Keils

[SteveNutt]

Hi,
on page 29 of the rules it defines what a keil is, "a BG must include at least 2 files each including at least 4 bases. At least 2 of these 4 bases must have pike capability, and the rest either pike, heavy weapon or swordmen capability."

This is very clear but does the keil formation always retain its special keil advantage of invulnerable flanks if these criteria are not exacatly met. So, I can see that a keil would loose its special invulnerability if it decided to contract into a single stand wide column.

But what if a keil began the game meeting the criteria above to the minimum. So, a BG is composed of 8 stands of pike which deploy into a 2 stand wide formation, a keil. Then one of the stands gets removed either by shooting or melee. Would this 'new' formation with one file of 3 stands, the other of 4 stands still be a keil and still have invulnerable flanks?

There are obviously other permutations of the question. A BG is made up of 10 stands, 4 are pike, the rest heavy wepaon - I bet such a unit cannot be made up from the army lists but bear with me. BG set up in 2 files, each with 2 pike and 3 heavy weapon stands. Then one of the pikes is removed due to shooting or melee. Still a keil?

So my question is:

If a unit meets the criteria to be a keil and does not form a single figure wide column, then does it:
a. remain a keil for the rest of the game?
or
b. have to meet the keil criteria from move to move?

If the latter then I had better start buying over sized units so they can stand up to the attrition.

Ta

Steve Nutt

[rbodleyscott]

Hi,
on page 29 of the rules it defines what a keil is, "a BG must include at least 2 files each including at least 4 bases. At least 2 of these 4 bases must have pike capability, and the rest either pike, heavy weapon or swordmen capability."

This is very clear but does the keil formation always retain its special keil advantage of invulnerable flanks if these criteria are not exacatly met.

No.

(b)

If the latter then I had better start buying over sized units so they can stand up to the attrition.

Yep, that's the idea.

[SirGarnet]

If the latter then I had better start buying over sized units so they can stand up to the attrition.

Steve Nutt

5 or 6 deep helps with that and halberdiers or swordsmen expanding out.

[timmy1]

Steve

14 or 16 base BGs are nice if they have 2 HW and the rest Pike - they are Keils and GBGs (check the attrition rules). The 16s can run 3 wide and 5 deep (6 in the middle file) with the HW on the flanks. Takes a lot of punishment and when the HW armed chaps pop out to an overlap the effect can be spectacular.

[kevindgaming]

Hi,
on page 29 of the rules it defines what a keil is, "a BG must include at least 2 files each including at least 4 bases. At least 2 of these 4 bases must have pike capability, and the rest either pike, heavy weapon or swordmen capability."

This is very clear but does the keil formation always retain its special keil advantage of invulnerable flanks if these criteria are not exacatly met.

No.


Please pardon me if I'm being dense, but the other day we hit a two wide Swiss Kiel from the front and flank at the same time. So are you saying that as it was a kiel when we charged, it did not count as a flank attack but as soon as the Swiss turned to face they were no longer in a kiel(now fighting in two directions, no +1 for support) as they no longer had two files of four bases?


Kevin D.

[rbodleyscott]

Hi,
on page 29 of the rules it defines what a keil is, "a BG must include at least 2 files each including at least 4 bases. At least 2 of these 4 bases must have pike capability, and the rest either pike, heavy weapon or swordmen capability."

This is very clear but does the keil formation always retain its special keil advantage of invulnerable flanks if these criteria are not exactly met.

No.

Please pardon me if I'm being dense, but the other day we hit a two wide Swiss Kiel from the front and flank at the same time. So are you saying that as it was a kiel when we charged, it did not count as a flank attack but as soon as the Swiss turned to face they were no longer in a kiel(now fighting in two directions, no +1 for support) as they no longer had two files of four bases?

Well they certainly don't count as fighting in 2 directions, because "a battle group never counts as fighting enemy in 2 directions as a consequence of a charge unless it was a legal flank or rear charge." (P113).

It seems that they would no longer count rear support - but does that seem unreasonable if they are having to fight enemies on two sides?

[SirGarnet]

To avoid misinterpretation, I think "no longer count AS rear support" was meant because a BG in full-edge close combat (whether on one or more sides) cannot provide support, but can receive support, and its rear edge for measurement remains its rear edge.

[kevindgaming]

To avoid misinterpretation, I think "no longer count AS rear support" was meant because a BG in full-edge close combat (whether on one or more sides) cannot provide support, but can receive support, and its rear edge for measurement remains its rear edge.

Properly formed kiels, not threatened in rear count as supported in and of themselves. My concern was for when and if this intrinsic +1 went away at some point. The kiel in question went down to fragged and then back up to steady in the course of the long melee and was still fighting when the French army broke. Since we assumed (wrongly) that once a kiel, always a kiel we continued to count it as supported. Without that internal support I believe we would have broken them...

Kevin D.

[kevindgaming]

Well they certainly don't count as fighting in 2 directions, because "a battle group never counts as fighting enemy in 2 directions as a consequence of a charge unless it was a legal flank or rear charge." (P113).

It seems that they would no longer count rear support - but does that seem unreasonable if they are having to fight enemies on two sides?

Totally reasonable. It just didn't occur to us that its statis could change mid-game. After all a tercio always stays a tercio even if it changes from an ET to an LT during the game. I suspect it will be something easy to forget in the heat of battle. This is another reason to take kiel as 16 stands. Two files to maintain the kiel status and one file to face the flank....

So a second flank attack in a later impact phase would count as a flank attack and fighting two directions as at that time the chargers would not be charging a legal kiel?

Kevin D.

[rbodleyscott]

So a second flank attack in a later impact phase would count as a flank attack and fighting two directions as at that time the chargers would not be charging a legal kiel?

It would appear so, unless I have forgotten some wording that makes it otherwise.

[GHGAustin]

Ah, thanks for asking, Kevin. I had wondered the same thing when I saw this thread.

Well, the high and mighty Swiss may not be so high and mighty next time! Or, they may just cut through us like a hot knife through butter, as they have so many times in the past!

Oh, and did you see the errata that shot behind FF are protected? It did not matter in our game, since we engaged the pike in front of the entrenchments, but we had wondered about that at the start of the game.

[SirGarnet]

So a second flank attack in a later impact phase would count as a flank attack and fighting two directions as at that time the chargers would not be charging a legal kiel?

I was thinking that page 113 addresses this: "a battle group never counts as fighting enemy in 2 directions as a consequence of a charge unless it was a legal flank or rear charge", meaning that so long as the 2 files remained with 4+ bases it would remain a keil no matter how many BGs slammed into it.

If your argument hinges on the definition of "file," the turned bases not being "lined up behind", then look at Page 78 Column 2 bullet para 2 which says the non-qualified flank charge "is treated as a normal charge on the enemy front: Tercios and keils can always be so contacted, and turn bases as specified below." This says to me that all the bases in the file are treated as facing forward in their combat, even if physically turning bases to clarify their opponents.

What do you think?

[kevindgaming]

I was thinking that page 113 addresses this: "a battle group never counts as fighting enemy in 2 directions as a consequence of a charge unless it was a legal flank or rear charge", meaning that so long as the 2 files remained with 4+ bases it would remain a keil no matter how many BGs slammed into it.

If your argument hinges on the definition of "file," the turned bases not being "lined up behind", then look at Page 78 Column 2 bullet para 2 which says the non-qualified flank charge "is treated as a normal charge on the enemy front: Tercios and keils can always be so contacted, and turn bases as specified below." This says to me that all the bases in the file are treated as facing forward in their combat, even if physically turning bases to clarify their opponents.

What do you think?

I am at a loss and will wait for a clarification from a higher authority. RBS's answer seemed to imply otherwise, the paragraph above that they do still count as in the same file....

Kevin D.

[rbodleyscott]

I was thinking that page 113 addresses this: "a battle group never counts as fighting enemy in 2 directions as a consequence of a charge unless it was a legal flank or rear charge", meaning that so long as the 2 files remained with 4+ bases it would remain a keil no matter how many BGs slammed into it.

If your argument hinges on the definition of "file," the turned bases not being "lined up behind", then look at Page 78 Column 2 bullet para 2 which says the non-qualified flank charge "is treated as a normal charge on the enemy front: Tercios and keils can always be so contacted, and turn bases as specified below." This says to me that all the bases in the file are treated as facing forward in their combat, even if physically turning bases to clarify their opponents.

What do you think?

I am at a loss and will wait for a clarification from a higher authority. RBS's answer seemed to imply otherwise, the paragraph above that they do still count as in the same file....

Kevin D.

It seems to be a grey area.

I would be interested in seeing other views, before making a final ruling in the planned FAQ.

[timmy1]

My 2P.

I have always played it the way MikeK has expressed it. We had that in our game last weekend. 2 BG of Gendarmes charged a 16 base keil of Swiss, one frontally and one into the flank. When the Swiss took a CT I did not include fighting in 2 directions. Until I saw this thread I never even considered it as fighting in 2 directions because of page 113.

Without that I think foot pike are overpriced.

Regards
Tim

[batesmotel]

My 2P.

I have always played it the way MikeK has expressed it. We had that in our game last weekend. 2 BG of Gendarmes charged a 16 base keil of Swiss, one frontally and one into the flank. When the Swiss took a CT I did not include fighting in 2 directions. Until I saw this thread I never even considered it as fighting in 2 directions because of page 113.

Without that I think foot pike are overpriced.

Regards
Tim

The definition of keil seems broken at this point. At least in the case of a minimum strength keil it seems like there is no advantage at all since as soon as it is charged from two directions it would no longer be a keil.

Perhaps a Keil with stands fighting in more than one direction should automatically revert to a square formation. My understanding of how they worked in reality was essentially as a mobile square and if this was added as an errata it would seem that it would help clarify what is clearly a murkey point in the rules at this point.

Chris

[rbodleyscott]

The definition of keil seems broken at this point. At least in the case of a minimum strength keil it seems like there is no advantage at all since as soon as it is charged from two directions it would no longer be a keil.

i.e. A small kiel attacked from three directions (and not all simultaneously) counts as attacked in the flank by the third.

Not unreasonable, I would submit, if you are foolish enough to leave a small kiel totally unsupported. (Note that the kiel gets 3 rounds of combat to beat off the first 2 enemies before the 3rd can hit it in the flank).

How is this broken?

While I sympathise with those who want their Swiss to be utterly invincible in all circumstances, however badly they are handled ( ), show me historical examples of kiels being charged from 3 directions and shrugging the enemy off without difficulty?

Even the Swiss didn't leave their kiels hung out to dry on both flanks, they attacked in echelon to avoid it.

[timmy1]

Richard, I agree with your understanding. I can't think of a single example of attacks from 3 or more directions being fought off by the Swiss keils. The rule as written seems to have the benefit that it encourages the historical tactic of attacking in echelon.

[batesmotel]

The definition of keil seems broken at this point. At least in the case of a minimum strength keil it seems like there is no advantage at all since as soon as it is charged from two directions it would no longer be a keil.

i.e. A small kiel attacked from three directions (and not all simultaneously) counts as attacked in the flank by the third.

Not unreasonable, I would submit, if you are foolish enough to leave a small kiel totally unsupported. (Note that the kiel gets 3 rounds of combat to beat off the first 2 enemies before the 3rd can hit it in the flank).

How is this broken?

While I sympathise with those who want their Swiss to be utterly invincible in all circumstances, however badly they are handled ( ), show me historical examples of kiels being charged from 3 directions and shrugging the enemy off without difficulty?

Even the Swiss didn't leave their kiels hung out to dry on both flanks, they attacked in echelon to avoid it.

In the bottom diagram on page 81, the Swiss are no longer a Keil by the definition being discussed. So would they count as fighting in two directions at this point even though the Gendarmes charge was not a flank charge when it occurred?

How would the situation have been different if the Gendarmes had charged first followed by the Sword and buckler men so that the Swiss would not have been a Keil when the Sword and buckler men charged due to bases turning to face the Gendarmes?

Chris

[rbodleyscott]

In the bottom diagram on page 81, the Swiss are no longer a Keil by the definition being discussed. So would they count as fighting in two directions at this point even though the Gendarmes charge was not a flank charge when it occurred?

No. See thread above.

They don't count as fighting in 2 directions, because "a battle group never counts as fighting enemy in 2 directions as a consequence of a charge unless it was a legal flank or rear charge." (P.113).

How would the situation have been different if the Gendarmes had charged first followed by the Sword and buckler men so that the Swiss would not have been a Keil when the Sword and buckler men charged due to bases turning to face the Gendarmes?

No different.

OTOH you do raise an issue re what happens if they are charged from both flanks simultaneously. However, I submit that historically, this would not be "a good thing".

Some clarification may be required, but not a change in the rules I think.