Lies My Rulebook Told Me

[thejeff]

I think that's the point. They get 1 exp/turn, but the manual implies they get more. I don't have the book in front of me, so I can't check p58.

[JimMorrison]

I could have sworn you get 2 or 3 exp per turn for nothing. You can test this by starting a game, and never issuing any orders. Track how many turns it takes your starting commanders to gain a star. First star takes 40exp, right?

[lch]

JimMorrison said:
I could have sworn you get 2 or 3 exp per turn for nothing. You can test this by starting a game, and never issuing any orders. Track how many turns it takes your starting commanders to gain a star. First star takes 40exp, right?

From the back of my head, I think it was 1 exp per turn, +2 if they were in a fight, +1 if they won, +X if they hit enemies. Or something like that. It's in the rulebook!

[Maraxus]

Critical hits hurt a heck of a lot more (and may be more frequent) than the formula given would indicate. p76

The formula for missiles landing against shielded units overstates the protection that shields provide. p77

Critical hits: Yes, it looks quite strange sometimes. I sometimes think, that the roll for critical hit might somehow be coralated with the attack or damage roll (so a roll that scores a high hit-roll is also more likely to be critical and deal over-average damage.
Pure speculation, however.

Missles: There is a myth, that deflection with a shield does not use the shield-hit rule. This is wrong, and I don't know, where it comes from. If you remember shield hits can deal damage and critical hits can likely do damage even on shield hits - Than most observations can be explained.



I can to add one:

Multiple attack penalty (to defence):
Page 75 states, that a unit takes a -2 penalty to defence for every previous attack against it this turn.
In contrast my tests indicate, that the penalty is only per weapon, not per attack. (And the indication is strongly, somewhere >99% )

[Sombre]

Maraxus said:
Missles: There is a myth, that deflection with a shield does not use the shield-hit rule. This is wrong, and I don't know, where it comes from. If you remember shield hits can deal damage and critical hits can likely do damage even on shield hits - Than most observations can be explained.

Here's a simple test for you:

Give shortbows damage 60 (or some other high value)
Give shield parry of 10 (by upping its #def value)
Give shield prot of 1

Test 100 units with shields against 100 shortbows. Result - shortbows don't do squat.

Now if you want you can test the shortbows with #armorpiercing or #armornegating.

[Maraxus]

Hehe, I did a similar test before.
No, it's not simple.
Doh! I'm dumb.

In my last test (which made above thesis 100% sure, for me) I created a new shield - so I thought, I messed "#type" up (how the heck did I add 2 body armors to one unit?).

Damn, this so well explained the high efficience of Jotun Boulders and the very high death-rate of shield+nothing troops under fire and that lightning bolds ignore shields but blade wind does not...

[BesucherXia]

C'tis national spell Contact Couatl need Conj7, not Conj6 in the book (p188).

Besides, Mictlan has the same spell, but it is assigned to Conj6 just like rulebook says. This contradiction seems more likely to be a bug.

[Renojustin]

Blade Wind is a projectile attack, jotun boulders are projectile attacks, arrows are a projectile attack, anything that has an AOE is NOT a projectile attack.

If a projectile attack is parried by a shield, it is counted as a miss, and deals no damage. Secondary effects may or may not be counted, depending on the attack and/or effect. If it is not parried, damage is assessed against that unit's head or body, without the benefit of the shield (pretty sure).

Multiple projectiles in the same turn do not count toward reducing the shield parry, like multiple attacks count toward reducing the victim's defense do.

Hopefully that clarifies things!