Thanks Commander Che!

As to the UNA ... ur guess is as good as mine! Nether Gerry or Marko have given me any notice as too what factions where, so I've given up PM'ing ether of them for some feedback. Even I get bored PM'ing all the time!

I will not replay the game. The result stands.

If the majority of players want to change the Arachn rules then i will abide by their decision.

But we cannot replay games because of a players mistake.

Where would it all end !!!

In this case, i had a Arachne unit count as having a free Overseer.... as that is the faction advantage.

My bad.

Soz IanW

BUT Personally, I think the rules a major cop-out. If we can't sit round the table and resolve situ's which come up on a game-by-game bases ... well, I think the games been done no justice. The precedent set here is for players to take little or no regard for the rule guidelines and simple keep making odd mistakes here and there. If VP's, AP's and Sectors are removed from players who field incorrect companies, or are found to have used rules incorrectly (by accident or not) then they would never make the effort to remember next time, else be penalized. However, all that said and done, I will adhere to the ruling from the beginning of the campaign and move onto Week 5 ... sadly, a little bit worst for wear ... beaten, but never defeated ... Red Blok, Hell Yeah!

One last headache ... even game designers get rules wrong! That's why inHouse rules spring up all over the wargamming world.

And this is another reason I don't get involved much with rules change discussions 'cos it generally goes over my head and I lose the will to play the game. I have to admit that Frostbite: The Emerald Mounts has not been enjoyable thus far. Too much mass debating going on .

I guess my interpretation of a precedent is a bit wonky and exaggerated and lessons are being learned as players are rectifying their rule hiccups, but IMHO, I think when an error happens during any CAMPAIGN environment, there must be an investigation into what has occurred, that way we all learn. IMHO, it doesn't seem fair that a player who makes an error during a CAMPAIGN game should benefit from his misdemeanour and other players should suffer, because in a CAMPAIGN setting each battle can & will make a difference too the next battle and campaign itself, IF the error causes major win bonuses or major losses to opponents. If the mistake is minor and win/losses minor, then I would just ignore it, but this is why each battle needs some attention to make sure the game rules are being adhered too.

Now, as an example of what I've just said, the post that AlanB's brought to my attention has proved my point. Che made an error in winning the Spaceport during one battle, but even with the "Result Stands!" rule in place, he still had the gamesmanship to offer that his Red Blok boys VACATE the Spaceport ...

Your comments on inHouse rules are well put. IMHO Game designers can test rules thoroughly till they drop, but until their released to the masses, they never know what's going to come from the masses of players who always throw curve balls. It's one of the reasons game designers/publishers accept comments, suggestions & inHouse rule ideas after their rules are published and for their next editions to improve the game, e.g. 40k 6th edition, AT-43 2nd edition (never released as Rackham went bust!), etc. I think u would be hard pushed to find a set of rules that's been around a few years that's not been updated by the game designers in some way, for whatever reason.

Still need the points for the first game, Can you supply please Che