View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Frank Gilson Moderator

Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 1567 Location: Orange County California
|
Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2015 7:05 am Post subject: Romans |
 |
|
As for the Romans, yes, it does permit a 2E unit, behind a larger unit, to charge (and not be disordered, Roman special rules), allowing the initial larger unit that was losing to be fully replaced.
Exactly what this means will vary based on what the opponent is attacking you with, where, and the local superiority of troops at hand.
Remember that the replaced unit will be out of commission that bound, and the next...(if it was disordered, but if it wasn't, why are you replacing it?)
Frank |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
lilroblis Legionary

Joined: 24 Apr 2006 Posts: 570 Location: Cleveland Ohio
|
Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2015 2:59 pm Post subject: Replacing in combat |
 |
|
But LI charging through Lc would work , and of course the replacing in combat troops are very hard to beat - except that they cover small frontage - but 16 backed by 8's would work very well - but just don't like the ruling
Oh well - just another wrinkle |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Frank Gilson Moderator

Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 1567 Location: Orange County California
|
Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2015 10:38 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
It is actually fairly clear in the rules, which mention replacing bodies, and moving replaced out of the way, and nothing about elements (which may be a hold out from earlier rules, I have no copies).
There is also one rules answer from Jon several years ago that implies bodies, not elements.
LI charging through LC to replace only works if the target is LI, LC or disordered...and your LC are not impetuous...and your LI will probably lose the fight. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
lilroblis Legionary

Joined: 24 Apr 2006 Posts: 570 Location: Cleveland Ohio
|
Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2015 12:20 am Post subject: replacing |
 |
|
What worries me more is I can now easily defeat troops who routed my troops - if not lC who are not impetuous - as they only get to fight the troops charging through - not across the rest of the rout - very different to how we have ever played it - but its just another strategem - now I may want my LI to lose to LC - because I can rout the LC and everyone cares as an example
again I dont care as long as it is clear - and quite frankly what was said by someone who no longer plays teh game is of little interest to me - as sometimes what he said is directly contrary to what he wrote - the baton has passed long ago |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Frank Gilson Moderator

Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 1567 Location: Orange County California
|
Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2015 12:56 am Post subject: |
 |
|
What Jon said in this instance appears consistent with what is written in the back book, that bodies replaced in combat are replaced as bodies (not elements), although it is a rather vague link. It was also said years ago when he was still involved.
"I can easily defeat troops who routed my troops"
Well, no, not generally. Your replacers must be able to:
- Declare a legal charge
- Make a legal interpenetration
- Will be disordered (usually, unless a list rule)
- And then defeat the pursuing enemy
You could have done all of this at any time with a sufficiently wide replacing unit that meets all of the above according to how we were using replacement (which happens very infrequently in any event).
You should think about concrete, specific situations where the above is a material change that you will encounter on the battlefield.
All else, including my words, are Theory...not Practice.
Frank |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Terry D Recruit

Joined: 18 Jul 2008 Posts: 77
|
Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2015 10:04 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
The LI unit still has to be able to charge to replace, right? So unless you have a disordered body it can't replace to reset the combaa |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Historian Recruit


Joined: 27 Feb 2011 Posts: 239 Location: Pennsylvannia
|
Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2015 6:14 pm Post subject: replacment |
 |
|
This had to be exchange by whole body, not element by element. Otherwise there would be units split up with elements on the front line while others way back. While this would make sense on a battlefield, it breaks the game logic. You would have a unit charge and replace, and at the same time received flanking elements also participating in the combat as their unit was fighting in a previous bound. Ugly... _________________ Phil
Japanese telephones work pretty much like ours, except the person on the other end can't understand you. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
scott holder Moderator


Joined: 30 Mar 2006 Posts: 6066 Location: Bonnots Mill, MO
|
Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2015 6:13 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Fred Stratton confirms that in a previous Cold Wars, I ruled entire body, not element by element.
scott _________________ These Rules Suck, Let's Paint! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Frank Gilson Moderator

Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 1567 Location: Orange County California
|
Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2015 1:36 am Post subject: |
 |
|
The sky is indeed not falling then.  |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
lilroblis Legionary

Joined: 24 Apr 2006 Posts: 570 Location: Cleveland Ohio
|
Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2015 2:30 pm Post subject: Replacing |
 |
|
Never end of the world - just clarity - I love it for routing LI - now I can kill other folks cavalry easily when they rout my 24 man LI blocks- because they don't get overlap |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Todd Kaeser Centurion


Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 1218 Location: Foxborough, Massachusetts
|
Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2015 2:58 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Wow - huge change IMO. We've been replacing elements forever.
How does this effect Meso-American?
each letter of a unit is an element
B
B
AA
AA
XXX
XXX
Unit B - HC unit
Unit A - LI
Unit X - enemy LC
enemy LC unit X pushes back unit A
Unit B (HC) charges through A to get to LC
is this how it would line up now?
AA
AA
B
B
XXX
XXX
does the LC unit get the overlap or is this considered a new enemy contacted?
Todd _________________ Nolite te Bastardes Carborundorum
"Don't let the Bastards Grind You Down" |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Frank Gilson Moderator

Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 1567 Location: Orange County California
|
Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2015 4:38 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
I don't believe they get the overlap (the LC).
I admit it is a touch unclear (9.2 and 6.523).
Were I a referee ruling on this in a game I would say that the LC do not count the overlap.
Frank |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
scott holder Moderator


Joined: 30 Mar 2006 Posts: 6066 Location: Bonnots Mill, MO
|
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2015 12:29 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
See, this is why I posted what I posted in the first place. My replacement comments have been focused solely on the Roman rules (and by extension other troops that get some form of circulation capability), not in a broader context.
That being said, 6.523 is really clear about any body/by-element issue: it's clearly by body. Okay, no problem there in terms of clarity. But when looking at the overlap issue in the example, as Frank points out, it's not as clear as I'd like only because of this part:
"When replacing in combat, the charger is considered at first contact, but the target is not." That's directed at weapon availability, for example, lance. This is reinforced on page 3 of the rules under the definition of First Contact:
"...an element charged by replacers does not count as in first contact."
Then I read 9.2 and TO ME (repeat TO ME, I don't care if you read it differently, ie., incorrectly) is suggests, again it's not as clear as I'd like, that the LC in the example *would* fight overlap since they're defined as "not in first contact". I agree that the wording in 9.2:
"Figures of elements prolonging a body's front...do not fight in the initial bound of a HTH combat, but do fight in subsequent bounds..." doesn't tie in sematically with everything else I've mentioned but I'm taking 6.523 and Page 3 of the rules to mean that "not count as in first contact" to be, IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE a "subsequent bound" of HTH.
So, replace in combat but expect the target to still get the overlap.
I reserve the right to change my mind at any moment.
scott _________________ These Rules Suck, Let's Paint! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Frank Gilson Moderator

Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 1567 Location: Orange County California
|
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2015 4:26 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
I can live with that ...let me know if you change your mind!
There's also support shooting here...as the LC are in a 'subsequent bound', they can shoot only with bow, and only from a rank not eligible to fight (8.83).
They would not (unless pursuing) count a JLS + as are not at first contact.
Howeer, in the HtH the LC will, if the LI were routers, get to count +2 for mounted pursuing (but not the +1 for pursuing against a target).
But wait, if the LC are pursuing and are of a type like Mongol who get 1.5 ranks when pursuing, they get 1.5 ranks (but then cannot support shoot, as the 2nd rank is eligible to fight)...they will get a JLS plus as they are pursuing, should they have that weapon.
LC (or other) Lancer pursuers would fight 1.5, but with 'other cavalry', not lance.
Did I miss anything?
Frank |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
scott holder Moderator


Joined: 30 Mar 2006 Posts: 6066 Location: Bonnots Mill, MO
|
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2015 8:24 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
There's also support shooting here...as the LC are in a 'subsequent bound', they can shoot only with bow, and only from a rank not eligible to fight (8.83).
Correct.
They would not (unless pursuing) count a JLS + as are not at first contact.
Correct but you left out the other bullets in section 93. Nonetheless, I think everybody gets your point.
However, in the HtH the LC will, if the LI were routers, get to count +2 for mounted pursuing (but not the +1 for pursuing against a target).
Correct.
But wait, if the LC are pursuing and are of a type like Mongol who get 1.5 ranks when pursuing, they get 1.5 ranks (but then cannot support shoot, as the 2nd rank is eligible to fight)...they will get a JLS plus as they are pursuing, should they have that weapon.
Correct.
LC (or other) Lancer pursuers would fight 1.5, but with 'other cavalry', not lance.
Correct. _________________ These Rules Suck, Let's Paint! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|