successorlord

It also got a stern talking to... but then it just started mouthing off about being a core mechanic of the RAGE system. What was the nature of your problem with it? Somewhere there is a remenant of a memory that the auto 10 rule was only effect within the first few range bands. It might have been back in 1.5 beta. My playing group has always used some version of "No Auto-10" and we find the game much more enjoyable because of it. A minimum of a 10% chance of a damaging hit regardless of the relative weapon/armor involved is just not realistic. Initially we had just said that if you couldn't reach a targets effective DV with your roll + bonuses it was an impossible shot. Recently (thanks to Chrome) we have been experimenting with a natural 10 allowing a re-roll added together with the original for the final to hit number. Yes, the Auto-10 rule does go away beyond the Long (3rd) range bracket, but that still leaves 90% of the table in play for 90% of the weapons.

Is anything being done about the 10 always hits rule?

I am looking for a medieval mass-combat rules that are not a GW product or a clone. I am not talking about Warlord, but something with full units of infantry, cavalry, etc... Any suggestions? Preferably products still in print... Anyone know if Reaper has any plans in this direction? I have heard of one or two but don't have access to a hard copy for review. Has anyone read/played: "Skull Cleaver" from Computer Strategies Pty Ltd "Fantasy Rules 2nd Edition" by Chipco

Ordering by phone is good. Any chance the Boneyard pages could come back up without prices just for reference so we can know we're ordering the right pieces?

I'm pretty sure this covers it:

Caught up on your sleep yet?

[good natured taunting] Ok, your houseparty is over. When are we going to see the finalized rules and cards? [/good natured taunting]

Thank you Chrome and Pat, I understand your desire for personal privacy but quick, general updates like this keep everything in perspective and squelch conspiracy theories nicely. I look forward to the final RC08 and Cards, but it's hardly world shaking.

It would serve as a deterrant for IA fire, even at 1. Granted the Opportunity Cost equasion is not generally in your favor though.

All good points, though I would point out that the Ashigaru, Talon, and Ryoshi also serve a dual role as an ECM unit. This both justifies their cost and makes it occasionally difficult to 'spare' an action to call in a FiST strike. I like the Talon in my FS section. It has an IA tube to lend in, can ECM, EST, and/or FiST and usually isn't overly worried about moving.

Playing Terrans you always need lots of FiSTers. Your opponent will quickly figure out they're relatively easy to kill and doing so will deprive you of your Doctrine. The problem is that to benefit from them you have to expose the FiSTer and that usually drastically shortens their lifespan. The clarification that you can FiST at any point along your move, helps though.

I found out my Archer was a little person, and went through the steps to finding out how to exchange him, but in the end decided to keep him. I'll get him a big brother eventually, but for now I actually like it.

Mattyfoe loves hunting my recon/jamming units. I tend to favor the Ashigaru (Terran) and the Ryoshi (Open Mkt) as they have a higher DV. The Puma is my softest, regularly fielded jammer an it reliably suffers for it. The best advice I can give you is to keep a tight screen in front of your jammer to limit his lines of fire, and as far as IA, it's a tough one to counter. The jammer itself is your best cover, but if your opponent is that effective get some shots on his IA.

Enquiring minds would like to know...

1) Yes, the 10% free counts toward the 20% limit. basically what this means is in a 4000 point game a Terran Army is actually getting 4400 points to spend. Page Ref? How about the fifth post in this very thread. Go ahead scroll up I'll wait. ... Most of your questions have already be answered by Chrome. I saw that but that's not what's said in the rules. Specifically nothing is said to the question in the rules and I hoped to see an official clarification. I read the same text and get the exact opposite read. I am often interpreting things differently then the designers intended, admittedly, but at least my questions get the loopholes closed.