mark_grindla...
Offline Send Email
Jan 23, 2009
11:55 am

SI re-basing an alternative option might be to place SI one behind the other then move the back base one base width to the right or left, whilst leaving it in...
bright464
Offline Send Email
Jan 23, 2009
12:35 pm

... drop FV, as you indicated ... impetus as HI. ... Yes but. Being key and the charge restrictions do not depend on being 1 section wide. 1 section wide...
ashley.solo
Offline Send Email
Jan 23, 2009
12:47 pm

... A third rank to designate PH as PH looks very good. As long as PH is different, this marker is valuable. I don't like 'depth' if it means fighting on a...
ashley.solo
Offline Send Email
Jan 23, 2009
12:37 pm

Ash, The idea of charge restrictions for light foot is to get at the real issue with LI in particular (and LHI for consistency) - that they are sent to chase...
Mark Grindlay
mark_grindla...
Offline Send Email
Jan 23, 2009
2:07 pm

I think that Mark has a good point here. When forced to combat in open battle (as opposed to ambushes or skirmish attacks on a marching column), mostly LHI...
AUGER Vincent
auger_1964
Online Now Send Email
Feb 4, 2009
8:35 am

Thanks for this detailed response. I've been too busy to collate recently, but hopefully i will be able to get the collation done next week so we can move on....
rodger1uk
Offline Send Email
Jan 23, 2009
3:16 pm
Advanced

Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Guidelines - Help