irregular Light Cavalry responding to a cavalry assault

[KeefM]

this has probably been covered before . . .

a) page 29, Reaction Moves, under actions NOT requiring a Cohesion Test the last bullet point says "evade if LC in single rank".

b) page 30, left hand column, 2nd text paragraph after the prior bullet points and before the next lot says, "all other reactions require a Cohesion Test to be taken". Failure = loss of cohesion.

c) page 30, right hand column, 2nd bullet says "light cavalry in skirmish formation must test .... blah, blah ... They will evade if the test is failed."

d) page 107, definition for Skirmisher includes "all units of irregular light cavalry" ... so ... an irregular LC unit in tactical formation clearly also counts as skirmishing.

But, am I right in assuming that if an irregular unit of LC in tactical formation is charged, it MUST take a cohesion test because tactical formation is NOT covered by the very specific wording (ie LC must be in single rank) of the bullet point on page 29 whether it wishes to countercharge or not ?? Further, a failure of that CT means that it MUST evade AND loses a level of cohesion.

And, if I am right, means that cossacks (and others of the same ilk) will be wanting to get themselves into single line if'n they want to avoid a cohesion test when charged ...

[Damianhunter]

Bloody he'll that's complicated Keith. Too long in the civil service!

[KendallB]

That thing about LC in single rank is for Regular LC. Irregular LC are always in skirmish which could be arranged 2x2 or 4x1. Irregular LC are never in tactical formation.

[KeefM]

Too much time in the corporate sector don't you mean ?!

Ah, but Kendall, it VERY CLEARLY does NOT say "regular" LC . . . the bullet for evades without any cohesion test is: "Evade if LC in single rank" !!

Indeed, the very next bullet point specifies infantry skirmishers; but the LC evade without a CT is only for LC in a single rank.

QED !! Cossacks, et al, in tactical (even though that = skirmishers) take a CT unless in single line . . . (seriously, but - worth reading the actual text page 29 and 30)

[BrettPT]

It pains me to admit it, but Keith appears correct.

Cossacks deployed 2 bases deep may not choose to evade - this is only avaialble to LC in single rank.

They may also not 'freely countercharge' non-skirmishing cavalry who charge them.
They may however take a CT to countercharge.

My take on the rules, as written, is that if charged by (non-skirmish) cavalry, Cossacks take a CT.
If they pass they countercharge. If they fail they evade (without dropping a cohesion level).

Pretty sure this is not the intention, a fix would be to amend "...in single rank" to "skirmishers" at the bottom of page 29.

[KeefM]

nah, leave it as written . . . there is some tactical advantage in being able to skirmish in tactical formation (even if simply in the amount of physical space taken up by the LC in a single rank) - it seems to me that letting irregular LC freely evade in tactical formation is an advantage undeserved by their cheaper point costs !

[KeefM]

oh, BTB, currently (as written) then: if charged the cossacks MUST take a CT whether deciding to attempt to counter-charge or not; and if the CT is failed they MUST evade (but either way, if failed, they will lose a cohesion level - just like every other unit that fails a CT !)

[BrettPT]

if failed, they will lose a cohesion level - just like every other unit that fails a CT !)

I know that is what the general rules on page 30 say for '..actions requiring a Cohesion Test...' however this is contradicated by the table on page 69 where the result of this failed test is to "evade", and again on page 71 it describes skirmishers, trying to stand, as an exception to the 'dropping a cohesion level' general rule.

Applying the logic that "in the event of contradiction, a specific rule overrides a general rule', my view is that the cossacks would evade without dropping a level.

[bahdahbum]

The 2 logics are viable . Either the cossacks, even in tactical formation should evade and test to counter charge or ..test and if succesfull countercharge, evade if failed .

OK TERRY ...we need some ruling here what is the intend ...

[deadtorius]

I had thought that quite a while ago it was posted on the forums that irregular cavalry always was in skirmish and therefore had to evade if charged by anything other than skirmishers. can't recall if they were forced to lose cohesion though....

[bahdahbum]

I can't find it back

[KeefM]

The key point was that only light cavalry in a single rank is allowed an evade move without a CT being required (bullet point on page 29).

Also, it states TWICE on page 30 (both before and after the bullet points about CTs) that any failed CT results in a loss of cohesion.

So:

irregular LC in tactical formation have to make a CT test if charged. If they pass that CT then they countercharge with no loss of cohesion. If they fail that CT then they evade and lose a level ofcohesion.

Note: if they are in single rank, then they can evade without any CT being required . . .

Easy as !!

[Philip]

There is also the general description of cavalry formations on page 86. "Another formation used by cavalry is that of Extended Line. This is most often used by skirmishing light or irregular light cavalry."

[bahdahbum]

Easy as !!

Except I had a game with Terry during his stay in Belgium and my cossacks did evade without having to test as they are irrregular cavalry ...and they were in tactical ...

So I think we might need some more precisions .

[bahdahbum]

Have a look at

viewtopic.php?f=188&t=33326&p=325386&hi ... de#p325386

This has been discussed and from what I understand, even if there is no clear ruling, the idea is that irregular light cavalry in tactical may evade . Now a clear cut ruling would make it easy for all of us

[BrettPT]

My thoughts are to keep this simple. Cossacks should be able to evade in any formation. Making them CT if charged in tactical seems overcomplicated, doesn't make sense and is frankly a little dumb.

I'm very sure this is what was intended. The authors presumably wanted to remind us that LC in single rank could evade (and so unfortunately used the wording "...in single rank" at the end of page 29) however didn't consider this choice of words might exclude irregular cavalry in tactical from freely evading.

The Cohesion Test table on page 69 is clear. "Light Cavalry Skirmishers choosing to counter-charge non-Skirmish cavalry : 5+ required to pass : Evade if failed." (note the result "Evade" being distinguished from the result of "Cohesion Loss" for most other failed responses to a charge).

My view:

- The rule as summarised in the table on page 69 is the correct interpretation.

- All skirmishing LC may evade.

- If skirmishing LC want to countercharge they must pass a CT to do so, unless countercharging other skirmishers. If the CT is failed the skirmishers evade without losing a cohesion level.

Cheers
Brett

[terrys]

It would probably make it clearer if the word "infantry" was removed from the first line at the top of page 30 so that it read:
"Evade if skirmishers".
We would then have seperate entries for "cavalry in line" and "skirmishers" (either infantry or cavalry).