Rules changes

[Sarmaticus]

Anything that tended to reward deployment of artillery in cavalry country out on the wings would probably prove unwelcome to that extent.
Wouldn't captors who could control guns also have the optoon of removing them instead?
Probably unwanted fuss but if captured and controlled enemy guns redeemed attrition points for the captor, there would be another reason to try to hold them: might represent the fillip to morale.

[madaxeman]

In reality, this suggestion would mean that artillery would be almost always removed, except where the capturer thought they could use the guns usefully/successfully themselves with little or no risk of losing them.

As in, they would be always removed... Which I can see is a little dull...

[kevinj]

The problem is that the alternatives seem too cumbersome to me. Uncontrolled guns, despite the latest errata, are still a significant obstacle and there is still the problem that the mechanism for recapture doesn't fit with the rules. You need to contact them in a way that would result in close combat, which implies a charge. But you can't charge them because they're not an enemy BG... I know we normally fudge this but in turn it can result in a game of artillery tag.

The other option which was discussed, replacing them with blank bases until they were recrewed or recovered by being occupied solely by recapturing troops seems to have been rejected as too messy itself.

[steads]

"The other option which was discussed, replacing them with blank bases until they were recrewed or recovered by being occupied solely by recapturing troops seems to have been rejected as too messy itself."

Isn't this what happens in FoG:N now? It seems like an elegant solution to me, in that it stops them becoming road blocks but still allows the Lutzen style capture and use and/or recapture

Stephen

[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.

Hi Chaps,

I want to resurrect this thread, because I still feel it isn't resolved, and my CanCon comp is looming.

Can someone (pref a rules team member) comment on HOW you would resolve the situation I explained here?

I agree that I 'got it wrong' with swapping back and forth, but once each unit has had a go at the artillery Nd it becomes uncontrolled... then what? The P&S can't interpenetrate because enemy are on the far side. Mounted never can interpenetrate. The P&S would have to spend 3 turns to turn 90, move 3", turn 90, to get around the Artillery. It just seems so clunky.

I really feel that it needs a resolution.

Please, can something be done?

[nikgaukroger]

With some reluctance I'm more or less of the view now that artillery should just be removed when "captured" as the simplest way to cut through the tangle of controlled/uncontrolled.

[ravenflight]

With some reluctance I'm more or less of the view now that artillery should just be removed when "captured" as the simplest way to cut through the tangle of controlled/uncontrolled.

Hi Nik,

Err... so will there be something a little more 'official' than that?

[nikgaukroger]

With some reluctance I'm more or less of the view now that artillery should just be removed when "captured" as the simplest way to cut through the tangle of controlled/uncontrolled.

Hi Nik,

Err... so will there be something a little more 'official' than that?

Not unless it is an update/errata sheet I'm afraid.

[ravenflight]

Not unless it is an update/errata sheet I'm afraid.

I guess that's what I was asking for...