Rules changes

[ravenflight]

Hi All,

I'm going to run the MOAB competition again this year and I'm considering (fairly strongly) making a convention rule.

My rule is based around what I consider an over-complication with the captured artillery and uncontrolled artillery rules as they are in the book.

I'm after some advise on wording and timing of an alteration to the rules.

In essence, I want captured or uncontrolled artillery to be removed from the game.

What I'm considering is simply this:

"Uncontrolled or captured artillery are removed immediately after "Move Routers and Pursuers" of the Joint Action Phase.

My reasoning is that I think that captured artillery come into play so infrequently that removing them would make it a lot cleaner, and that uncontrolled artillery being effectively impassible to mounted is kind of weird and that removing them would make it a lot cleaner.

Any thoughts on this being a bad idea or perhaps a better suggestion of wording etc?

Very interested in opinions.

Thank you all.

[nigelemsen]

i have wondered why mounted cannot pass through unattended/captured artillery...

an alternative to removal (you want the chance to recapture the unit?) is that you can pass through front to back/back to front/left to right/right to left. you finish with the back of mounted bg rear elements in contact... Im sure the wording can be improved, but im sure you get my meaning...

or treat as Temp fortifications for movement?

A = artillery base
M = mounted base

before:
MM
MM
AA

afterwards:
AA
MM
MM

before:
MMA
MMA

afterwards:
AMM
AMM

etc...

well thats my 10p worth..

[spotteddog]

I think that is a good idea Nigel. I wonder if we can agree something like this for Britcon 2014?
HH

[nigelemsen]

I think that is a good idea Nigel. I wonder if we can agree something like this for Britcon 2014?
HH

works for me... of course i haven't much mounted in my japanese list so have no vested interest... honest gov

[Sarmaticus]

Wouldn't the simplest solution be use it or lose it? Artillery that is not controlled is removed. The classic example of captured guns having an effect on a battle is perhaps Luetzen and there Swedish infantry take the road battery and sweep the Imperialist centre with it's shooting. That could still happen but uncrewed guns would vaporise as they do now from shooting.

[ravenflight]

Thanks for the responses. I appreciate them.

I think that both Nigel and Sarmaticus points are well made, but I think overly complicate the game for no real advantage.

Under the current rules if you capture guns, what do you get? Poor Artillery that shoot a a -POA only if they are captured by pike and/or shot. The chances are they are going to be facing in the wrong direction, so are going to have to pass a test to turn (remembering they are poor).

Now, if you do get a chance to re-capture the guns, you do (I admit) recover your lost attrition points, but you also recover poor artillery that shoot with a -POA.

For all of the above, you end up with weird situations where people can be 'fighting over the guns' but can't really fight. For example at CanCon last year I captured an enemys guns. They were captured by a P&S formation, so they are now mine, and able to be manned. Behind the guns (on the other side) was an enemy formation of horse. At the end of the turn I had a BG of P&S and a BG of poor artillery and he had a BG of mounted. My new guns couldn't receive rear support from my P&S because my guns were facing in the wrong direction. Next turn I wasn't giving rear support, so the mounted moved up and 'recaptured the guns' with mounted. Since it wasn't P&S the guns became uncontrolled. I couldn't touch his mounted, his mounted couldn't touch me and we had these two pieces of artillery sitting there just swapping control until the end of the game.

If (in the above example) we used Nigel's suggestion the situation wouldn't change because there would be no place for the mounted to interpenetrate. If we used Sarmaticus' example, they would disappear, but only after a turn of the mounted and infantry not being able to get to one another. I think this is the best example, but at the cost of complexity. "Are those artillery controlled? Yeah, they are! Oh, ok then they stay on? I think so, hang on I'll read the ruling again"

I haven't found artillery to be particularly effective in the game. They can be, but generally aren't that overly impressive. Except for the regained attrition point has anyone found effective use in captured/recaptured guns? Has anyone had a game where capturing/recapturing guns resulted in a game changer? Remembering that my ruling would still have the tests for losing the guns, but they would be removed at the end of the turn so that people could get back to the battle at hand.

[ravenflight]

I think that is a good idea Nigel. I wonder if we can agree something like this for Britcon 2014?
HH

works for me... of course i haven't much mounted in my japanese list so have no vested interest... honest gov

Interestingly, I'm running pre-shot Japanese at MOAB too (I hope - if they are finished) so I have no real vested interest either - except for getting rid of headaches as an organiser)

[nigelemsen]

Thanks for the responses. I appreciate them.

I think that both Nigel and Sarmaticus points are well made, but I think overly complicate the game for no real advantage.

Under the current rules if you capture guns, what do you get? Poor Artillery that shoot a a -POA only if they are captured by pike and/or shot. The chances are they are going to be facing in the wrong direction, so are going to have to pass a test to turn (remembering they are poor).

Now, if you do get a chance to re-capture the guns, you do (I admit) recover your lost attrition points, but you also recover poor artillery that shoot with a -POA.

For all of the above, you end up with weird situations where people can be 'fighting over the guns' but can't really fight. For example at CanCon last year I captured an enemys guns. They were captured by a P&S formation, so they are now mine, and able to be manned. Behind the guns (on the other side) was an enemy formation of horse. At the end of the turn I had a BG of P&S and a BG of poor artillery and he had a BG of mounted. My new guns couldn't receive rear support from my P&S because my guns were facing in the wrong direction. Next turn I wasn't giving rear support, so the mounted moved up and 'recaptured the guns' with mounted. Since it wasn't P&S the guns became uncontrolled. I couldn't touch his mounted, his mounted couldn't touch me and we had these two pieces of artillery sitting there just swapping control until the end of the game.

If (in the above example) we used Nigel's suggestion the situation wouldn't change because there would be no place for the mounted to interpenetrate. If we used Sarmaticus' example, they would disappear, but only after a turn of the mounted and infantry not being able to get to one another. I think this is the best example, but at the cost of complexity. "Are those artillery controlled? Yeah, they are! Oh, ok then they stay on? I think so, hang on I'll read the ruling again"

I haven't found artillery to be particularly effective in the game. They can be, but generally aren't that overly impressive. Except for the regained attrition point has anyone found effective use in captured/recaptured guns? Has anyone had a game where capturing/recapturing guns resulted in a game changer? Remembering that my ruling would still have the tests for losing the guns, but they would be removed at the end of the turn so that people could get back to the battle at hand.

Arr.. now i see the problem you are trying to over come... then i would go for and for ease of play... after all it is a game not an academic simulation of a battle... i would either treat as lost for good and count as TF or just remove...

[nigelemsen]

I think that is a good idea Nigel. I wonder if we can agree something like this for Britcon 2014?
HH

works for me... of course i haven't much mounted in my japanese list so have no vested interest... honest gov

Interestingly, I'm running pre-shot Japanese at MOAB too (I hope - if they are finished) so I have no real vested interest either - except for getting rid of headaches as an organiser)

you'll have to let me know how you get on... my version is here: http://muchallsarmy.wordpress.com/

[kevinj]

I think captured/uncontrolled artillery is one of the very few areas of the rules that I'm unhappy with. Personally I'm of the opinion that, in a tournament situation,if you capture them with something that can re-crew them you should have the option, otherwise remove them. For scenario games you can add whatever spice you like in terms of capturing them, shooting at the original owners and then recapturing them.

However, for Britcon and the other BHGS events, we play the rules as published subject to the errata, so unless you can persuade the authors to fix this, it remains as is.

[madaxeman]

You have to "move" into contact with artillery to recapture it. So the face off/autoswap situation described here with 2 units in contact swapping ownership isn't quite right.

It's still pants though, and "remove if you want" still seems better to me.

[Sarmaticus]

Yes, that does seem the simplest and best solution.

[ravenflight]

You have to "move" into contact with artillery to recapture it. So the face off/autoswap situation described here with 2 units in contact swapping ownership isn't quite right.

So, how WOULD it play out? P&S move in and capture, Horse move in and recapture... then what?

[ravenflight]

Thank you for your comments all. I see value in the suggestions of all, but think I'm going to go with my wording. I don't like the 'if you wish' suggestions (although I can see the desire to want the guns to stay so you can man the ) because it adds complexity without an equivalent amount of advantage IMHO. So, can anyone see any major problems with the wording of the rule amendment? If I played it out that way, what major ramifications do you think there would be?

I've chosen the JAP because I feel choosing any other phase may result in weird unforseen upsets. I'm not sure what, but want to avoid some major catastrophe.

Let me know what problems you forsee (not really wanting to discuss the 'well, we don't do it that way' type comments, am really interested in what people see as a problem with the change... i.e. if it WERE an official errata, what unexpected results can you forsee).

Thanks.

[ravenflight]

you'll have to let me know how you get on... my version is here: http://muchallsarmy.wordpress.com/

I had a look, thanks. I've gone superior mounted archers, so my plan is to skirmish off other mounted and punch through the centre quickly. The enemy only get 1 shot at 4's with musket/arquebus before biffo time, and ashigaru armoured bowmen are GOLD! however take a look at my painting journal on the modelling section of this forum. The little buggers are slow to paint, but I still have until the end of September.

[nigelemsen]

I had a look, thanks. I've gone superior mounted archers, so my plan is to skirmish off other mounted and punch through the centre quickly. The enemy only get 1 shot at 4's with musket/arquebus before biffo time, and ashigaru armoured bowmen are GOLD! however take a look at my painting journal on the modelling section of this forum. The little buggers are slow to paint, but I still have until the end of September.

I'll be trying your tip on silk armour: paint in the colour then use a black wash... And I've decided on the horse archer option as well

[Sarmaticus]

You have to "move" into contact with artillery to recapture it. So the face off/autoswap situation described here with 2 units in contact swapping ownership isn't quite right.

So, how WOULD it play out? P&S move in and capture, Horse move in and recapture... then what?

Not addressed to me but fwiw wouldn'tvone simply remove the artillery as soon as they were captured by the Horse - or anyone else who couldn't or wouldn't use them?

[ravenflight]

You have to "move" into contact with artillery to recapture it. So the face off/autoswap situation described here with 2 units in contact swapping ownership isn't quite right.

So, how WOULD it play out? P&S move in and capture, Horse move in and recapture... then what?

Not addressed to me but fwiw wouldn'tvone simply remove the artillery as soon as they were captured by the Horse - or anyone else who couldn't or wouldn't use them?

The trouble is this isn't how you would do in the RAW. So, my rule, yes, they would disappear, but this isn't covered in the RAW and MadAxeMan was saying I did the RAW wrong and was asking how (in his or others opinions) the RAW would handle that situation?

[madaxeman]

I was trying to say that you need to move into contact to capture guns.

If you move into contact to capture them with horse they become uncontrolled.

When the opponent moves into them (on the opposite face) in his turn they then change sides again.

Your unit then starts its turn already in contact with the now-enemy-held guns.... which does not result in the guns being instantly recaptured, as you have not moved into contact. You need to move away, and then into contact again...

Messy.

[rbodleyscott]

I think captured/uncontrolled artillery is one of the very few areas of the rules that I'm unhappy with. Personally I'm of the opinion that, in a tournament situation,if you capture them with something that can re-crew them you should have the option, otherwise remove them. For scenario games you can add whatever spice you like in terms of capturing them, shooting at the original owners and then recapturing them.

Not totally against this.

However, wouldn't it seem a teensy bit odd if the best way to guarantee that the enemy cannot recapture his artillery is to take them with something that can't control them?

Still, no doubt Alasdair will be pleased....