Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Now, I realise that this first question can be summed up as 'ask your oponent.'

I have a trebuchet, or I want one in my army. [it seems important.]

I can't have a metal model in my army. [as I can avoid it.]

So, I'm going to use a slightly larger plastic trebuchet, and I'll use some M@A as crew.

I know it's a WYSIWYG/Proxy rule, but would anyone allow this, given the circumstance, is it a reasonable, well, reason to proxy?

What is unit strength?

As you said, this type of thing is going to be up to your opponent/TO. If it looks like a Trebuchet and is roughly the same size, I'd have no problem.

Unit strength is from 7th edition, no relevance now.

that doesn't tell me what it is

It was an old rule that decided if you outnumbered the enemy. For example: A unit with US5 was equal to 5 normal infantry models. It has no effect nowadays.

It also doesnt tell us why you want to know. ASking for an irrlevant rule without explanation is likely to give the initial answer on this thread.

Why do I need to ask. - thanks oscarius, I understand it's obselete [as it's not in the rulebook] but I'd still like to know what it did.

Your first sentence does not make sense.

ASking questions about obsolete rules always leads people to ask *why* you need to know. Your response to Killjoy was VERY rude to someone who was just trying to help.

If you want people to keep helping you then not being rude to them would be a start.

That's kind of like me saying I'm upset and not telling you why.

I didn't see it as rude, because it wasn't.

Solon, its not so much prying as it is trying to help.

The simple response of "its irrelevent" is of most use to you. I realize that answering the question fully might help quell any curiosity, but the answer provided was more than sufficient. Furthermore, asking "why" you might want to know it, is also born out of a genuine desire to help. If we know why you might need the rule, we might be able to provide further answers given that the rule no longer exists.

Please do not take offense, there is none intended. Merely a curiosity on your part to a non-existant rule, and a curiosity on our part as to why you are interested in the rule.

Captain Solon wrote:That's kind of like me saying I'm upset and not telling you why.

I didn't see it as rude, because it wasn't.

Except it was rude. You may not think it was, that does not alter that it was and is a rude response to a genuinely helpful answer.