<< In the most unlikely place, which is why nobody finds about it till their
unfed navy first fails to arrive. There's no mention of it under armies
and navies, or under food, or under movement and the movement tables at the
back of the rule book seem to show clearly that the foodless penalty is
simply 4/3rds. But... if you look very, very, carefully, there in the
small print of the 830 order, you'll find the (totally unexplained) comment
that navies without food can only use 10 movement points. >>
My rule book, 2950 2nd Edition 1995, says no such thing in the 830 order
description, nor in any of the other sections you referred to. I have never
played 1650 but had the impression that the only difference was in the setup
and certain NPCs (Saruman being an NPC in 1650), but maybe there is more...
Ed
Yeah Laurence. While you may disparagingly refer to me as "young",
can I refer to you as an old geezer in this one? As you
obviously are not looking at the same rule book as either of us..
All the 1650 7th edition says under the 830 order is that both
moral and movement is reduced without food. No fine print, in fact,
I haven't seen fine print anywhere in this book at all...is that
more evidence of my apparent...youth?
<< In the most unlikely place, which is why nobody finds about it
till their
unfed navy first fails to arrive. There's no mention of it under
armies
and navies, or under food, or under movement and the movement tables
at the
back of the rule book seem to show clearly that the foodless penalty
is
simply 4/3rds. But... if you look very, very, carefully, there in
the
small print of the 830 order, you'll find the (totally unexplained)
comment
that navies without food can only use 10 movement points. >>
My rule book, 2950 2nd Edition 1995, says no such thing in the 830
order
description, nor in any of the other sections you referred to. I have
never
played 1650 but had the impression that the only difference was in
the setup
and certain NPCs (Saruman being an NPC in 1650), but maybe there is
more...
Ed
______________________________________________________________________
Web-hosting solutions for home and business! http://website.yahoo.ca
From checking all my books (Cover to Cover) it seems that the 1650 (All
editions) mentions the movement under the 830 order whereas the 2950 (All
editions) doesn't. It just says movement maybe reduced.
It also isn't mention in 1000.... No idea why.
Thomas Crane
···
Yeah Laurence. While you may disparagingly refer to me as "young",
can I refer to you as an old geezer in this one? As you
obviously are not looking at the same rule book as either of us..
All the 1650 7th edition says under the 830 order is that both
moral and movement is reduced without food. No fine print, in fact,
I haven't seen fine print anywhere in this book at all...is that
more evidence of my apparent...youth?
Regards,
Brad Brunet
______________________________________________________________________
Web-hosting solutions for home and business! http://website.yahoo.ca
830 is MOVE navy...of course it mentions "the movement". I
have the 1650 7th edition, and it has 1) no fine print and
2) no mention of 10 mp's. Is that what "all <your> books"
say? What are you saying, exactly...?
Is there a chance that MY 7th edition rules that GSI
provided me are different in this and other ways than the
rules provided by Harlequin, now Middle Earth Games? If so,
how may I get my hands on a copy of these "British" version
rules please? Am I expected to pay for them? This is all
getting silly, I think....
From checking all my books (Cover to Cover) it seems that the 1650
(All
editions) mentions the movement under the 830 order whereas the 2950
(All
editions) doesn't. It just says movement maybe reduced.
It also isn't mention in 1000.... No idea why.
Thomas Crane
______________________________________________________________________
Web-hosting solutions for home and business! http://website.yahoo.ca
My latest 1650 Editions.. Say 10 movement without food.. All my other types
say movement maybe reduced.
···
--- Grey Squirrel <greysquirrel@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> From checking all my books (Cover to Cover) it seems that the 1650
> (All
> editions) mentions the movement under the 830 order whereas the 2950
> (All
> editions) doesn't. It just says movement maybe reduced.
>
> It also isn't mention in 1000.... No idea why.
>
> Thomas Crane
830 is MOVE navy...of course it mentions "the movement". I
have the 1650 7th edition, and it has 1) no fine print and
2) no mention of 10 mp's. Is that what "all <your> books"
say? What are you saying, exactly...?
Is there a chance that MY 7th edition rules that GSI
provided me are different in this and other ways than the
rules provided by Harlequin, now Middle Earth Games? If so,
how may I get my hands on a copy of these "British" version
rules please? Am I expected to pay for them? This is all
getting silly, I think....
bb
______________________________________________________________________
Web-hosting solutions for home and business! http://website.yahoo.ca
<< In the most unlikely place, which is why nobody finds about it till their
unfed navy first fails to arrive. There's no mention of it under armies
and navies, or under food, or under movement and the movement tables at the
back of the rule book seem to show clearly that the foodless penalty is
simply 4/3rds. But... if you look very, very, carefully, there in the
small print of the 830 order, you'll find the (totally unexplained) comment
that navies without food can only use 10 movement points. >>
My rule book, 2950 2nd Edition 1995, says no such thing in the 830 order
description,
Yes, you are right!!! I have just compared my 1650, 2950 and 4th Age rule books. Only the first says "If a navy moves when it has no food, then morale rank declines from 1-5 points and _it_can only_move_10_movement_points._"
In the latter two, the underscored words are replaced with "and its range of movement will be reduced."
Dear Harlequins,
Please tell us:
Is the movement for unfed navies in 2950 and 4th Age greater than in 1650?
Or was the daft idea of unfed navies moving 5 corrected in all three?
And if so, do up to date editions of the 1650 rule book reflect that?
LOL. OK I hold my hand up to that one. would be ROFL but I may not be able to get up again afterwards.
Now waiting to hear if my 1650 rulebook (Fourth Edition 1992, which does say 10 movement points) is wrong. And if it is, why was an update or errata never issued to us Old Folk who shelled out so many of our groats for a copy in Ye Olden Days.
Yeah Laurence. While you may disparagingly refer to me as "young",
can I refer to you as an old geezer in this one? As you
obviously are not looking at the same rule book as either of us..
Laurence is quoting his 4th edition. I've got a 7th from GSI.
What's your latest?
Where would the company stand on updating, et al? If there
IS a discrepancy, and things change, however slightly, is
there generally notification, incumbent on players to buy
new books, etc? Maybe a page on the web site dedicated to
any/all updates to editions over time. For example, trace
the 1st-changes, 2nd-changes...etc until we get to the present
rules in use? Wouldn't that be a better overall use of the
company's time than sending P.I.'s out to confirm residency
of all players - "not" in prison?
Please answer the rules question below (I've copied to the list as it came
out of a discussion on the list)
RD: Hi Laurence,
Clint wrote a while back that if you want an answer to a specific rules
question, send it to Harle, not the mepbm list, as it gets his attention a
lot quicker. You can of course copy it to the list. I've therefore taken
the liberty of forwarding this message to Clint so that hopefully you will
get a prompt response, and being the public-spirited guy you are, you will
of course publish his reply on the list for the rest of us!
> unfed navy first fails to arrive. There's no mention of it under
armies
> and navies, or under food, or under movement and the movement tables at
the
> back of the rule book seem to show clearly that the foodless penalty is
> simply 4/3rds. But... if you look very, very, carefully, there in the
> small print of the 830 order, you'll find the (totally unexplained)
At 04:07 PM 20-02-02, TaborekEJ@AOL.com wrote:
> that navies without food can only use 10 movement points. >>
>
>My rule book, 2950 2nd Edition 1995, says no such thing in the 830 order
>description,
Yes, you are right!!! I have just compared my 1650, 2950 and 4th Age rule
books. Only the first says "If a navy moves when it has no food, then
morale rank declines from 1-5 points and _it_can
only_move_10_movement_points._"
In the latter two, the underscored words are replaced with "and its range
of movement will be reduced."
Dear Harlequins,
Please tell us:
Is the movement for unfed navies in 2950 and 4th Age greater than in 1650?
Or was the daft idea of unfed navies moving 5 corrected in all three?
And if so, do up to date editions of the 1650 rule book reflect that?
I hope you are kidding? It WAS to them, and copied to the list (Check the headers!). Stuart a little peeved with me already I think, for being so persistent. So you will have _really_ made their day if you sent another copy!
Still, maybe you'll have made them think again about responding to questions arising from list discussions directly to the list.
Clint wrote a while back that if you want an answer to a specific rules
question, send it to Harle, not the mepbm list, as it gets his attention a
lot quicker. You can of course copy it to the list. I've therefore taken
the liberty of forwarding this message to Clint so that hopefully you will
get a prompt response, and being the public-spirited guy you are, you will
of course publish his reply on the list for the rest of us!
>RD: Hi Laurence,
>
>Clint wrote a while back that if you want an answer to a specific rules
>question, send it to Harle, not the mepbm list, as it gets his attention
a
>lot quicker. You can of course copy it to the list. I've therefore
taken
>the liberty of forwarding this message to Clint so that hopefully you
will
>get a prompt response, and being the public-spirited guy you are, you
will
>of course publish his reply on the list for the rest of us!
I hope you are kidding? It WAS to them, and copied to the list (Check the
headers!). Stuart a little peeved with me already I think, for being so
persistent. So you will have _really_ made their day if you sent another
copy!
Still, maybe you'll have made them think again about responding to
questions arising from list discussions directly to the list.
Laurence G. Tilley
RD: Oops! Harle's address didn't show on my header, only the mepbmlist.
Think I'll just mind my own business next time!
Richard.
···
----- Original Message -----
From: "Laurence G. Tilley" <laurence@lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 11:41 PM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Rules question: The Arcane Secret of Unfed Navy
As you