FAQ - items for the FAQ when it is written

[timmy1]

I have created this thread to capture what we the players would like to see in a FAQ document. No intent to compell, rather hoping to speed the production of the FAQ.

[rbodleyscott]

All BGs that are to move as a division must start facing in the same direction.

(This is the effect of the current rules + geometry, and is working as intended).

[rbodleyscott]

LT shooting to the side:

"Tercio shot shooting to their flank treat the shooting file as their front rank".

Thus 3 bases shooting on a 1.5 base frontage. Exactly the same number of dice per base frontage as to the front.

Richard my reading of this means,

Only ever 1 die to the side in a late Tercio

unless with musket at short range where 2 is possible.

As a frontage of 1.5 base widths only allows 1 base in the front and 1 base in the rear.

The third base is lost, however an Early Tercio could shoot with 3 or 4 bases to the side depending on the number of shot types in the file.

I understand your logic, but your interpretation is based on the unwarranted assumption that the rules require the shot sleeve to behave as if the bases were physically turned sideways to shoot. They don't.

The file counts as the front rank when shooting to the flank, each base treats its side edge as its front edge (see P.108, Arc of Fire). The file counts as the front rank, there are thus 3 bases in the "front rank", each counting its side edge as its front edge, thus 3 bases can shoot. At close range that means 3 dice.

This is the intent of the rule, and it is what the rules say.

Another one for the FAQ, however, if people are having difficulty with it.

[rbodleyscott]

The table itself, and the sections after it, refer to the 'Advances section' of the table.
Now, there was such a section in the FoG:AM table.
But as far as I can see there is a line in the table 'Advance' but no 'Advances section' in the table..

Could one of the rules authors clarify what is meant?

This rather awkward wording is something of a fossil from FOGAM where the "Advance" box had two lines - it still (as in FOGAM) means the box in the table labelled "Advance".

[rbodleyscott]

Obstacles are treated as FF except that they do not have a front and back. Whoever gets there first can defend them.

[rbodleyscott]

Because a BG rear supporting artillery is "treated for all purposes as if its front edge was in the position of the front edge of the artillery, except that the files actually providing rear support cannot shoot" foot interpenetrating artillery from a rear supporting position measure their move from the front edge of the artillery.

Thus, in 28mm scale, foot (if properly positioned) have no problem interpenetrating 80mm deep artillery.

[rbodleyscott]

To recapture the guns they have to move in in a way that would normally result in close combat.

If this is also a rear support position, since the guns will still be facing the mounted BG, then I guess that a combat would ensue as normal.

If not, then unless they also contact the mounted then no combat would ensue.

Although the wording could be taken as ambiguous, the intention is that the mounted, although in contact with guns, cannot recapture them without moving away and then recontacting them.

I think this might need some clarification in the FAQ, as I'm not sure this is going to be a rare occurrence (unusual and infrequent perhaps, but not rare). The only way they could contact the mounted would be in an impact phase move. But if they could move into a rear support position, would this also need to be an impact phase move?

Yes

The mounted just need to be touching the artillery but they don't count as supporting it ever I think?

Correct

[rbodleyscott]

We had a couple of issues regarding regimental guns today which I think are fairly fundemental. Firstly, we had a situation where an 8 stand Korean unit in 2 ranks charged and was contacted on the the right-hand file and claimed the regimental gun bonus as the marker was placed on the adjacent file under the wording of the rules on page 118, para 2, "their dice is added to the effect of the fighting file nearest the battle group's centre". The claim was that this was adjacent to the battle group's centre and therefore was nearest. This was in the impact phase. In the subsequent shooting phase, the regimental gun was again claimed as a firing dice under the rules on page 107, ARC OF FIRE, bullet point 4, regimental guns are treated as if in the central file or in one of the cental files - owners choice". At this point the claim is that the gun can fire from the 2nd central file.

Sound like a "have your cake and eat it" scenario. If I was umpire I would rule that having chosen for the RGs to be in the right central file for the impact, the player could not then choose for it to be in the left central file for the shooting phase.

Yes it can be argued the way it was, but only at the risk of being considered a rules lawyer (git).

Finally, in the same move the another Korean unit was broken and the pursuit led to a contact with a 6 stand Korean unit in 2 ranks, 4 stand of which were already in a melee. In the following impact period, the regimental gun was claimed for impact for this left hand file under the rule on page 118 as above although the central file was already in combat.
Are all these uses of the regimental gun bonus correct, or has the interpritation been too liberal?

I think so, though I allowed such against me in a game at the weekend, but only because I forgot they were supposed to be treated as if in the central file - which was already in combat.

Although I was the player at the receiving end of the regimental guns the rules as written did seem to argue in favour of the firing player. I should also have quoted the balance of that section in page 118 "Regimental guns only get dice in the impact phase if at least some files are fighting to the battle group's front" .
It would seem from what you say that the intent is that if any file of a hitherto unengaged battlegroup with a regimental gun is involved in impact combat to its front, the regimental gun dice is applied, but that if the file taken as centre by the placing of the regimental gun marker is already in melee, the regimental gun dice cannot be used in a subsequent impact to an enengaged file. The intent for the shooting phase after impact is that if the regimental gun bonus has been claimed for a file in impact, the marker cannot be moved to an adjacent central file for shooting combat.
Curse the 8 stand Korean 1/2 archer units and their regimental guns ( although I did win the battle)!!

Well, to be honest, I cannot now recall excatly what the detailed intention was in these particular situations.

However, the original logic was that the guns were spread across the front of the battle group, and that measuring the arc of fire from the central file was a simple means of making sure that the extra dice could only be claimed if a majority of the guns could be brought to bear.

How this logic applies to the situations you decribe, and the wording of the rules, needs some thought. It does not, howver, seem right that a whole extra dice should be recieved at impact when 2/3 of the guns have been "overrun" by an ongoing close combat. This l would have a disproportionate effect on the impact combat when it is only 1 file wide, and only 1/3 of the orignal complenet of regimental guns are in fact capabile of firiong.

So I would prefer to go with the interpretation as above, and will add it to the items for the FAQ.

[Vespasian28]

It was suggested I move this to the FAQ thread:

I have been looking at the Caroline Imperialists with the intent of morphing up my Trastmaran Spanish when they are finished.
So, just to clarify what exactly is a Caroline army in Germany?

As far as I can make out from the list the only thing that makes your Carolines specifically in Germany or Flanders, and liable to the 1 Landsknecht/1 Colunela formula, is if you have Hungarian Hussars in your army?

[nikgaukroger]

Unearthed this and moved it here as a more visible place.

Is there any call for a FoG:R FAQ?

[grahambriggs]

Keils still need some tidying- see thread a few down