Borodino Assault Group - Aggressive List?

[CutEmUp]

Comes out exactly at 800

Exceptional, Charismatic Commander (Murat)

1st Division (I Cavalry Corps)
Competent Charismatic Commander
Large Superior Drilled French Cuirassiers (2nd Heavy Division)
Small Average Drilled French Hussars (1st Light Division)
Small Average Drilled French Chevaulegers (1st Light Division)
Small Average Drilled Horse Artillery

2nd Division (IV Cavalry Corps)
Competent Commander
Small Superior Veteran Saxon Cuirassiers (Saxon Brigade)
Small Average Drilled Westphalian Cuirassiers (Westphalian Brigade)
Small Average Veteran Polish Uhlans (4th Light Division)
Small Average Drilled Horse Artillery

Friant's Division
Skilled Commander (Friant)
Small Average Drilled French Light Infantry (15th Light)
Large Average Conscript French Line Infantry (33rd Line)
Small Average Drilled 12pdr Artillery

If I get 2 extra units on initiative
Small Average Drilled French Line Infantry (48th Line)
Small Average Drilled French Line Infantry (Joseph Napoleon Regiment)

A bit skewed, but it fits, with the idea being what it says in the rule book, "designed to smash into weakened enemy lines, following and inferno of artillery." I will pull up all my guns while I screen with light infantry, bombs away and charge the heavies, with the light cavalry helping with the artillery deployment and then following close behind the big boys for pursuit and flank protection. If I get the extras, then the infantry can do more than just protect the big guns and participate in the assault.

Not sure if I give Nansouty or Friant the Skilled DC

I don't like long drawn out games of any sort, in flames of war I'm a tanker, in FOG I like lancers, so this seems to go with the theme of swift and bloody.

[KendallB]

Pretty sure you must have divisions of light cavalry only and/or cuirassiers only. swap the Superior drilled cuirassiers with the Uhlans to fix this. Also I'm not too keen on large superior cavalry units - you will only ignore one hit when charging no matter what so it does defeat the purpose a little. I'd make the uhlans large if possible.

Also your infantry division needs a minimum of 3 units. Exceptional DCs are not necessary. Drop the infantry DC to Competent and spend the 50 points on a line infantry unit.

Putting 2 x superior cavalry in a combined arms assault against infantry or cavalry will be quite deadly!

[CutEmUp]

Pretty sure you must have divisions of light cavalry only and/or cuirassiers only.

Nope, not in 1812.....it says "should", not "must"

I'd make the uhlans large if possible.

I'll toy with it and see what I get

Also your infantry division needs a minimum of 3 units. Exceptional DCs are not necessary. Drop the infantry DC to Competent and spend the 50 points on a line infantry unit.

It has three units.....I must've forgot to put the heavy artillery in there.....fixed

The thing I did miss was that I have to have a charismatic leader, so if I make Murat Charismatic, drop Friant to skilled, I can make the big cuirassiers Veterans and still fit.....didn't like the mix with the large Uhlans, but I could drop the Cuirassiers to small, get large Uhlans and keep Friant Exceptional

[KendallB]

Nope, not in 1812.....it says "should", not "must"

You show your FOW pedigree Let's just say that if I were a TO I'd be pulling you up on that!

[Blathergut]

How do you get 2 extra units for initiative?

[CutEmUp]

How do you get 2 extra units for initiative?

If you roll three higher than your opponent, you get 2 extra units of either infantry or cavalry that cost no more than 40 points

[CutEmUp]

Nope, not in 1812.....it says "should", not "must"

You show your FOW pedigree Let's just say that if I were a TO I'd be pulling you up on that!

Why? Because everywhere else it says must, and here it says should? You'd be an unpopular tournament organizer then, rules are rules unless there is an errata to change it, some guy isn't gonna spend hundreds of $ and months of painting to put an army on the table that the rule book says is fine, but you decide isn't.....should is much, much different than must and it's worded that way for a reason.

By the time of Borodino, a corps would be division sized anyway, especially cavalry.....the horses were dropping like flies

[viperofmilan]

Just what does "should" signify then? I think you give the authors far too much credit in thinking this subtle variation between "should" and "must" in terminology is anything more than the hasty and sloppy copy editing that afflict these otherwise excellent rules throughout.

[Blathergut]

How do you get 2 extra units for initiative?

If you roll three higher than your opponent, you get 2 extra units of either infantry or cavalry that cost no more than 40 points

No. You may have 1 or 2 units. They can't, in total, go beyond 40 points.

[CutEmUp]

How do you get 2 extra units for initiative?

If you roll three higher than your opponent, you get 2 extra units of either infantry or cavalry that cost no more than 40 points

No. You may have 1 or 2 units. They can't, in total, go beyond 40 points.

Re-read it, you're right

[CutEmUp]

Just what does "should" signify then? I think you give the authors far too much credit in thinking this subtle variation between "should" and "must" in terminology is anything more than the hasty and sloppy copy editing that afflict these otherwise excellent rules throughout.

Because they are making a distinction between the earlier part of the campaign and later on........should certainly does not signify must. Should is a suggestion, must is an order.....why wassn't it changed in the of erratas?

Autumn 1813 cavalry corps bullet point:
Light and Heavy cavalry "may" not be used in the same division. At least one division of each "must" be used.

1812 cavalry corps list
Dragoons, cuirassiers and light cavalry "should" each be in separate divisions

[Blathergut]

I think somewhere along the line I asked your same question about 'must' versus 'should.' Comments from other players, but I don't remember an answer from either author. I am sure that the intention is that 'should' means 'must,' but I can show you nothing that would definitively show that to you. Just about every French cavalry division has that restriction. If you are playing on your own, as long as you and your opponent agree, then go with what you think. If tournamenting, you'd best check with a list checker or such for clarification.

[CutEmUp]

Would be nice to get that clarification and nearly impossible to get a resonably historically based tourney list that looks and feels like the force I'm trying to emulate if should means must....but until there is an errata clarification, "should" is a suggestion and hard to say otherwise

And not every French cavalry corps is like that. 1813 spring, when they were short numbers, like at Borodino

[KendallB]

Why wasn't it picked up in the errata?

Probably because there's so much errata in the first place! Even after all of the different errata publications there are still many errors where points per base is incorrect, minima and maxima don't make sense, unit sizes and maxima don't equate and so on.

The errata is based on player feedback so the lists which are most commonly used are generally the ones that get looked at. I doubt many people would have used an 1812 French cavalry corps and if they did would have made assumptions (as we all have to).

Your list is still possible - you just have to move a couple of units around divisions. Have those two divisions working side-by-side or add a couple of brigade commanders and you can still do what you plan. Every TO has their own interpretation of what is written - that's why we have lawyers. Could you imagine a world without lawyers?

[BrettPT]

Could you imagine a world without lawyers?

I couldn't!

[CutEmUp]

Well, I say there is no debate over whether or not the word "should" is only a suggestion......the fact that somebody thinks it wasn't picked up in the official errata, nor on the errata thread doesn't mean it's cool for the TO to just make up his own errata after he's already laid out the rules

Having said that, you only get three division commanders, unless the infantry one doesn't count because it is brought from another list

[KeefM]

Not wanting to through a spanner into the works . . . I don't recall Nafziger's Orders of Battle for Borodino showing any such mixed cavalry Divisions.

[KeefM]

Also, it may be worth you checking out my French 'panzer division' list here: http://www.slitherine.co.uk/forum/viewt ... 98&t=47132

It needs a few tweaks now that the Neapolitan infantry doesn't sub for French conscripts . . . I'd drop the Swiss infantry unit and use the saved points for upgrading the conscripts to average - and the balance of the saved points for other upgrades. Which will leave you with, probably, 13 units and 26 ACV. My attendent commentary about usage remains vaild.

Four shock cavalry will get you a result quite quickly; one way or the other !

[CutEmUp]

Not wanting to through a spanner into the works . . . I don't recall Nafziger's Orders of Battle for Borodino showing any such mixed cavalry Divisions.

Look more closely at what I wrote......by the time of Borodino, those corps were little more than divisions

[CutEmUp]

I'd drop the Swiss infantry unit and use the saved points for upgrading the conscripts to average - and the balance of the saved points for

Aren't you required to take conscripts?