Irregular Light Cavaalry, inercept charging

[KendallB]

One thing I am curious about though is why only Infantry Skirmishers get the -POA for being shot at. I would assume a light infantry unit skirmishing would would have more bodies out there then a unit of irregular cavalry milling about but the cav get shot at with normal hit numbers with less targets. Or so I would assume anyway.

In playtesting we would run skirmishing cavalry right up to an artillery unit. Needed a six to hit and could not be charged. Pretty much took the artillery unit out of the game. Very cheesy.

[pugsville]

The Rules say in two spots Irregular Cavalry are treated as skirmishers no matter what formation they are in. That quite clearly implies they can be in other formations. Otherwise the rules would just say they are always in skirmish formation rather than treated as no matter what formation they are in, and the prohibition in the intercept charging clearly says units not in tactical, not skirmishers. I would strong argue the rules as written , you can intercept charge with irregular light cavalry and the assertion they most always be in skirmish formation is a making an assumption on an inference.

Irregular cavalry intercept charging are likely to lose badly unless it is in the flank (less dice, -POA, enemy bound resolution wins ties) and it would need a CMT on 1 die.

I fail to see why cossacks could not intercept charge units in the flank. Whats the rationale? Charging/intercept charging is a mechanism imposed by game mechanics, turns, phases. (yes I know intercept charges have more conditions, no terrain, no interpretations) Cossacks will happily charge someone in the flank but only in their turn?

[Blathergut]

Plus, only Infantry Skirmishers get the -POA.

[KeefM]

Skirmishers is not a type of Tactical formation unlike Supported which is clearly stated to be so. That isn't an inference.

[Blathergut]

http://slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=188&t=42553

Terry's reply would suggest that they can be in some formation other than 'skirmish' formation.

[deadtorius]

Ah found it. you were right.

Never looked at the book for Eastern armies, never had any interest in them so other than the army list in the rule book never saw how they might be affected. Guess their cav will be trying to get in on the flanks and leave the infantry to shoot it out with the enemy. Might not fare too well in points battle but might do OK against historical opponents who might have less cav of their own so less chance to drive off the irregular cav. You still cant charge them with infantry so they do have a chance to hold up an enemy advance.

[Blathergut]

http://slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=188&t=41329

Also this. (Terry post at bottom.)

[deadtorius]

don't think either Terry post seems to clear it up.
Cav can support other cav, there is no condition on them not being skirmishers, that only applies to infantry. So irregular light cav can still support other cav even though they are skirmishers. Looks like even a unit of light cav in single line can support another cavalry unit.

[Blathergut]

http://slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=188&t=33326

And this.

[deadtorius]

looks like we need Terry or some other authority to wade in with a definite yes or no answer to this one. None of those posts addresses the skirmish formation vs tactical formation question. I do know that out there somewhere there is a post that Terry put up regarding Infantry Skirmishers who were placed two deep were still skirmishing even though their bases were placed the same as a unit in tactical would be, since skirmish and tactical are two different formations.

[deadtorius]

snazzy new Nashorn for me

If nothing else at least this debate has prompted a lot of interest and response on the forums.

[KendallB]

I reiterate:

There is a skirmish formation. This can only be used by light cavalry or light infantry (pg 16). Pg 85 says that light infantry depicted solely as "Skirmisher" bases are entirely in Skirmish "order" (presumably this means "formation"). Light infantry can thus be in any of the permissible formations on pg 16.

Cavalry formations are covered on pg 86 and mention Tactical, self-supported Tactical, March Column and Extended Line which is "most often used by skirmishing light or irregular cavalry". This means that the depiction for any skirmishing cavalry is as an Extended Line.

The definition of "Skirmishers" on pg 107 are any unit of light infantry in Skirmish formation OR units of regular light cavalry in Extended Line OR units of irregular light cavalry with no description of essential formation.

If an irregular light cavalry unit is fielded in any manner it is a skirmisher NOT NECESSARILY in "skirmish formation".

[Blathergut]

Infantry skirmishers (light infantry in skirmish formation) can also be in tactical or deep tactical or extended line.

LC cannot be in skirmish formation but count as skirmishers when in extended line.

Irregular LC always count as skirmishers but may be in tactical or extended line. When in tactical, they do have certain abilities unavailable to infantry skirmishers.

[Blathergut]

A different word for skirmish formation would have made understanding that particular part of the rules a bit easier, but what that word might be I have no clue. The confusion is in that a unit can be in two different formations at one time.

[KeefM]

That really isn't what is directly stated on either page 16, nor in the definitions on pages 106 and 107. The ONLY formation that is said to also be a type of Tactical formation is Supported. This part is very clear. Skirmisher is NOT a type of Tactical formation (otherwise why clarify for Supported only ?).

Anyhows, it seems like Terry needs to add the final denouement to this thread.

[viperofmilan]

That really isn't what is directly stated on either page 16, nor in the definitions on pages 106 and 107. The ONLY formation that is said to also be a type of Tactical formation is Supported. This part is very clear. Skirmisher is NOT a type of Tactical formation (otherwise why clarify for Supported only ?).

Anyhows, it seems like Terry needs to add the final denouement to this thread.

I think it is helpful to think of "skirmisher" as a state of being rather than as a proper formation. Eliminates the vexing issues addressed in this thread. Skirmishers are skirmishers no matter in what "formation" the unit bases might happen to be arranged - tactical, extended line, march column.

Kevin

[KendallB]

Thank you Kevin!!

[Blathergut]

I don't think I meant skirmish formation was a type of tactical formation. The problem in part is page 16 says a unit must be in one of the listed formations but a unit can actually be in two formations at once. If skirmish had used a word other than formation, things might have been a bit clearer.

[KeefM]

So, very much not resolved then !

Terry's comment in one of the linked threads was to the effect that the best use for Irregular LC was pretty much just as supporting units. That hardly implies them being in Tactical, or actually doing much fighting for that matter.

And the stuff on page 16 and in the definitions is very clear in respect to Formations. So while I have every sympathy, and some clear benefits for my own cossacks to gain, with this interpretation of Skirmishers, it simply is not what the rules say.

Terry, please resolve this in words of one syllable please. Are Irregular LC ever in any other formation than Skirmishers ? Thus, can they intercept charge or not?

[KendallB]

The question should be "are irregular light cavalry always considered to be in skirmish formation". Then a simple yes/no answer will suffice.

As I have tried to make clear, I believe that skirmishers and skirmish formation to be two separate things.