Re: Re: Modelling EC consequences

From: Wulf Corbett <wulfc_at_...>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 21:50:13 +0100


On Tue, 21 May 2002 20:35:32 -0000, "nichughes2001" <nick.hughes_at_astrazeneca.com> wrote:

>>You have to be
>> inventive to think up explanations, which is good in a way, but
>> indicative of a counter-intuative system.

>If the archers are fighting as a coherent unit then they should be
>lumped together as a unit. If they are skirmishing as individuals
>then run them as individuals and allow for individual consequences.
>
>The problem here seems to be running them as individuals then trying
>to explain the outcome in terms of their being in formation as a
>unit.

I didn't notice anyone talking about formations of archers in rules terms, personally. The problem is, in what way can an 'Injured' result be applied & explained to an individual who remained out of range of the enemy, but lost while using his Ranged Combat to attack them?

Certainly you should 'allow for individual consequences', but, compared to melee, these do not seem very convincing except in specific, and usually rare, circumstances. There isn't an apparent 'standard' form of defeat.

Wulf

Powered by hypermail