Lone General and death

[deadtorius]

I may be mixing up my FOG R and FOG A/M, but I am sure that somewhere in the rules I read that if a generals stand is all alone, not with a unit and an enemy moves within shooting range, the generals stand is removed. Blathergut gave me the opportunity for a nice easy general kill, but we could not find it in the rules so I dropped it to keep the game moving along. I am certain that I had read that in the rules some where though. Can anyone tell me am I delusional or was I right??
(It would have been nice had he died as he was the only general on that flank and he did manage to rally some units back up again)

[nikgaukroger]

Page 69 - movement of commanders, last bullet point.

[expendablecinc]

I may be mixing up my FOG R and FOG A/M, but I am sure that somewhere in the rules I read that if a generals stand is all alone, not with a unit and an enemy moves within shooting range, the generals stand is removed. Blathergut gave me the opportunity for a nice easy general kill, but we could not find it in the rules so I dropped it to keep the game moving along. I am certain that I had read that in the rules some where though. Can anyone tell me am I delusional or was I right??
(It would have been nice had he died as he was the only general on that flank and he did manage to rally some units back up again)

I've seen a general use enemy bow as a springboard to leave a BG, cross a river and jump in front of the archers cavering the other bank - deliberately placed in the arc of fire of massed enemy Bow so they can 'sproing' another 7 inches to safety and to a plase in the main part of the battle where rallies and bolters were sorely needed. We both thought it was a bit silly but there you have it.

[rbodleyscott]

I've seen a general use enemy bow as a springboard to leave a BG, cross a river and jump in front of the archers cavering the other bank - deliberately placed in the arc of fire of massed enemy Bow so they can 'sproing' another 7 inches to safety and to a plase in the main part of the battle where rallies and bolters were sorely needed. We both thought it was a bit silly but there you have it.

I assume you are talking about FOGAM as there is no such rule in FOGR. (Otherwise enemy artillery could be used to achieve this). And generals move 6 MUs in FOGR.

[expendablecinc]

I've seen a general use enemy bow as a springboard to leave a BG, cross a river and jump in front of the archers cavering the other bank - deliberately placed in the arc of fire of massed enemy Bow so they can 'sproing' another 7 inches to safety and to a plase in the main part of the battle where rallies and bolters were sorely needed. We both thought it was a bit silly but there you have it.

I assume you are talking about FOGAM as there is no such rule in FOGR. (Otherwise enemy artillery could be used to achieve this). And generals move 6 MUs in FOGR.

Correct. Another case of neatening up the edges, and me forgetting what forum I am in.

[deadtorius]

Guess I must have mixed up my FOG rules..... so generals prancing about within range of shot are safe during the Renaissance... oh well

[rbodleyscott]

Guess I must have mixed up my FOG rules..... so generals prancing about within range of shot are safe during the Renaissance... oh well

It would be dashed bad form to deliberatetely shoot at them. Stab me if it is not so.

[timmy1]

Makes recreating Lutzen a tad difficult...

[rbodleyscott]

Makes recreating Lutzen a tad difficult...

As he was leading a cavalry charge at the time, this would be represented by the normal general fighting in the front rank rules. (Even though he was separated from the rest of the troops at the time he was actually hit. A lot more "stuff" goes on in a battle beneath the level of detail that you can actually see with static figures on a wargames table).

And if you disagree: The bottom line is that in general the bad effects of a rule allowing a separated general to be shot exceed the good effects. If you want to represent the risk in a particular scenario just use a special rule.

[nikgaukroger]

As he was leading a cavalry charge at the time, this would be represented by the normal general fighting in the front rank rules.

"They" not "he" possibly - Gustav and Pappenheim ?

[rbodleyscott]

As he was leading a cavalry charge at the time, this would be represented by the normal general fighting in the front rank rules.

"They" not "he" possibly - Gustav and Pappenheim ?

I was thinking he meant Gustav because he became separated from his troops during the charge.

[timmy1]

Richard, you are exactly correct. I agree that it is not appropriate to have a rule for 1 circumstance. At the level we are modelling, lost as part of impact combat is good enough for me. I read Papp. as slight different to the King in terms of what occurred, anyway.