Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Newman55f9

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • MSN
  • Website URL
  • ICQ
  • Yahoo
  • Skype

Profile Information

  • Location
    St. Paul, Minnesota, United States
  1. This game is a streamlined miniatures game and because combat is the result of a modified dice roll combined with cross reference to randomly drawn cards the outcome is always uncertain. I am amazed by how this game captures the struggle of combat. It is quite possible for both sides to be at the very brim of victory, struggling to get that moment of luck or brilliance to push one side over to victory. This really is an amazing game. I am not even into this period, but even with its high price I would buy expansions to it. A lot of thought went into the development of this game.
  2. In defense of FFG I sent them 2 questions by email about clarrification of the rules and they got back to me in about a day.
  3. Yes there are planned expansions. This may be the first: http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgameexpansion/74169/grand-melee
  4. I had sent an email to FFG on the whole crest issue and they replied that only the unit adjacent to the ridge on the low ground is affected. Everyone else can apparently see each other just fine. Here is their responde to my questions: Here's the answer to your question. 1. In the first question as long as the artillery has the high ground then the ridge line will not impede line of sight. Now in the same situation but the artillery is on the low ground then it would stop line of sight. Having the high ground gives you the advantage of ignoring the ridge that gives you high ground. So Hex 1 / Hex 2 / ridge / Hex 3 (low ground) Hex 1 can see Hex 3 If you are having trouble understanding which part of the ridge is high ground, just look at the trees. The direction the tips are pointing indicates high ground. 2. The lowest initiative always goes first. Hence an initiative of 1 will always go first and an initiative of 90 will always go last. Also a unit can never hold it's initiative, it must act and finish it's actions on it's initiative or do nothing. Those are the only two choices available. Hope this helps, Sam Stewart and Andrew Baussan Fantasy Flight Games This appears at first a bit inconsistent ("I see you, but you can't see me"), but apparently is to take into consideration the general advantage of being on higher ground.
  5. Now I know cavalry can't fire, artillery can't inniitate melee and infantry can't charge or innitiate melee against cavalry, that said... Can cavalry provide melee support to infantry and vice versa? Can artillery and infantry provide fire support to each other? I assume the answer to both questions is yes.
  6. Here is the situation: 1. Cavalry approach. 2. Infantry form square. 3. Cavalry innitiates melee (can't "charge" as infantry is in square so low rate of success) and fails. 4. Infantry (stays in square so as not to risk getting caught in line) fires at cavalry (at low effectiveness because in square formation). 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 over and over again with no resolution. Other than artillery which is not around to alter things, am I missing something?
  7. KlausFritsch said: Newman55f9 said: Also, if the defender has a defend order it appears melee counterattacks are prohibited as they can only "fight" in melees while troops with attack orders can "attack." That is incorrect. The defender can melee, but he cannot advance after pushing the enemy back. Well that makes sense. What threw me off was under the explanations of what a unit can do under Attack and Defend orders it says units with attack orders can "attack in melee" and units with Defend orders can "fight" in melee." But I see there is other language that supports what you are saying. Thank you for the clarrification. I still think though that treating melees like another form of shooting is an over simplification. I may play test a few games where a melee attack that roles a 9 or 10 still has no effect, but rolls from 1 to 8 damage the attacker in relation proportionally. For example a 1 roll hurts the attacker at a level an 18 roll would have hurt the defender. It is actually quite easy to figure it out on the cards. You just start at the 18+ result, treat it as a 1 and count upwards as you read up the card.
  8. It's true the enemy has to advance to attack, so the defender gets one free shot, but that makes sense. You have to advance into range before you can fire or attack and the defender probably will get the first shot. After they are both in range the dynamic switches to: attacker fires (defender is vulnerable) defender fires (attacker is vulnerable) attacker melees (only defender is vulnerable) So now the attacker gets 2 "shots" at the defender for every one the defender gets. Also, if the defender has a defend order it appears melee counterattacks are prohibited as they can only "fight" in melees while troops with attack orders can "attack." As to the defender having a nasty card in melees, the only melee defense cards there seem to be are fall back, counterattack and shoot the officer. While the shoot the officer card is nasty to the leader, all the other cards do is allow the unit to retreat (no real damage to the attacker) or launch a preemptive counter attack first. None of these alter the fact that again there is a melee where you would expect soldiers are fighting hand to hand, but only the defender is actually at risk of losing troops. Attacker retreats seem to be taken into account as if they fail the assault they essentially return to the hex they came from in the first place. But even here you would think there would be a risk of disorder even if in column, especially after being repelled. The more I think about it the more I think the game would be better with a melee result deck that covered modified die rolls from 1 to 18+ that allowed for the attacker to take damage as well as the defender and even allowed them both to lose a figure in the fight. This is of course just my oppinion. Maybe after I have played the game more I will change my mind, but it appears others have already made alterations in the game such as allowing a unit to fire or melee, but not both which changes the dynamic back to a 1:1 blow ratio between attacker and defender.
  9. Wouldn't limbering the guns in this situation be preparing to retreat as opposed to continuing to attack the enemy? By limbering the guns they will not be able to fire the next turn and as the enemy is as close as they can be, there is no need to limber the guns to get closer to the enemy? The most aggressive thing to do would be to try to fight off the enemy and if they succeed in holding them off, reload the guns and blast them at point blank range ... or die trying. I am sure there must be multiple instances of this in history, but what comes to mind to me is the Battle of the Cowpens, where Tarleton's entire infantry gave up and only a handful of officers and 17th Light dragoons remained, the British 3 pounder crew fought to the death. The most pragmatic thing to do would of course be limber the guns, but order delay and confusion seem to be integral parts of the game and the artillery had an attack order. I should have noted that in this case the artillery were outnumbered 3 to 1 and almost doomed. Limbering the guns or not limbering the guns meant the difference between losing one figure and retreating with the guns or losing 2 and being stuck in a situation where they would probably lose everything in the next turn.
  10. After playtesting, I really enjoy this game, but the one issue with the rules that bothers me the most is the one sided melee issue. This breaks down to two issues. 1. As I have noted before it is just as easy to defeat a weak unit as a crack unit in a melee attack because the opposing side's melee qualities and leaders are not included in the calculations. 2. There is no risk to the side attacking by melee. There is probably nothing more interactive with an enemy than hand to hand combat. There should be some risk to the innitiator of the assualt. One way to do this would be to have cards with die roll results from 1 to 10 (failed melees) with consequences for the failure. Rolling a 10 or a 9 could have no effect, both sides just disengage, while rolling an 8 through a 1 would correspond to the attacker suffering the same consequences the defender would have received had he succeeded. For example rolling a modified 1 would cause the same damage to the attacker that the defender would have received on a roll amounting to a modified 18. What do you all think? Am I missing something here?
  11. Here is the scenario, the French have been attacking with artillery support, but things have gone wrong. The French infantry is on the run. The French artillery is exposed. It had the earlier innitiative and fired at British infantry ahead of it in the first segment of the phase. The British choose to advance toward the French guns. It is the second segment of the action phase and it is quite obvious the British are going to launch a melee assault on the French guns. Because they have a standing attack order do they need to stand and fight even under impossible odds and probably get wiped out because they can't retreat unlimbered or can they take the practical route and limber up the guns before the melee begins so that if they lose they can run away and attack again later. It seems to me that it is most likey they must stay limbered, but what does everyone else think?
  12. Thanks MB, they do look great and accurate too!
  13. Thank you MB, Is there any chance you could post a picture or two? Does the varnish harden the figures?
  14. Can an out of command cavalry unit voluntarily retreat when an enemy unit advances into an adjacent square?
  15. Per the rules a disordered unit cannot change formation, but can use its formation change to eliminate the disorder. I assume this means that a disordered unit that uses its formation change to remove disorder cannot also change formation in the same action phase too, right?
  • Create New...