Light Troops

[Cannae216BC]

We tried the rules for the first time yesterday and had a situation that we couldn't find the answer to; Two Gallic Warrior BGs in a battleline with a general were facing two Velite BGs in open terrain. The Gauls did not want to charge as the velites would evade and a bad throw on the variable movement could mean that one lot of warriors went an extra two inches and the other two inches less resulting in a four inch gap between them.

What the Gauls wanted to do was do a normal Battleline move as they were worried about the legion behind and not the velites, but this would have contacted the velites as we could find nothing about them falling back unless they evade.

Should skirmishers stop/hold up non skirmish BG's wanting to move forward without charging

Do skirmishers force shock troops to charge without orders unless a CMT can stop them charging or have I read that wrong


Thanks

[marshalney2000]

The Gauls would have to charge to clear the skirmishers away and indeed would have to test as individual bgs not to charge. Suggest you get some skirmishers of your own to clear the way.

[carlos]

You read that right. Teasing and disrupting heavier troops is one of the historical uses of light troops. I suggest you bring some of your own - the Gauls have plenty.

[hazelbark]

You are gauls! Assuming you didn't have better prospects else where you should just accept the potential of a disjointed line and charge them skirmishers away. Or try a complex to get real close and hope the skirmishes doen't evade far enough next time.

I came to the conclusion that in this kind of mass up for gauls. Having a reserve BG of Gauls to lend rear support, plus a general who doesn't fight is important. You win not necessarily with the first charge. But you break up or inflict some lossses on the legion and then the reserve goes in and gets the general after the first wave has been shredded by the Pilums and Gladius of the legion.

Also because of how the intercept charges and step forward work a minor differnece of the Gallic BGs being off by one inch is nearly inconsequential.

[shall]

Hurrah!!

Vercingetorix has arrived

[Montagu]

If 2 opposing LF or LF vs LH are in melee. Are they stuck there until one breaks? Is there no "Break off" like there is with cavalry?

We looked it up but didn't find it. This doesn't seem historical to me. Yes, LF fought each other but it seems they were withdrawn at convenience.

Monty

[nikgaukroger]

There is no break off.

[pbrandon]

If LH are fighting LF and the LF remain steady, why don't the LH break off in the JAP?

Paul

[WhiteKnight]

I think in LH v LF combat, the LH would break off so long as the LF were still "steady"?

Martin

[lawrenceg]

If 2 opposing LF or LF vs LH are in melee. Are they stuck there until one breaks? Is there no "Break off" like there is with cavalry?

We looked it up but didn't find it. This doesn't seem historical to me. Yes, LF fought each other but it seems they were withdrawn at convenience.

Monty

I think in LH v LF combat, the LH would break off so long as the LF were still "steady"?

I think the original question was supposed to say

...LF vs LF or LH vs LH...

in which case there would be no break off.

I assume the underlying assumption is that historical skirmisher fights that ended in withdrawal were shoot-outs, not melees.

[Montagu]

We had a situation this weekend where for most of the battle my and my opponents skirmishers blocked the main battle lines. We were both rolling well: making cohesion rolls, few casualties. So the fight was mostly my right wing vs his left. I was able to defeat and push that side back and STILL the LF/LH and LF/LF were locked in melee.

It just seems that it's a cheesy way of denying your opponent mobility or part of the field by having a long line of skirmishers in melee. I know, both would have to want to do melee or the Lx could evade but it still doesn't seem 'right' to me that skirmishers could block this effectively.

Now, if other non-Lx (LF, LC) were allowed to charge THROUGH the LF then it would make sense.

Monty

[rogerg]

There is a lot more cheese when you start charging through troops. No-one has to get into a skirmisher melee. Don't charge yourself and evade the enemy charges. There will be no skirmisher melee.

I would suggest that the skirmisher action is a really good part of the rules. If you have skirmirmishers then you can use them to attempt to break up the enemy charge. If the enemy has skirmishers too, then the best skirmishers should win the skirmish round. If you feel your main line is stronger, you can withdraw your skirmishers to try and force the issue, but risk getting the attacking frontage uneven when driving off the enemy skirmishers. There is lots of good game play here. All of it seems perfectly historically reasonable too.

[Cannae216BC]

This was never a case of not using the Gaul’s skirmishers to fight the velites, they were gone by the time this happened .

The Gallic commander wanted the Warrior BG's to advance under control. If they fail the test, they ignore the general’s wants and charge. Ok

However he takes the tests and passes, which means that he can do a normal move in the manoeuvre phase (If he did a normal move, this would take him through the velites) .

So if they pass the test and hit the velites in the manoeuvre phase, does a melee occur (This doesn't seem fair to the velites) or do the warriors stop before contacting the velites (This doesn’t seem fair to the warriors).

My opinion is that light infantry would not stop other infantry irrespective of whether they were charging. If they were not being charged, they would not have to evade, just fall back in front of the enemy

[shall]

I think the original question was supposed to say

...LF vs LF or LH vs LH...

in which case there would be no break off.

I assume the underlying assumption is that historical skirmisher fights that ended in withdrawal were shoot-outs, not melees

More the rationale is that skirmishers in the main shouldn't ever get in combat and if they do one the toher will get routed - often quite quickly. In FOG combat is combat. In our view a LF break off is called a rout!!

As Roger says proper use of skimishers really shouldn't have them in combat often anyway and the rules encourage such proper use. They would only really engage other skimishers who were quite weak in comparison and wipe them out - e,g, Berber Lancer LH are great at slaughtering enemy LF and rightly so.

Si

[hazelbark]

However he takes the tests and passes, which means that he can do a normal move in the manoeuvre phase (If he did a normal move, this would take him through the velites) .

So if they pass the test and hit the velites in the manoeuvre phase, does a melee occur (This doesn't seem fair to the velites) or do the warriors stop before contacting the velites (This doesn’t seem fair to the warriors).

My opinion is that light infantry would not stop other infantry irrespective of whether they were charging. If they were not being charged, they would not have to evade, just fall back in front of the enemy

You cannot manoeuvre into combat only into overlap on an existing melee.
Nor can you move through an enemy.

The velites will be throwing javelins and the gauls will advance. At some point the gauls (or anyone) would have to attempt to contact the velites. In FoG this is modelled via the impact phase. So if you want to drive back the velites, you must charge with at least one BG.

The other BG can roll not to charge if it doesn't it will still move and be with 2" of the charged group. So it could intercept to be edge to edge if you were close to foes.

So you are basically fine for one turn. It is several turns of this when your line can get significantly ragged.