|
|
Post by tim on Nov 6, 2014 17:56:25 GMT
One problem. A hex may be barraged more than once from an adjacent hex. That sentence from the original rules that I kept makes it clear that a single target may not be attacked more than once from a single adjacent hex.
Otherwise, excellent rewordong. I like concise.
|
|
|
|
Post by tim on Nov 6, 2014 18:16:19 GMT
IIRC it's the green bit that exercised me. Here's what I hope to be a clear, watertight version, with the additional merit of being 40% shorter! [12.32] Non-Italian artillery may combine strengths from several hexes to barrage an adjacent target if the artillery is placed Forward(see [12.13] & [12.14]). Otherwise, artillery may conduct separate Barrages, providing a hex Is not Barraged more than once from any single hex within the same Combat Segment. Now if only that sort of saving in wordage could be applied to the entire rules... How about this? [12.32] Non-Italian artillery may combine strengths from several hexes to barrage an adjacent target if the artillery is placed Forward(see [12.13] & [12.14]). Otherwise, artillery may conduct separate Barrages, providing a target is not Barraged more than once from any single adjacent hex within the same Combat Segment. |
|
|
|
Post by ATD on Nov 6, 2014 18:18:09 GMT
Thanks. I deliberately changed the word, thinking that was the actual intention. My mistake. I just checked back here now as I arrived at that rule in the Word change log.
Direct editing messes up the layout somewhat, although that it more than offset by the ease with which the tracked changes can be incorporated (plus, the format - pagination etc - would need to be adjusted anyway I guess.
I'd understood that there weren't any loose ends to the rules threads but there's still a couple of determinations to make. I feel we have to get this lot put to bed right away and draw a line under the next rule version that this will become. Then... we... can... think about the possibility of considering getting around to planning the start.
|
|
|
|
Post by ATD on Nov 6, 2014 18:19:22 GMT
Did you just replace hex with target? That's certainly what I intended to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by tim on Nov 6, 2014 18:39:33 GMT
Did you just replace hex with target? That's certainly what I intended to do. Yup. Just trying to be helpful by providing a solution, not just noting the problem. |
|
|
|
Post by ATD on Nov 7, 2014 17:31:32 GMT
Triffic.
|
|
