v2.2+ BETA 2

[WADBAG]

We are please to announce an updated version of the v2.2+ beta rules, BETA 2.

Please see http://www.wadbag.com/V2.2+/index.html for the revised Playsheet and Beta 2 Release Notes.

Special thanks to all of the GM's and Players who have provided commentary, feedback, and play testing support for 2.2+.

WADBAG

[Eumelus]

Hmmm, that's a hell of a change to the Knight-Bow relationship. Not that I object, quite the contrary - I always thought the effectiveness of massed archers against knights was overstated. But I am curious - did I miss a Fanaticus discussion on this point?

Rick Wynn

[ferrency]

Hmmm, that's a hell of a change to the Knight-Bow relationship. Not that I object, quite the contrary - I always thought the effectiveness of massed archers against knights was overstated. But I am curious - did I miss a Fanaticus discussion on this point?

The Knight vs. Bow situation is worse for the Knight in the first 2.2+ beta, because Bows can shoot out of overlap (and they were quick killed if they contacted the bows). With Knights recoiling from bows, they still aren't safe, because they'll be shot the next turn. So this change makes the situation better for knights than in 2.2, but not as good for the knights as if they had lost the QK on first contact in 2.2.

(I don't remember whether this was discussed on Fanaticus or not.)

Alan

[kontos]

The Knight vs. Bow situation is worse for the Knight in the first 2.2+ beta, because Bows can shoot out of overlap (and they were quick killed if they contacted the bows). With Knights recoiling from bows, they still aren't safe, because they'll be shot the next turn. So this change makes the situation better for knights than in 2.2, but not as good for the knights as if they had lost the QK on first contact in 2.2.

(I don't remember whether this was discussed on Fanaticus or not.)

Alan

Not entirely true. Knights, if positioned properly, can charge the Bow and never be shot at. I am very mixed on this and will have to see it for myself "in game". My first thoughts are Bow have become hamstrung now as a viable element that provided a sense of balance to the game vs. Kn armies.

Secondly, this is a fine time for a change the day before StoogeCon V and affects the Matched Pairs I was going to bring. Tomorrow is 2.2+, correct?

[Lobotomy]

Secondly, this is a fine time for a change the day before StoogeCon V and affects the Matched Pairs I was going to bring. Tomorrow is 2.2+, correct?

We are going to use the Feb. 14, 2012 version and not the one posted today.

[kontos]

We are going to use the Feb. 14, 2012 version and not the one posted today.

Thanks, Larry. See you tomorrow! My wife (your girlfriend) gave me something to bring to you. You'll see them tomorrow. Share with Diceman. :up

[Roland Fricke]

I've played the Nubian-Old Kingdom matches and the HYW French English using the new bow rules and I found both games played more evenly with the extra bow abilities. In the HYW game the English still shot the French to pieces even with no quick kill on knights.

[El' Jocko]

Thanks, Larry. See you tomorrow! My wife (your girlfriend) gave me something to bring to you. You'll see them tomorrow. Share with Diceman. :up

Some kind of STD?

- Jack

[kontos]

Some kind of STD?

- Jack

Now that's just wrong, Jack. :eek

[Ammianus]

Stealing a quote from Winston Churchill, "I am hardening toward this enterprise." Much preferable to the ongoing chaos in 3.0.

I whipped out my 30x30" game mat from the Terrain Guy, & ran 3 simple battles.
First, LIR(W) vs Bavarians; Blades vs Warbands; handy Roman win. I then wanted to test Spears; I borrowed Bernd Lehnhoff's DBMto DBA conversion to try something a little different.

http://www.fanaticus.org/DBA/armies/dbmdbabk2.html

Two games of Patrician Roman vs Late Gothic generic: [2KN, 8 SP, 2 PS]' Goths took the first round, 5-7, long hard slog. Pats tok 2d round, 4 zip with the Foederati WBs doing all the heavy lifting. ... OK, I'm sold; MU's and all.

Thanks to the team for endeavoring to persevere. Good job.

[ferrency]

Not entirely true. Knights, if positioned properly, can charge the Bow and never be shot at.

I meant that after they charge without the bows shooting, the knights have a better than average chance of being recoiled. Yes, the knights can punch through the bows and avoid being shot. That was always the case even when they were quick killed by the bows. But when the knight recoils after combat, there's another chance for the bows to shoot it, even if the bows are also providing an overlap to another element.

Bows are clearly in more danger from being killed by knights than they used to be, that's true. But I don't think they're gimped. In order for Knights to beat a bow after being recoiled, they need to survive being shot at, enough PIPs to get back into combat, and a good combat roll. Previously, they just died.

Alan

[Alex Bostwick]

I'm just glad that Spear is getting some love. Never made sense to me that double ranks added support to Warband but not to Spear.

The Bow-Knight relationship change makes sense to me in light of the previous changes to Bow (shooting pretty much whenever).

Were Scythed Chariots not killed when doubled previously, or was this just a clarification because some dude said that it wasn't since it wasn't listed on the results table? Because that sounds like something Larry would say.

I suppose the change to Elephants being shot at was to fix the fact that Bow couldn't kill it in the last version of 2.2+ straight up.

Can't really find anything I disagree with in here, although I will still shill for the idea that Warband should be self-supporting if moving forward. It's just much cooler that way.

-A-Bos

[david kuijt]

Some kind of STD?

- Jack

That's SOOOO disturbing...

[david kuijt]

I've played the Nubian-Old Kingdom matches and the HYW French English using the new bow rules and I found both games played more evenly with the extra bow abilities. In the HYW game the English still shot the French to pieces even with no quick kill on knights.

That's our experience as well, Roland. Knights would still prefer to fight anything else other than Bow, if given a choice.

[david kuijt]

Were Scythed Chariots not killed when doubled previously, or was this just a clarification because some dude said that it wasn't since it wasn't listed on the results table? Because that sounds like something Larry would say.



Scythed Chariots in v2.2 were not killed if doubled by Artillery -- clearly an error of omission. Just fixing that little weirdness.

[david kuijt]

Not entirely true. Knights, if positioned properly, can charge the Bow and never be shot at.

Perhaps I'm seeing something different from what you are, Frank. Suppose a line of Bow and a line of Knights are 5.5mu apart. No matter whose turn it is, the bow are going to get a shot before the Knights close. If it is the Bow turn, they move up to 2.5mu and shoot. If it is the Knight turn, the Knight cannot get into contact.

Suppose a line of Bow and a line of Knights are farther apart. The Bow player can always ensure that they end up getting a shot, no matter whose bound it is. Because if the Knight line wants to get a charge, it has to move up to within 5 mu, and if they do, the Bow line then moves forward and shoots.

The only time the Bow line might have a problem moving up to shoot is if there is terrain in the way -- and if there is, that is WAAAAY better for the Bow player than for the Knight player.

So as far as I can tell, a line of Bow fighting a line of Knights is always going to get the first shot. Because the move+shoot distance for bow (6mu) is greater than the move distance of knights (5mu). There is nothing the Knights can do about it.

[El' Jocko]

Now that's just wrong, Jack. :eek

Sorry, Frank. I guess I applied the wrong filter. Or to quote West Wing:

President Josiah Bartlet: You know that line you're not supposed to cross with the President?

C.J. Cregg: I'm coming up to it?

President Josiah Bartlet: No, no, look behind you.

- Jack

[Bob Santamaria]

Some kind of STD?

- Jack

I think the more politically correct expression is now STI (infection replacing disease) - I still prefer to call it the pox.

An suggestion of venereal disease always carries a defamatory imputation in the Australian law of libel. Just saying.

[david kuijt]

An suggestion of venereal disease always carries a defamatory imputation in the Australian law of libel. Just saying.

Defamatory amputation? :eek :eek :eek

Remind me never to discuss my awkward rash while I'm visiting Australia!

[Bob Santamaria]

Defamatory amputation? :eek :eek :eek

Remind me never to discuss my awkward rash while I'm visiting Australia!

Are you mocking the common law as it has developed in the State of New South Wales?

[david kuijt]

Are you mocking the common law as it has developed in the State of New South Wales?

Only from a great distance! If I was resident in or visiting a state with laws supporting defamatory amputation, I assure you, I would be nothing but respectful.

[Rich Gause]

We played multiple games at recon with the new Beta rules no issues. Everything worked great. The only thing I think we didn't cover was Hd.

[kontos]

Perhaps I'm seeing something different from what you are, Frank. Suppose a line of Bow and a line of Knights are 5.5mu apart. No matter whose turn it is, the bow are going to get a shot before the Knights close. If it is the Bow turn, they move up to 2.5mu and shoot. If it is the Knight turn, the Knight cannot get into contact.

Suppose a line of Bow and a line of Knights are farther apart. The Bow player can always ensure that they end up getting a shot, no matter whose bound it is. Because if the Knight line wants to get a charge, it has to move up to within 5 mu, and if they do, the Bow line then moves forward and shoots.

The only time the Bow line might have a problem moving up to shoot is if there is terrain in the way -- and if there is, that is WAAAAY better for the Bow player than for the Knight player.

So as far as I can tell, a line of Bow fighting a line of Knights is always going to get the first shot. Because the move+shoot distance for bow (6mu) is greater than the move distance of knights (5mu). There is nothing the Knights can do about it.

What you say is true, DK, at times. You know as well as anyone else, there is a time to advance the line just to get a bow shot and sometimes advancing the line is not prudent. My main concern with bows is the overall advance of the game leaving them behind. Bows are QK by all mounted. Always have been but a new element has been introduced - the Cataphract. Its a bow killer@ 4v4. Elephants, who really don't like pointy sticks, kill bow @ 5v4! Remembering that CC also includes very short range shooting, this elephant/bow relationship seems counterintuitive to me. Speaking of elephants, the very troop types they fear most - light troops - now fight them at 2v5 or 3v5 if supported by Ps. On the other hand, mounted troops, whose horses have the dickens scared out of them by jumbos, fight them more evenly 2v4 (LH); 3v4 (Kn/Cav); and 4v4 (Cat). Again, counterintuitive to me. I can only assume the GM group heavily playtested these new interactions and found them acceptable. However; given my historical readings, I cannot agree. I will concentrate on playtesting these locally if Jan will cooperate. On the surface, for me, I am skeptical.

[david kuijt]

It's good to be skeptical, Frank. Everyone should playtest.

With that said, I would reassure you about any fears you might have regarding Bow getting too weak. Bow being able to fire into and out of overlap is a major improvement to their ability to fight. In v2.2 all you needed to do was get your Kn/Cv/LH adjacent to an enemy and put him in overlap and suddenly you were immune to missile fire -- that ain't true no more. Further, the -1 for Bd when shot at by Bow now gives Bw some small hope against Bd, who were the easy-shmeazy Bw killers in 2.2 and earlier. Sure, Elephants are now +5 vs. foot, which includes shooting from Bow, but the -1 for El when shot at by Bow (just introduced in the recent Beta 2) brings that back to the same odds that existed in 2.2 and earlier, for shooting at least.

We've playtested Bow a lot, and I can assure you, any fears that they have been emasculated or reduced in strength are misplaced. Bow are doing fine.

[Tony Aguilar]

That's our experience as well, Roland. Knights would still prefer to fight anything else other than Bow, if given a choice.

Except Elephants, of course.

[Tony Aguilar]

We played multiple games at recon with the new Beta rules no issues. Everything worked great. The only thing I think we didn't cover was Hd.

Yep, Beta 2 was well received at Recon.

[ferrency]

On the other hand, mounted troops, whose horses have the dickens scared out of them by jumbos, fight them more evenly 2v4 (LH); 3v4 (Kn/Cav); and 4v4 (Cat).

Not quite: El vs Kn is 4v4, though the Kn are quick killed.

Elephants are completely different now, it is true. But they are not killer elements. Spears are a lot better against Elephants, especially with their new rear support factors and elephant impetuosity. Impetuosity combined with not quick killing foot and their inability to break off from Cavalry means that elephants can be sucked into bad positions and killed more easily than previously. However, if you knew how to play with elephants in 2.2 and try to use them the same way now, it won't work.

Alan

[Martian]

We played multiple games at recon with the new Beta rules no issues. Everything worked great. The only thing I think we didn't cover was Hd.

I felt like a DBA Noob when my Jumbo got turned to flank and then promptly recoiled over the top of my General. He would not have been in that position if it hadn't 'followed up' on the previous turn.

Having been out of the loop for quite a while 2.2+ was a real surprize. I'll have to read it over a few times and get in more games before I decide if I like it or not.

[Lobotomy]

I felt like a DBA Noob when my Jumbo got turned to flank and then promptly recoiled over the top of my General. He would not have been in that position if it hadn't 'followed up' on the previous turn.

Having been out of the loop for quite a while 2.2+ was a real surprize. I'll have to read it over a few times and get in more games before I decide if I like it or not.

How is that different than marching up a road with a column where the El is in the lead, pray tell? :silly

[Martian]

How is that different than marching up a road with a column where the El is in the lead, pray tell? :silly

The difference there is that I KNOW better than to do that! :rotfl

[Xavi]

Impressions on 2.2+ second BETA

Just read the new beta and here come a few impressions and questions. :)
EDIT: read the thread now that I finished the damn report for tomorrow's meeting. Sems that the Kn/Bw one was addressed already. The others have not.

RELEASE NOTES.
Really nice to have those to speed things up. Some explanations on some of the changes would still be great. Otherwise they might sound totally random to the people outside the writing team.

1. Rear support for spears:
GREAT!!!! Seems my nagging insistence got results in the end :D I think it is a definitive improvement. I would say that ANY foot element should have a +1 for being rear-supported against the same type of elements, but hey.


2. Combat results
Knights no longer killed by Bw contacted in first turn.
Need to playtest this. Unsure of implications. It seems that Knights got the long straw in 2.2+, since all the elements that used to be dangerous to them got a downgrade in power vs them (bow, pike, ellies).


3. Single elements conform
Can cause all kind of tricky movement issues. With the extra movement ranges it will be extra easy to nail troops (close their door) fairly easily.


4. New troop types.
Still unconvinced that raiders and light spears are needed.

If Raider want to be there I would make them not BGo-affected (extra good Ax even if slower) and have the same results as Bd. As they are now they are just the worst of worse world: they are worse than Bd in GGo and as bad as Bd in BGo so no sensible romand 3Bd would EVER enter BGo. As such I feel like the intention of the new element type is beaten before it hits the tables. If 3Bd gets affected In cannot see why 4Ax cannot be treated exactly the same.

I am inconclusive on Pavisiers and cataphracts, but OK if you want them around. If I could chose between 4Kn and 3Kn I would go for 3Kn, though.


ACTUAL 2.2+ PLAYSHEET

5. Board Size
Seems my suggestion for a less strong wording in board size MANDATING 30 inch boards has been ignored. I guess we will not see 2.2+ in Spain then.


6. Terrain
Littoral armies would be better having Littoral as optional as already commented.


7. Moving into contact. Single element conform.
As mentioned above, can cause some dirty tricks.
A way to prevent it would be to make the align NOT be “immediately” but at the ened of the movement phase. That would prevent flank charges being so easy to pull. Otherwise the result might be dodgy.


8. New river rules (at least I think they are new)
Sounds like a definitive improvement. Well done!

Question: is a river Bad going?


9. Combat factors.
Maybe Scythed chariot should be downgraded to +3 +3 since no overlaps apply. Otherwise it can become too powerful.


10. Rear Support
- Pk , all Spears and warband should get +1 rear support vs SCh. Smashing yourself against a porcupine is not a fantastic idea, generally. They act like stupid knights, after all.

- I would make all foot (and maybe even mounted) get a +1 for rear support against most stuff, but that is me. Would make the romans less moronic in Cannae.


11. Combat results table
- As said, could someone explain why knights got all their enemies nerfed? Why not Bw QK anymore?

- No idea about if the Cm factors are good or not. The new element is just weird. I think treating it like Cv that ignores dunes (+3 +3) would be OK and much simpler. But I do not put a strong position here.

12. Recoil
- Why the change in shot in the rear? What was wrong with the old version?

- I like the fact that rear elements are not destroyed.



I eagerly await your comments/answers :)


Cheers,
Xavi

[David Schlanger]

5. Board Size
Seems my suggestion for a less strong wording in board size MANDATING 30 inch boards has been ignored. I guess we will not see 2.2+ in Spain then.



Previously it was mentioned that there would be some additional language in the line edits that allowed for the choice of another board size. The line edits are not out yet.

30" is the board size for which we have been designing the rules changes, if you choose to play another size - that is fine. You don't need our permission to do so.

I am not sure if the above is a kind of ultimatum, but I am less inclined to take the time to respond to your questions and comments when you preface them by saying you haven't read the 2.2+ threads. And if we are stuck on board size to the point that all of Spain will not give 2.2+ a chance if 30" square is the prescribed size, why should I take the time to address your points?

DS

[Xavi]

I have heard quite a lot of the lead players complain about the 30 board. This is why I was advocating a 24 board option. Trying to convince people to test it when they feel they have to redesign all their boards straight puts them on a hostile footing. Been there, been told that. And as a matter of fact, tournament tables (and the tables of pubs, for that matter) around here are 24" wide, not 30 in a lot of places. Trying to sell a product when people think that they have to change a lot of things is much more difficult. They are seeing it already as if 2.2+ changed the composition of most armies ebcause of the table issue (they see the table as part of their collection, I suppose). So 2.2+ will not be an easy sell around here if 24 boards are not suggested as an option. been saying that for a while now.


Had no time to read the thread YET but wanted to share my opinion on the actual text. Feel free to ignore it.

EDIT: edited the previous message. It seems that Kn/Bw was already adressed. The other points do not seem to have been covered, though.

[Tony Aguilar]

I am not sure if the above is a kind of ultimatum, but I am less inclined to take the time to respond to your questions and comments when you preface them by saying you haven't read the 2.2+ threads. And if we are stuck on board size to the point that all of Spain will not give 2.2+ a chance if 30" square is the prescribed size, why should I take the time to address your points?

DS

I also find it curious that when invited to joint the GM Forum you said you didn't have time for it, yet now you have time to bring up all of these things which had you joined the forum would have been addressed/explained to you.

[Xavi]

I have more time now than when the offer was made 2 months ago, when it seemed that my firm was about to close its doors. But well, ok.

So only the people implied in the development can know why the changes are there and the rest of the world have to take them at face value. I do not buy that. I would not be buying that if I were in the developer forum either. One of the main things when you release a new product is sell it.

But well, I will leave it here. Seems I am not very welcomed :)

Cheers,
Xavi

[pozanias]

I have more time now than when the offer was made 2 months ago, when it seemed that my firm was about to close its doors. But well, ok.

So only the people implied in the development can know why the changes are there and the rest of the world have to take them at face value. I do not buy that. I would not be buying that if I were in the developer forum either. One of the main things when you release a new product is sell it.

But well, I will leave it here. Seems I am not very welcomed :)

Cheers,
Xavi

Xavi,

I don't think its that you are not welcome. I for one certainly appreciate your efforts. :2up

I think the frustration you see is the result of a very long and tiresome process to get 2.2+ from concept to release. There is a lot of debate that you miss -- and by the time it gets to the general Beta testing the group is mostly looking for playtesting and findings. Not so much more debate. Or to put it differently, we are looking for flaws in the rules not differences of opinions. Of course other opinions are always helpful -- but there may not be much more energy to have a thorough discussion about them now. I can only say that I know Dave is tracking all the ideas that have been mentioned here on Fanaticus for future discussion (if they haven't already been discussed).

We are working on a "Designer's Notes" to be released with 2.2+ (remember, this is still just Beta). Redwilde has taken the lead on that, but its a lot of work and will take some time.

Remember, we're not selling these rules. This is all being done simply as an attempt to create a viable alternative for those DBA players not happy with the development of 3.0.

As for the 30" board size being a deal-breaker for Spain, remember that we already posted that when the official 2.2+ line edits are released, there will be language "allowing" 24" boards. What you see now is just a playsheet to facilitate playtesting.

[david kuijt]

But well, I will leave it here. Seems I am not very welcomed :)


Try and see it from our side, Xavi. Most of the points you are making are ones you have made before. You want to revisit issues that have long-since been largely decided. Why do you want to revisit them? Because you have been very busy with the real world, and you didn't have the time to get involved two months ago, four months ago, five months ago.

There's nothing wrong with that. We all have real-world issues that bite us. Nobody is criticizing you for having real world issues.

But look at it from our side. We have spent an awful lot of energy working on this project. Nobody is very interested in starting back from square one. Or even discussing square one. And the old issues you aren't happy about -- the existence of Raiders, 30" boards, 2/3 of the rest you mention -- all of those are ones we have talked about extensively, over hundreds of email messages, both inside the GMlist and outside here on the forum, talking with lots of people.

We are proceeding on a number of things that make you happy. And we are not likely to change our direction on some other things that you aren't sure about. Not unless you come up with something we haven't considered. Our focus is to make the best system we can. But we knew going into the process that everyone had a different vision of what "best" looked like.

I understand completely if you haven't had the time to look at all the forum discussions on this issue over the last three months. But I ask you to be a little understanding if many of us don't have the time to re-justify decisions that were made months and months ago to you now. We've got our own real-world issues as well. I'm in the last two weeks of the semester now; I'm giving four Final Exams next week and I have to do an enormous amount of class prep to help my students review in study for those exams. Other people have their own issues.

The Beta is nearly done -- if you want to give feedback, we'd love to hear it. But if you are re-examining issues that are largely set in stone now, don't be surprised if we aren't interested in changing them. We've put a lot of thought and playtesting into what we have now, and we think (by and large) that it is a very good system.

We think that if you try 2.2+, you will like it. And if you don't like it, or you aren't willing to try it, we hope you will like whatever you do end up playing.


DK

[ferrency]

5. Board Size
Seems my suggestion for a less strong wording in board size MANDATING 30 inch boards has been ignored. I guess we will not see 2.2+ in Spain then.


This is from a working draft of some designer notes:

Why not support multiple board sizes in the rules?

Opponents or tournament organizers who agree to use a different board size are welcome to do so. This is what has been done for years with 30"/48" boards in areas where they are used.

However, the rules must declare what should be done when players don't agree on what board size to use. This requires either a rule to determine which board size to use every time there's a conflict, or more simply, a single standard board size. It was decided that supporting a single board size is the simplest way to solve this, and all of the designers prefer to play on the 30"/48" board size.

Nobody wants to force you to play on 30" boards if you and your opponent prefer 24". However, the rules must declare what happens when the two opponents disagree on what size to use.

Alan

[dicemanrick]

Xavi:

For years we were the only ones running straight 2.2 on the "mandated" 24inch boards...the reverse of your situation!

Spain can mandate 24s at all events and you won't get a complaint from anyone here.

As Alan mentions above, the board size is not a game-breaker.

Enjoy the game. and screw the board size problem!:D

[Lobotomy]

Xavi:

For years we were the only ones running straight 2.2 on the "mandated" 24inch boards...the reverse of your situation!

Spain can mandate 24s at all events and you won't get a complaint from anyone here.

As Alan mentions above, the board size is not a game-breaker.

Enjoy the game. and screw the board size problem!:D

Yes, it is not the size of the board but the use you can make of it. :silly

[Ammianus]

Oh my goodness, another vitrolic exchange RE 2.2+ over in Yahoo. Sad.

[david Crenshaw]

Way to talk some sense into them Bob!

[Ammianus]

I think Bob's already earned sainthood.

[Ammianus]

I keeping forgetting to thank whoever tweaked 2.2+ and added:
----------
Elements that provided support to an element are not destroyed when the supported element is destroyed.
-------------
I just finished a LIR(W) vs E.Visigoths where that really made for a very different game. Thanks!

[jcpotn]

Having signed up for a game using 2.2+ I took an indepth look at the changes. I think it will just be a matter of adjusting to the new movement structure and the game should be fine.

Only change I can suggest is grouping cataphract with Knight under the Combat Results Table as both are identical. (gee I hope I read that right).

Jeff

[Tony Aguilar]

Having signed up for a game using 2.2+ I took an indepth look at the changes. I think it will just be a matter of adjusting to the new movement structure and the game should be fine.

Only change I can suggest is grouping cataphract with Knight under the Combat Results Table as both are identical. (gee I hope I read that right).

Jeff


No Jeff, Cataphracts loose the QK on Bd, Sp and Aux in the Open.

They also are not impetuous, are +4/+4 and a bit slower than Kn.

[jcpotn]

No Jeff, Cataphracts loose the QK on Bd, Sp and Aux in the Open.

They also are not impetuous, are +4/+4 and a bit slower than Kn.

Knew I'd regret this.

Under "Combat Results Table" only. "Beaten: ...
Jeff

[david kuijt]

No Jeff, Cataphracts loose the QK on Bd, Sp and Aux in the Open.

They also are not impetuous, are +4/+4 and a bit slower than Kn.

What Jeff is saying is that what happens to the Cataphracts if they lose is identical to what happens to the Knights if they lose.

What happens to other elements is in their "if beaten" description, not that for Kn/Cat.

[El' Jocko]

Only change I can suggest is grouping cataphract with Knight under the Combat Results Table as both are identical. (gee I hope I read that right).


I think that's a good suggestion. Knights and Cataphracts suffer identical results "when beaten", and they're similar enough conceptually to group together.

If we do another version of the playsheet, I'll make the change.

- Jack

[jcpotn]

I think that's a good suggestion. Knights and Cataphracts suffer identical results "when beaten", and they're similar enough conceptually to group together.

If we do another version of the playsheet, I'll make the change.

- Jack

Whew!!!:silly

Jeff

[ferrency]

I think that's a good suggestion. Knights and Cataphracts suffer identical results "when beaten", and they're similar enough conceptually to group together.

If we do another version of the playsheet, I'll make the change.

I expect these were separate lines because Knights used to be QK by Bows they contacted. Now that this is no longer the case, the results can be combined.

Alan

[Mark Schultz]

I looked but must have missed this. What is the distance in MU's from board edge for a river set-up.

[El' Jocko]

I looked but must have missed this. What is the distance in MU's from board edge for a river set-up.

Good question. This wasn't included on the v2.2+ playsheet, but will be included in the line edits.

I believe the answer is going to be either 8 MU (roughly equivalent to 600 paces) or 10 MU (which keeps a river from being entirely within a player's deployment zone). You can safely use either value for now.

- Jack

[Ammianus]

Anyone know an estimated completion date for 2.2+?
Just wondering.