Light Infantry + Skirmishers??

[Blathergut]

May be a silly question, and I think the answer is no, but:

Can a light infantry unit have a skirmisher attachment given to it? If so, does that add an extra dice at medium range?

[panda2]

I'm not sure that there is anything that prevents you from adding a skirmisher attachment to a LI unit. Nevertheless, I'm pretty certain they'd get no more dice. On p.49 for Dice Availablity at Medium Range there are seperate entries for Non-reformed and Reformed Infantry with and without skirmisher attachments. However, for Light Infantry there is only a single line giving 5 dice for a small unit and 6 dice for a large unit, with no line giving additional dice for having an attachment.

Andy D

[hazelbark]

May be a silly question, and I think the answer is no, but:

Can a light infantry unit have a skirmisher attachment given to it? If so, does that add an extra dice at medium range?

There are only two types of silly questions. the one you don't ask and this one.

No you do not get an extra dice.

[deadtorius]

So he shows his hand in his next attempt at trying to destroy the might of Austria... Not satisfied that I shorted myself on the army lists with the new list maker (finally got that one figured out) now he is trying to cheat

[Blathergut]

Oh ye of all things 'un': unreformed, uncoothe...

That be not our glorious tactic for hacking apart thy barrels cannon... ...this one is true genius and lays for all to see in the glorious book of rules...let us just tempt and sayeth that thy crew faces shall beareth the imprints of our cavalry hooves...but thou shallt never haveth opportunity to gun them down first

[deadtorius]

Going to try to slide in on the side are you oh shifty one???
Thats why I try to keep them inside the infantry line, so you can't sneak upon them like that.

[Blathergut]

Hey! Am actually connected here in the northern wilds. And the French soldiers thought they had a tough life! Try being trapped with a class of 10 year olds in a northern lodge for a week!

But noooooo...nothing so obvious as a flank attack. We come in to you frontally in this invincible tactic!

[BrettPT]

Would the subject title of this thread be a clue to this unstoppable uber-plan?

[Blathergut]

Well..it would involve light infantry and the word 'skirmish.'

Ehehe...though gods know if it will work! But...basically...I've yet to run lights in skirmish order...so them...in a 6-pal in skirmish order with a 6-pak of light cavalry tucked in behind...the arty will need 6s to hit the skirmishes...once within 10mu...cav will assault 2-wide if/once the arty disorders...

The prob I've had is not being able to get into the Austrian line once I'm close. So, thought I'd try the skirmishes and see if they can lead me in.

[stecal]

The only advantage I'd see would be a rifle attachment to musket armed skirmishers for the dice modification vs enemy cav.

[deadtorius]

Pah, I will send the horsies out to chase away the leaping Froggy skirmishers, with luck they can run into the rear assaulting troops and pound them. Artillery can ignore skirmishers as long as you are far enough away so I will just pound the scared little girlies hiding out back. So there.

[BrettPT]

I tried screening Austrian infantry with an extended line Grenz in skirmish formation once ... a disaster.

If the skirmishing Grenz are obliged to make a retirement move (as a result of taking 3 hits from shooting, or if they are charged - in which case they have to evade) then any troops behind that are passed through by the retiring skirmishers must take a CT for being burst through. See bottom left and bottom right of page 64).

The charging Italians in my game then 'converted' their charge against regiments behind (see page 31) who - being Austrians - had failed their CTs and were now disordered. Both my units were broken in the subsequent combat, causing the Grenz and a nearby landwehr unit to also break - utimately an early pack-up for me

The rule that evading skirmishers 'burst through and cause a CT' was a topic of discusion in playtesting. It may seem odd at first glance that skirmishers can pass through fine in most cases but cause a CT when retiring, however this can be justified in that a 'retirement' is an unseemly scamper to the rear, presumably against the wishes of the officers who are trying to club their men back into line. This differs from an ordered and more orderly normal passage of lines.

More importantly in game terms, the rule makes risky the tactic of:

(a) advance formed infantry to 2MU of enemy, behind an extended line of friendly skirmishers (who will be about 2mm from the enemy line);

(b) your skirmishers get (hopefully) shot to retirement in the following enemy turn (if you cover 2 enemy units with the extended skirmishers, they will typically receive 8 dice shooting needing 5+);

(c) this leaves your supporting formed units at close range to return fire in that enemy phase, plus they will also get a follow up close range shot in their own next turn.

(d) the enemy formed troops accordingly have to weather 2 rounds of close range volleys without reply.

(e) alternatively the enemy could charge the Grenz to remove them, but then they would end up charging the fresh Austrian regiments - possibly tooled up with attached artillery- that are behind them (not good odds for the attacker).

Cunning huh.

You can still try this tactic, however your supporting formed units would have to CT as the skirmishers retire through them, which makes it risky.

This reminds me of a 2 related issues that should be in a FAQ.

1. Page 31 "If the target of an assault moves out of range. ... [you can convert charge]." The use of the word "range" implies a distance and should should be interpeted as "reach" rather than range. This is because an evader may pass through or around supports, remaining within the range of the pursuers but not within their reach (a new enemy is in the way). If 'range' was interpeted literally, then no converted charge or pursuit would be possible against the new enemy unit blocking the assaulting/pursuing unit.

2. If infantry charge opponents who retire, can they then 'convert charge' into a cavalry unit within 2MU of the retirers/path of retirement?

3. If they are not allowed to convert charge then what happens? Do the infantry stop just short of the new enemy cavalry unit that was burst through/flowed around by the retiring unit?

4. The same issue arises when cossacks charge other skirmishers, who evade. Can the cossacks 'convert charge' into enemy non-skirmishers they would otherwise have needed to CMT to charge?

Cheers
Brett

[terrys]

1. Page 31 "If the target of an assault moves out of range. ... [you can convert charge]." The use of the word "range" implies a distance and should should be interpeted as "reach" rather than range. This is because an evader may pass through or around supports, remaining within the range of the pursuers but not within their reach (a new enemy is in the way). If 'range' was interpeted literally, then no converted charge or pursuit would be possible against the new enemy unit blocking the assaulting/pursuing unit.

2. If infantry charge opponents who retire, can they then 'convert charge' into a cavalry unit within 2MU of the retirers/path of retirement?

3. If they are not allowed to convert charge then what happens? Do the infantry stop just short of the new enemy cavalry unit that was burst through/flowed around by the retiring unit?

4. The same issue arises when cossacks charge other skirmishers, who evade. Can the cossacks 'convert charge' into enemy non-skirmishers they would otherwise have needed to CMT to charge?

Well - Taking the rules literally.....
The rules state that: "The moving unit may wheel towards the next nearest target"
However, infantry cannot assault cavalry - so therefore cannot be a target..
The last sentence of the same paragraph (on page 31) states that:
"If no new target is available in the assaulting or pursuing unit completes its full move distance in the direction of the original assault or pusuit."
So I guess the ruling would have to be that the infantry would continue its move in the direction charged, and if this contacts cavalry then so be it!

The same would happen with Cossacks converting a charge into something they couldn't otherwise contact.


This means that players may need to be a little more careful in placing their skirmishers.

[deadtorius]

wouldn't the infantry stop just short of the cavalry? In other FOG rules its 1MU short same could apply here and would make more sense. Same could apply to skirmishing cav pursuing into formed cav, stop short and reconsider or force a CMT to close.

Skirmish lines out front suddenly don't look like such a good idea anymore....

[bahdahbum]

wouldn't the infantry stop just short of the cavalry

It seems more sensible . At eylau, even the russian grenadiers did stop teir assault in column to receive the french cavalry charge ...

[BrettPT]

Thanks for the reply Terry, which you should probably cut and paste into a FAQ in due course.

This would promote the tactic of having cavalry in a 2nd line to catch infantry pursuers. The pursuing infantry would not get a chance to form square and be in real danger of being chopped to shreds by the supporting cavalry.

Counter-tactic for the attacking infantry might be not to charge enemy infantry with cavalry behind them, but rather advance to close range and rely on firepower to drive the enemy back. This would leave you free to form square if subsequently charged by the enemy cavalry in the second line.

Cheers
Brett

[terrys]

wouldn't the infantry stop just short of the cavalry

It seems more sensible . At eylau, even the russian grenadiers did stop teir assault in column to receive the french cavalry charge ...

Possibly - but would the cavalry charge the infantry once they become visible and not in square.
It shouldn't be a problem, because you know exactly how far you charge is and you can see the cavalry behind.

[deadtorius]

I did have a similar situation in our last game where I routed a conscript unit and then had the opportunity to pursue into the next line unit in behind. They retired wavering and I had the option of pursuing again, decided not to as there was a cavalry unit off to the side facing towards where the conscripts had just retired in front of the cav. That looked like a potential for a flank charge so I stayed put.