Inconsistency in rules?

Home › Forums › Historical › Hail Caesar › Inconsistency in rules?

Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • September 4, 2020 at 6:07 am #181295
    SteveT
    Participant

    -1 on Ranged attacks vs cataphracts/heavy infantry.

    That is odd, since these units were slow and didn’t present fast moving targets. If it is because of their protection, then surely this is equivalent to troops behind cover.

    Is this an error?  (I am using the Quick Ref sheet that Warlord put out)

    Cheers

    September 4, 2020 at 6:30 am #181296
    Big Al
    Participant

    Not an error. Read the entry on page 88. It is due to their heavy armour.

    Now, if they counted as being in cover, it would still be a -1 to hit. So it is as you have suggested, effectively.

    September 4, 2020 at 6:51 am #181299
    SteveT
    Participant

    Thanks Al.

    I cannot see any rational for a stone wall  (Moral save) to be in a different category (Shooting mod) for a metal wall (aka armour). z

    September 4, 2020 at 7:49 am #181301
    Big Al
    Participant

    I know what you mean and I agree in general. However, I think it was done this way to make sure that the unit wasn’t a “invulnerable”. If they had a better morale save, it might make them too hard. Especially when it came to hand to hand combat. This way, it allows for additional protection against missiles without giving them a better save against combat, which is something that would happen if you improved the morale save.

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.