IHMN Rules queries

[Craig]

Do we have a def release date for the rules?

May 20th was the last we heard from Osprey.  There's probably a couple of hundred copies being flogged off on E-bay though 

[Craig]

So, don't have the rules yet, but am wondering how much minis a company must have at least?
Is it possible to make very small, hard hitting companies with just around 3/4 modells?

There should be a minimum of four figures in a Company. On average you will have 10-12, though some have very cheap troops and could have as many as twenty in a 250 point list.

[Craig]

I just have one initial question for those who have/know the rules - is the location for the game principally European, or could the game suit any world location?

Just European? Not at all.

One section of the rules is called 'Landscapes'. These cover a number of typical Victorian settings, each with benefits, hazards and suggested terrain listed. Many of these are aimed at a generic city, which could as easily b London and Paris or Cairo and Shanghai. 

There are also more exotic Landscapes such as the Orient Express, a Pathan Village, an Ocean Steamer of even aboard the Hindenburg.  There shall be more in the supplement and all of these will stand as examples for you to create your own.

Shanghai 1895 was a bustling trade port that looked a bit like Blade Runner without the neon All the major European powers jostled each other for lucrative trade contracts and military advantages, so it would make an absolutely splendid setting for IHMN.

[Hunter776]

Hi Hunter,

The answer to your question of a week or so ago is yes, we'd love to serialise your work. I need to pass on a few points of feedback which are background related, not the text.

Looking forward to reading more...

Most kind of you. You have my email, please feel free to send the feedback at which time I will punch things up so the chapters appropriately conform to the background, both with what is completed, and as well in the future.

[Dewbakuk]

Here's a quick one, can you have a bayonet affixed to an arc rifle?

[Craig]

Here's a quick one, can you have a bayonet affixed to an arc rifle?

I would say not as there isn't room on the end of the barrel because of all the coils, wires and the delicate discharge array.

Though it would be cool to stab someone and then pull the trigger... damn you sir you're getting me all carried away (switch to image of man jerking like a landed fish on the end of a 100KV bayonet ). No we shouldn't allow it as it would be both awful and ungentlemanly!

[Skrapwelder]

I'm sure there would be consequences for using it on wet pavement.

[Dewbakuk]

No we shouldn't allow it as it would be both awful and ungentlemanly!

Good enough for me

[Skrapwelder]

I've said it in other posts but really, Bang up job on these rules. I particularly appreciate the section on conduct and courtesy. Perhaps you will address attire in the expansion.

I'm curious about one of the examples with regards to shooting: 3.3.2. At the end of the example it says: When shooting back, the anarchists suffered a -2 penalty against any of the soldiers who had already moved this turn - so the best tactic was for each of them to shoot at a soldier who hadn't moved yet (remembering that each player moves 1 figure at a time) or at Private Davies who didn't move this turn.

I'm assuming that all Movement is done before all shooting, which is done before all fighting. With Movement coming before Shooting is there a situation when a model has the opportunity to shoot at a model that has not moved or had the opportunity to move?

Thanks,

Mike

[Craig]

I'm assuming that all Movement is done before all shooting, which is done before all fighting. With Movement coming before Shooting is there a situation when a model has the opportunity to shoot at a model that has not moved or had the opportunity to move?

You are correct all movement is completed before the shooting phase begins. If a figure does not move in the movement phase then it will not benefit from the -2 applied to enemies shooting at it.

Poor wording indeed. This is a result of spending 18 months writing and rewriting rules. Sometimes an earlier version does not get spotted when other parts supersede it. I'd blame the Editor but I quite like him

[S.A.M.]

You are correct all movement is completed before the shooting phase begins. If a figure does not move in the movement phase then it will not benefit from the -2 applied to enemies shooting at it.

I stumbled across the same question as Skrapwelder (and I am very greateful Craig is so generous with his time and answers all the questions here in this forum).

But now I'm thinking: wouldn't it be a good alternative way of playing not to have a complete movement phase, then a shooting phase and after that a phase for close combat but to activate just one figure, let it go throgh all three phases and then have the next player activate a mini and perform all three phases with that one (and so on). That way, in the shooting phase you wouldn't have to remember how much every figure has moved (where the distance moved is relevant for the shooting modifier).

Would this change the game balance very much? I think the rukles should work very well that way, too. There's a numbr of rulesets which handle the activation of miniture that way (e.g. FUBAR, which Craig should be familiar with).

[Craig]

I stumbled across the same question as Skrapwelder (and I am very greateful Craig is so generous with his time and answers all the questions here in this forum).

Not in the least. It is you chaps who are forking out your hard earned dosh. So it is my duty to do this in return - besides its strokes my ego something awful 

But now I'm thinking: wouldn't it be a good alternative way of playing not to have a complete movement phase, then a shooting phase and after that a phase for close combat but to activate just one figure, let it go throgh all three phases and then have the next player activate a mini and perform all three phases with that one (and so on). That way, in the shooting phase you wouldn't have to remember how much every figure has moved (where the distance moved is relevant for the shooting modifier).

As I have said a number of times Charles and I encourage you to try alternative rules ideas like this, but please let us all know how it went.

My only concern with this one is that some figures are quite a bit more powerful than others. Allowing them to do their entire set of actions before anyone else can react seems a bit dangerous. One of the joys of the alternate figure action system (hey! I just gave it a name ) is that the tactical situation can change in seconds, yet you usually have the opportunity to counter it.

Would this change the game balance very much? I think the rukles should work very well that way, too. There's a numbr of rulesets which handle the activation of miniture that way (e.g. FUBAR, which Craig should be familiar with).

FUBAR? I do believe I have heard of it. I think I'm supposed to get to work on Ultra-FUBAR soon...

[piperider361]

Rules question regarding the points costs matrices. I am very excited for such systems where I can design my own statlines, but I feel bad when the things I design appear to be better than what's in the premade lists!

Example: Is the points cost for an Arc Pistol in the book correct? Using the matrix, I come up with 1 (base), +1 (bonus), +1 (range), +1 (pluck modifier) +3 (arc), -1 (reload penalty). This comes up both less than the listed cost for an Arc Pistol, and has the potential for double the range (12" instead of 6").

[Craig]

Hi Piper,

I will check this with Charles, who can actually do sums, but it looks like we may have missed the reload penalty  . I also noted that the table refers you to section 5.5.2 not 5.2.2

Well spotted! 

If you don't mind I am now going to sit in the corner and hug my blankie while sucking my thumb....

[Craig]

OK, attack of writer's funk over. I have checked our design notes.

The reason we ignored the reload penalty is because Arc weapons can fire every turn if within the radius of an Arc Generator. We couldn't list two costs as we could not predict if the player, or indeed his opponent, may have an Arc Generator in play.

So, following the KISS principle, we decided to apply the higher cost.

However, the table reference is still wrong...