From: neal_sofge@rand.delete.this.org (Neal Sofge) Subject: Lords of the Sierra Madre rules questions Hi there. Phil sent the email below to clarify the rules questions that appeared here last week, and I thought I'd post them in case others were interested. ---------------------------- Hello, I am the designer for Lords of the Sierra Madre, and I will try to answer any questions. First, if you do not have the version 2.1 rules, contact Decision Games, who is supposed to send out free (i think) to any registered owner a copy of the revised rules. (28 pages, and labelled "v.2.1 on last page). > I) A couple of the Mex. presidential 'decree' cards, for example those > that nationalize RRs mention 'Mexican' railroads? Which RRs are > Mexican, and which aren't? My answer. Buried in rule 13.23 (in revised rules anyway) is the statement that railroads with most of their districts within a territory are considered rails of that territory. I wanted this rule in 3.3, but it is quite difficult to tell Decision games anything. And this rule is ambiguous in a couple of rails that are evenly postioned on the border, and your suggestion of having the RR symbol block tell where it is located is a good one., > We were playing with our 'strict' rules interpretation which > was that Orange/Blue (non-police, non-white) units COULD just sit there > and watch Pancho Villa burn someone's Hacienda to the ground. > (Obviously, said units were NOT controlled by that Haciendado!). My Answer: True! Only police players are penalized for allowing crimes or not attacking criminals. > However, this lead to an 'interesting' interaction -- If a higher > leadership leader (of the same color) moves into a district he "takes > control of all combat in that district" -- would this include LACK of > combat? This was one (I think flawed) interpretation -- that if someone > controls the Rurales and a Bandido unit -- they can move into a > enterprise space and burn it to the ground basically at > will -- unless another Leadership 2 Orange Leader (or Red/Blue/White > unit) interferes. Obviously this interpretation is more or less > meaningless if said Rurales go up for re-bid in the next phase (for not > attacking bandidos!). My Answer. Units of different colors cannot stack together. Rurales can enter the same district as bandidos, and ignore them and their nefarious deeds. But they cannot interefere with other Orange units attacking the bandidos. Also, the command rules are only in force in wartime, so that units with higher leadership cannot assume control of other like-colored units of lower leadership, unless it is wartime. > Similarly - how do leaders interact with opposing sides all composed of > Red Units. In our case, a 'mighty revolutionary army' - lead by Pancho > Villa (with 2 other red units, merc. machine guns, and rifles all > around!) was thretened with subversion (or some card that automatically > takes away a red/white/orange card). To which the (current) owner of > Villa noted that his 'stack' (still owned by him) would immediatly > execute the Villistas. However, Villa is a ldr 2 leader -- does that > mean other 'enemy' red units won't attack him? Given that the rules > specify that red can attack red, we ruled that Villa was a viable target > for more poorly-led red units. My answer: Absolutely! Red can attack other red, for any reason, or no reason. This situation was very common in revolutionary Mexico, along with the resulting mass executions. And leadership has no meaning among bandidos, although it could have some relevance for some red units like red-flag units. Please contact me if you are interested in any of our other LORDS series games, which includes Lords of the Renaissance, Lords of the High Frontier. Lords of the Spanish Main and American Megafauna are two other Lords games currently in playtesting. We also publish Insecta, Luftschiff, Pancho Villa, Burros and Bandidos, and many other fine games. -- Neal Sofge I speak for myself, not RAND. Fat Messiah Games Web: http://www.io.com/~wasson/fmg.html