I can't comment on the specific game as I wasn't there, but I feel that I should make some comments as the report doesn't reflect the rules as they exist, even in the earliest playtest format.
The original version of Sharp Practice had a card for each leader and if the Leader's card was not dealt then his men would not be activated. This is no longer the case. The Leaders' cards are still present, but there are also Flag cards in the deck which allow the players to activate units of their choice earlier in the sequence, or activate multiple units at the end of the turn. Hence, the account of a unit being stranded under fire having lost its leader really makes no sense to me.
Certainly, the flags do mean that you need to prioritise their use as they can be used for a variety of purposes. For example, do you use multiple flags to allow a unit to act early in the turn, or wait until the end of the turn to allow just one flag to activate a unit (and therefore be likely to activate multiple units). However, only if a player chooses to completely ignore such opportunities would you get the situation where a unit is stranded under fire.
That said, the comment about requiring a morale test seems to completely ignore the effect of shock on the unit under fire. A unit in the open will statistically amass shock at three times the speed which it loses men, so, without a leader there to rally it, it will typically start falling back automatically (with no need for a morale test) once it reaches 25% casualties.
For example, by the time an eight man group of Mutineer quality has last three men dead, it will have also amassed nine points of shock which, with five men remaining, will mean it retires 8" automatically away from the enemy. However, as already stated, this automatic withdrawal is only the in-built automatic morale system. If the player wants to withdraw that unit he should have plenty of opportunities to do so without waiting until the point when the unit's morale is so shaky that it is falling back in an uncontrolled manner.
The whole point of putting rules out to public playtest is so that we can get a diverse range of opinions on the design ideas and systems. As suggested in the article, it would seem that the previous week they had played version one of the rules and this time they played the new version. It may well be that not all of the new ideas were fully digested in their first play-through with the new rules as the report certainly doesn't reflect the concept at the core of the new edition which is to present the player with lots of command choices to make over and above the old "one card-one leader" system of the first edition.
As for the comment that "Rest of the rules remain untached or the differences are not very big", I should point out that all of the firing ranges have been changed, the firing system has been substatially altered to make it more streamlined and easily memorised, as has the movement system and the troops classification system in order to provide more variety. Close combat has been altered significantly and a completely new system is in place for random events. The system of deployment to table, previously on Blinds, has been completely changed and replaced with a new system not used before; the drill system is much streamlined and easier to us. There is a complete points system and support option system which is entirely new. In short, this is a major rewrite which has been playtested for over six months before it went to public playtest and we have now been taking it round the shows and clubs since November last year with everyone having a good time. If anyone is at Penarth tomorrow, I will be running a participation game there at the Crusade show.
As stated, I am not sure what happened in the game reported, but it doesn't sound anything like Sharp Practice v2.
Cheers
Richard
finally dips his toe into the world of Aeronef.
