Hi,
1. If an enemy unit is 3 to 6 MU back from an obstacle, then the rules are clear that in normal movement a friendly unit could move up to, and stop at, the obstacle. In a later turn the friendly unit could cross the obstacle and end with their rear touching the obstacle. Only in the next turn could they assault the enemy unit. So it takes 3 turns to assault this enemy (1. move up to obstacle, 2. cross obstacle. 3. assault once over obstacle). A slow process.
But what happens if an enemy unit is 1 or 2 MU back from an obstacle? That is, with not enough room for the friendly unit to fully move over the obstacle. Does this stop the friendly unit from moving over at all?
If so, this becomes a problem because you could end up with an enemy Wavering unit at 2.1 MU back from the obstacle and a friendly unreformed unit stuck at the obstacle, not able to fire (since target not at close range) and not able to assault (since not enough room to get over the obstacle).
2. A unit making an outcome move will cross the obstacle and stop on the other side (as per previous post). This makes sense as in reality time is lost in crossing the obstacle and further time is lost to reform units on the other side. But do Broken units stop the otehr side, or do they complete their full rout move?
3. Are there any differences for Impetuous troops crossing an obstacle?
Cheers,
John Shaw
More Questions on Obstacles
Moderators: terrys, hammy, philqw78, Blathergut, Slitherine Core
Re: More Questions on Obstacles
Tricky question. Obstacles are obviously not part of the standard selection set in the terrain rules for a good reason - some things need to be agreed with respect to the lay of any particular obstacle.
1. The attacker would of course enjoy cover once having the benefit of the obstacle. An assault is possible in some manner. As a successful crossing would need to be an assault with the defenders too close to allow a normal move across, as an umpire (since I don't find text addressing this) I would rule the CMT must be taken to move across the obstacle and it would be as an assault in the Assault Phase, with Defensive Fire taken against the attackers at the obstacle (with benefit of cover) and if passed the assaulters are moved into contact straddling the obstacle if necessary, without combat penalty. This represents some battalions or companies being across and others having prepared the way to storm across behind them. This would discourage gamey attempts to prevent any attack by mere positioning.
2. Unless there is something other than the Outcome Moves p61-64 that applies, and I don't see it under Broken Units p 71, they cross and stop.
3. An Assault condition is that a unit must be able to make a normal advance to contact the target or the front of a defended obstacle (p28). I don't see how it could impetuously cross an undefended obstacle to assault.
1. The attacker would of course enjoy cover once having the benefit of the obstacle. An assault is possible in some manner. As a successful crossing would need to be an assault with the defenders too close to allow a normal move across, as an umpire (since I don't find text addressing this) I would rule the CMT must be taken to move across the obstacle and it would be as an assault in the Assault Phase, with Defensive Fire taken against the attackers at the obstacle (with benefit of cover) and if passed the assaulters are moved into contact straddling the obstacle if necessary, without combat penalty. This represents some battalions or companies being across and others having prepared the way to storm across behind them. This would discourage gamey attempts to prevent any attack by mere positioning.
2. Unless there is something other than the Outcome Moves p61-64 that applies, and I don't see it under Broken Units p 71, they cross and stop.
3. An Assault condition is that a unit must be able to make a normal advance to contact the target or the front of a defended obstacle (p28). I don't see how it could impetuously cross an undefended obstacle to assault.
-
Jason_Langlois
- Corporal - Strongpoint
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2008 3:50 am
Re: More Questions on Obstacles
Per pg 31, firing is calculated as if the assault was successful. Wouldn't that mean no cover for the assaulting units then, as they would be assumed over the obstacle and in contact for Defensive Fire?I would rule the CMT must be taken to move across the obstacle and it would be as an assault in the Assault Phase, with Defensive Fire taken against the attackers at the obstacle (with benefit of cover) and if passed the assaulters are moved into contact straddling the obstacle if necessary, without combat penalty.
-
Chasseur
- Master Sergeant - U-boat
- Posts: 544
- Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 7:42 am
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: More Questions on Obstacles
Hi,
My current thoughts are:
1. I don't want to see a situation where the defender can sit back safely.
2. I agree that a CMT should be taken. It would be difficult for officers to encourage their troops to leave the safety of a wall/hedge/river bank and move into the open.
3. I would think that there would be some disorder in getting over the obstacle and pressing home the attack. This would either be taking extra time under fire as they paused on the other side of the obstacle to form up, or they would not delay and press home the attack in a not perfect formation (some would be slower than others crossing the obstacle).
To mirror this effect, the assaulting unit could fight at 1 cohesion level lower. But I think this is too harsh a penalty. I think that Steady troops should fight "as if" Disordered if astride an obstacle (but their front is past it), but that Disordered should troops fight as Disordered. The latter are not ready to run; their formation is just a bit messed up by crossing the obstacle. The penalty for Disordered troops trying to do this is that it would take 2 CMTs: 1 because they are actually Disordered and trying to move within 2MU and another because they are trying to move over an obstacle. The Steady troops would only require 1 CMT to advance.
If the Steady troops
4. My thinking also is that if Impetuous troops start at the obstacle, they do not need a CMT to advance over to attack - they are already keen?
The above are only my current opinions and I am interested to hear what others think.
The importance of treating obstacles correctly has come up in 2 recent historical games - Marengo (the Austrians attacking across the stream) and Waterloo.
Cheers,
John Shaw
My current thoughts are:
1. I don't want to see a situation where the defender can sit back safely.
2. I agree that a CMT should be taken. It would be difficult for officers to encourage their troops to leave the safety of a wall/hedge/river bank and move into the open.
3. I would think that there would be some disorder in getting over the obstacle and pressing home the attack. This would either be taking extra time under fire as they paused on the other side of the obstacle to form up, or they would not delay and press home the attack in a not perfect formation (some would be slower than others crossing the obstacle).
To mirror this effect, the assaulting unit could fight at 1 cohesion level lower. But I think this is too harsh a penalty. I think that Steady troops should fight "as if" Disordered if astride an obstacle (but their front is past it), but that Disordered should troops fight as Disordered. The latter are not ready to run; their formation is just a bit messed up by crossing the obstacle. The penalty for Disordered troops trying to do this is that it would take 2 CMTs: 1 because they are actually Disordered and trying to move within 2MU and another because they are trying to move over an obstacle. The Steady troops would only require 1 CMT to advance.
If the Steady troops
4. My thinking also is that if Impetuous troops start at the obstacle, they do not need a CMT to advance over to attack - they are already keen?
The above are only my current opinions and I am interested to hear what others think.
The importance of treating obstacles correctly has come up in 2 recent historical games - Marengo (the Austrians attacking across the stream) and Waterloo.
Cheers,
John Shaw
Re: More Questions on Obstacles
obstacles really fall under one of 4 types:
Buildings - Which have seperate rules.
Field Fortifications - also have seperate rules.
Rivers - Which by definition are defended if the unit is within 2MU of it.
Walls/Hedges etc: - These are more of a problem. The only selectable piece of terrain that allows walls or hedges is enclosed fields, under the heading "rough Ground". These are assumed to be enough of an obstacle to stop anyone crossing them as part of a normal move. (They are too high for cavalry to jump over - most troopers not being good enough riders to consider jumping a horse over anyhting much higher than 2-3 feet).
As part of a non-points game player can freely define terrain pieces as anything they want.
A sunken road could be cover and an obstacle for movement but not for combat. A small hedge or fence could be an obstacle for movement but not for combat or firing. etc.
We made a conscious decision to not include all the variations of different obstacles, because it we did players would always choose the one that was most beneficial to their army. (not to mention the additional descriptions required for each).
Going back to the question:
Buildings - Which have seperate rules.
Field Fortifications - also have seperate rules.
Rivers - Which by definition are defended if the unit is within 2MU of it.
Walls/Hedges etc: - These are more of a problem. The only selectable piece of terrain that allows walls or hedges is enclosed fields, under the heading "rough Ground". These are assumed to be enough of an obstacle to stop anyone crossing them as part of a normal move. (They are too high for cavalry to jump over - most troopers not being good enough riders to consider jumping a horse over anyhting much higher than 2-3 feet).
As part of a non-points game player can freely define terrain pieces as anything they want.
A sunken road could be cover and an obstacle for movement but not for combat. A small hedge or fence could be an obstacle for movement but not for combat or firing. etc.
We made a conscious decision to not include all the variations of different obstacles, because it we did players would always choose the one that was most beneficial to their army. (not to mention the additional descriptions required for each).
Going back to the question:
A unit assaulting over the obstacle (having passed a CMT) would contact the enemy regardless of whether or not the full unit made it over the obstacle. We have to use a bit of common sense in these situations - base depths are a problem with all sets of rules. 1 or 2 MU is 66 to 133 yards back from the obstacle, more than enough to get a unit across and into combat. One thing we don't want is for players to be able to position their troops in a position that's impossible to assault.But what happens if an enemy unit is 1 or 2 MU back from an obstacle? That is, with not enough room for the friendly unit to fully move over the obstacle. Does this stop the friendly unit from moving over at all?
-
hazelbark
- General - Carrier
- Posts: 4957
- Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
- Location: Capital of the World !!
Re: More Questions on Obstacles
I think this was a mistake to a degree. I agree keeping them out of a tournament equal points game. But I think you should have had a section for scenario chrome. It could explicitly say this section is not designed for tournament or equal point games, but we have rules here that players can use to adapt for scenarios. Still time to insert that into one of the army books.terrys wrote: As part of a non-points game player can freely define terrain pieces as anything they want.
A sunken road could be cover and an obstacle for movement but not for combat. A small hedge or fence could be an obstacle for movement but not for combat or firing. etc.
We made a conscious decision to not include all the variations of different obstacles, because it we did players would always choose the one that was most beneficial to their army. (not to mention the additional descriptions required for each).
Re: More Questions on Obstacles
It may be too late given the publishing timeline, but no harm figuring out ways of treating different obstacles, starting with some basic principles articulated here.hazelbark wrote:I think this was a mistake to a degree. I agree keeping them out of a tournament equal points game. But I think you should have had a section for scenario chrome. It could explicitly say this section is not designed for tournament or equal point games, but we have rules here that players can use to adapt for scenarios. Still time to insert that into one of the army books.
Re: More Questions on Obstacles
We did consider fully expanding the section "Using These Rules for Historical Battles" and even including campaign rules. In the end we found that there was just too much to include with not enough space. In the end, we decided that sticking to just the one obstruction type would be better from a one-off game point of view. For historical and scenario games (and even campaigns) we'd encourage players to use their own definitions of whether and what type of obstruction a particular terrain piece might cause to different troops types.I think this was a mistake to a degree. I agree keeping them out of a tournament equal points game. But I think you should have had a section for scenario chrome. It could explicitly say this section is not designed for tournament or equal point games, but we have rules here that players can use to adapt for scenarios. Still time to insert that into one of the army books.
Any definition of terrain pieces have to consider their affect on:
> Visibility.
> Movement (and CMTs).
> Firing and being fired at.
> Combat - defending and attacking.
> Morale (CTs).
Their affects may not be the same for different troops types or their opponents.
A scenarion or historical game will normally be 'designed' by someone and the pressure is on him to make sure that any defined obstacle doesn't have a disproportionate affect on the game.