From: Aforandy Subject: A MARS a day helps you work, rest & play... Amazingly unofficial Successors rules we played by this summer:- <1) can reinforcements REALLY be placed in a beseiged major city? Other than the (small) occupancy limit, I can't find anything in the rules which prevents this.> NO. they may be placed if no siege markers present up to two <2) Alexander's body can't be MOVED until turn 2 (when the funeral cart is complete), but can it be buried before that? In both games, a little immediate permanent legitimacy was judged to be much better than the risks of a journey back to Macedon.> I'd like to see this treated like the 23,000 colonists, ie it can't be buried until turn two and only in a major city closer to Pella than Babylon. The body can't be murdered/assassinated either. I note rule 22.6 referred to in 22.2 is in deficit... can you raise troops if you don't physically move anyone to a new location? I'd say yes...for now. >My only >complaint is that there should be a complete separate leader counter and card >for Cassander (hope I've got the names right), instead of just a reminder chit >to place on Antipater's card. >Perhaps with a different color on back to emphasize that it shouldn't >be mixed in with the rest of the cards... It seems silly (sloppy >development) >that Eumenes and Seleucus have a card *and* a counter, Cassander >doesn't have a counter but has a card (sort of), whereas Demetrius >has a counter but no card... well obviously one son can co-exist and the other not, as his dad dies as soon as he appears. also:- It would have been nice to backprint Alexander's Body with a Funeral Cart -- maybe in the 32/6 General countersheet? Some wonder why the backs of the Tyche cards vary so much in darkness. 4x4 colours for the bases would have been ideal but i guess you knew this. I would expect many players will order these as extra parts. >I have a couple of extra questions: >1. When being navally intercepted, is the moving player forced to use > all his fleets, or can he choose just some (or none)? Often the >presence > of fleets is more important than the possible result of a naval move. I'm sure he can choose. >2. Do dispersed fleets count when determining the "biggest fleet" VP > bonus? If not, that would be a good reason *not* to want to use your > fleets to protect/intercept a moving force. NO >3. If the answer to question 2) is "no"; dispersed fleets are returned >to > action at "the beginning of the turn" (I believe); in turns 4 and 5, >can > they be returned before the player controlling the relevant heir > chooses to end the game? The returning fleets (and the placement > of the "biggest fleet" VP marker) may influence whether the player > with the heir would win or not... Fleet control is important, its why one might besiee Rhodes, so yes you get the points before deciding what to do. >4. When intercepting with a fleet, if the result numbers on the CRT are > the same, the rules say something to the effect that "no battle has > taken place, and the moving player can move on". If the moving > player wasn't the usurper, does the interceptor still lose his >champion > status? i guess so, the dastardly attempt is reported in the newspapaers. 23.8 seems pretty clear on this. >5. A player can control more than one heir, but can only claim > legitimacy from one of them: If the player controlling Heracles >chooses > to end the game at the beginning of turn 4, if that player also >controls > Alex IV, can he choose to count Alex IV's legitimacy bonus when > determining his legitimacy total? I don't believe the rules prevent >this, > but it seems silly to claim legitimacy from Alex, when you've just >crowned > Heracles as king... well no, if you have both you can only count one. >And a couple of questions on the Antipater/Cassander shuffle: >6. If Antipater is married to one of the royal familiy women, when >Antipater > dies, does the wife return to inactive status, or does Cassander > "inherit" her?! The confusion stems from the fact that Cassander uses > Antipater's card and counter, and is (rules-wise) considered more of > a "modification" to Antipater than as a separate leader... she become inactive, the rules seem relatively OK here. >7. Similarily, Antipater's faction can't use the Olympias card. When > Antipater is dead, can the faction *now* use the card, or is >Cassander's > presence enough to make it illegal? What if Cassander dies too? the other test restrictions were murderers of either Alex IV or Cleopatra, or controllers of heirs other than Alex IV. The card says "Antipater" and means just that faction, Cassander might have been a nice boy anyway. Once dead all is forgiven. Andy Daglish From: NDanger666 Subject: Re: A MARS a day helps you work, rest & play... << 2. Do dispersed fleets count when determining the "biggest fleet" VP bonus? If not, that would be a good reason *not* to want to use your fleets to protect/intercept a moving force. NO >> This question was asked of Richard berg who desogned the thing. According to him, the answer is YES, fleets in the dispersal box DO count toward determining the largest fleet bonus. You might want to getan "official"" ruling on this. From: Aforandy Subject: Re: Randyandy Successors Qs In a message dated 23/12/97 14:56:00, you write: <<6.3 Raising Troops: can you use MPs [to siege] and raise troops? I guess not.>> Surrender segment sieges are okay, but to raise troops under 6.3, you have to not use the movement points at all during the movement segment. This is quite unclear from the wording in rule 6.3 and will require errata. <> The Tyche Card list clearly states that the Heliopolis may be removed after the siege--which means it can stay until the next play of the card. Since it can also not move, but can be captured, you'd be foolish to leave it out in the open after siege success--get rid of it (but you don't have to). ***************************** > < general who does not want to attack a non-Usurper may be foced to as a result > of that non-Usurper's interception, despite all his attempts to avoid > fighting. Should not interception also be seen as an aggressive move leading > to loss of Champion Legitimacy?>> > > Movement through hostile territory next to an enemy is on the verge of > aggression--if you get caught by an interception, you are still the > precipitating aggressor. but the interceptor may be in the moving player's territory, blocking his movement, and the moving player may try and fail to avoid battle! > << At sea this seems more clear, which means there is inconsistency between > land and sea which will confuse players -- >> > > I try to keep my water and dirt from being confused. at sea an interception seems to be equivalent to an attack, however > < battles. An Avoid Battle attempt by the moving Intercepted army should > therefore be explained, to give the rule the logical feel we know players > like. Say "attack _or successfully Intercept on land or sea_" in 23.8?>> > > No, the rule is fine as is. If you move an army towards another general you > are crossing into his satrapy from a historical point of view--violating the > loose agreements among the successors. The moving force remains fewed as the > attacker that violated the other, who simply intercepted in self-defense. unless the "defender" successfully pursues? From: Aforandy Subject: 2nd Succ <1) can reinforcements REALLY be placed in a beseiged major city? Other than the (small) occupancy limit, I can't find anything in the rules which prevents this.> NO. they may be placed if no siege markers are present. A max of two CU can be placed behind walls, of course. <2) Alexander's body can't be MOVED until turn 2 (when the funeral cart is complete), but can it be buried before that? In both games, a little immediate permanent legitimacy was judged to be much better than the risks of a journey back to Macedon.> apparently the rule is it can be buried in any major city starting on turn two. if you use MPs you can't raise mercenaries. >4. When intercepting with a fleet, if the result numbers on the CRT are > the same, the rules say something to the effect that "no battle has > taken place, and the moving player can move on". If the moving > player wasn't the usurper, does the interceptor still lose his >champion > status? only the phasing player ie. the _intercepted_ can lose champion legitimacy, i misread the question originally. Essentially if _on your turn_ your forces coincide with those of a non-Usurper, you have been naughty and go to Successor status. This doesn't happen on tied naval rolls [only?]. Note the naval interception rules in 12.2 in comparison to those in 16.3. Andy From: Aforandy Subject: succ 3 > Actually, you must not confuse naval interception (16.3) with land > interception (12). The Rule 12.2 restriction is to make sure a LAND > interception does stop an army moving by sea--the inteception happens at the > landing point --the last space of movement. Meanwhile, 16.3 governs naval > combat which involves automatic interception (and it really doesn't matter > where the inteception happens--because if successful, the mover returns to > port of embarkation--but of course the interceptor must have a garrison > within range of some place along the path). In effect, as soon as the naval > move comes within range, the inteception can be announced--not necessarily on > the final landing space of the move. This is subtle, but the 12.2 > restrictions refer entirely to a land army making the interception. I would have thought there would be fewer questions about where a land army could make an interception of a sea move, but thanks for pointing this out. > > < say you lose Champion status if on your turn your forces coincide > with those of a non-Ursurper? Hopefully this deals with tied naval rolls & > with rolling a 2 on the siege table....>> > > You are still missing the point within the rule itself. Merely moving into > the space of enemy CUs. Thus, in a siege situation, you already moved into > such a position, thereby losing your Champion status. In the case of naval > combat, no loss of Champion status is ever implied, as the definition of > attacker is always revolving around CUs landing on other CUs--which isn't > happening at the moment of a naval combat. Navies can disperse themselves ad > infinitum without affecting Champion status. Are you saying that naval battles do not affect Champion status loss?? The rules give a marked similarity between opposing armies meeting on land and comparing naval strength at sea, to the extent that it looks like a neat piece of amalgamation! The problem with my definition concerns making siege rolls against a Usurper in one turn who becomes a non-Usurper in the next. Andy