Trival note about rule book

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Trival note about rule book

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> Trival note about rule book

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Trival note about rule book - 1/27/2010 3:31:34 AM

Dancing Bear

Posts: 1003
Joined: 2/21/2008
Status: offline

Hi all

this is likely just be a trival misprint in the rules, but the Rule 9.3.1 says that in the event of a tie, the intercepting (phasing) force losses. Surely this is the non-phasing player, because the intercepting force can not be the phasing force. The way the game is set up the intercepting force losses ties. I suspect the rules should read the intercepting (non-phasing) player losses in the event of a tie.

Also on the subject of the naval rules, the handy summary table (14.5) at the back should likely indicate that blockading forces automatically get wind guage, not just fleets attacking ports.

DB

Post #: 1

RE: Trival note about rule book - 1/27/2010 3:38:13 AM

Dancing Bear

Posts: 1003
Joined: 2/21/2008
Status: offline

Does anyone recall if what the original EIA rules say about fleets leaving a blockade box into a blockading force. Are they the ones they start the combat. and would lose ties?

(in reply to Dancing Bear)

Post #: 2

RE: Trival note about rule book - 1/27/2010 12:08:14 PM

pzgndr

Posts: 3170
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline

Got it. Marshall can confirm and I'll get it into the v1.08 updated manual.

(in reply to Dancing Bear)

Post #: 3

RE: Trival note about rule book - 1/27/2010 1:43:38 PM

ndrose

Posts: 612
Joined: 10/13/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dancing Bear

Does anyone recall if what the original EIA rules say about fleets leaving a blockade box into a blockading force. Are they the ones they start the combat. and would lose ties?

I don't see anything in the rules that addresses this narrowly (maybe I missed something), but (to confirm what you wrote earlier) the intercepting force is generally considered the attacker and so loses ties; and blockades are called automatic interceptions. That would imply to me that the blockader is the attacker and loses ties, but as I say maybe I overlooked a specific exception for that case.

(in reply to Dancing Bear)

Post #: 4

RE: Trival note about rule book - 1/27/2010 9:27:42 PM

Jimmer

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline

In the original rules, the phasing player in a BB combat is considered the attacker, and must therefore win the encounter. In other words, blockader wins ties. This is different from other interceptions, where the intercepter loses ties. There was a separate rule covering it (6.2.3.2.1).

However, this was worded badly in the rules. So, they had an example at the end of the rulebook that made it clear.

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to ndrose)

Post #: 5

RE: Trival note about rule book - 1/28/2010 2:19:01 AM

Dancing Bear

Posts: 1003
Joined: 2/21/2008
Status: offline

Hi Jimmer
I'm not sure if this is right. Where does it say that the fleet trying to run the blockade is the attacker?

(in reply to Jimmer)

Post #: 6

RE: Trival note about rule book - 1/28/2010 2:20:29 AM

Dancing Bear

Posts: 1003
Joined: 2/21/2008
Status: offline

Thanks pzgndr

quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

Got it.� Marshall can confirm and I'll get it into the v1.08 updated manual.

(in reply to pzgndr)

Post #: 7

RE: Trival note about rule book - 1/28/2010 2:27:41 AM

ndrose

Posts: 612
Joined: 10/13/2006
Status: offline

Jimmer, can you quote the relevant example? 6.2.3.2.1 just says that the phasing fleet has to win the combat in order to move out of port, but it doesn't say whether equal casualties count as winning or losing, which is the question.

(in reply to Jimmer)

Post #: 8

RE: Trival note about rule book - 1/28/2010 1:16:29 PM

Marshall Ellis