Suggested amendments

[bahdahbum]

They were not meant to be able to survive on their own or fight on their own and we don't read of them roaming the battlefield in their own right.

If you let them alone they will die quickly ! even in the game do not worry .

But why is everyone so obsessed with those units . there are usually no more than 2 or 3 units . They are costly and their role is to support cavalry . if someone uses them as muketeers ..a musketeer unit is cheaper and does the same work . If they all have attached guns they are even more costly . Are hey the superman units of the game . I do not think so .

I am beginning to think that some people just want to get rid of a unit they do not know how to handle .

Rules are rules, and all rules have a problem somewhere .

Were the commanded shot with regimental gun very efficient ? if yes, the rules are perhaps doing a good job because everyone seems to fear them . So the result is there even if not "logical" . Were the commanded shot with regimental gun not very efficient, not really better than without canons ..ok let's change the rules and no regimental gun .

Now people ...for the guys who have time and swedish and german sources ...go and study the battle of Lutzen and all other battles to compare the details .. It's the only way to fnd out

I might get some swedish information but you will have to wait a few more month, even a year or so !

[rbodleyscott]

It seems to me that the real issue with commanded shot is that the rules currently allow them to operate independently as if they were bodies of 500 men rather than the 50-200 that they actually represent. This allows them to deliver effective flank attacks and suchlike.

A fairly simple solution to this would be not to allow them to charge or intercept under any circumstances.

This allows them their role of assisting a defensive mounted wing, but prevents them being use very effectively in non-historical roles.

Expressed as an Erratum, this would be:

P.82 TROOPS WHO CANNOT CHARGE.

Should read: "Commanded shot, battle wagons and artillery cannot move in the impact phase. They cannot charge and cannot intercept."

It seems to me that this addresses the major issues without specifically knobbling the Swedes or altering army lists.

[ravenflight]

.A fairly simple solution to this would be not to allow them to charge or intercept under any circumstances.

This allows them their role of assisting a defensive mounted wing, but prevents them being use very effectively in non-historical roles.

I like this idea, but would they not be able to charge like many troop types while their target is fragmented be reasonable?

[rbodleyscott]

.A fairly simple solution to this would be not to allow them to charge or intercept under any circumstances.

This allows them their role of assisting a defensive mounted wing, but prevents them being use very effectively in non-historical roles.

I like this idea, but would they not be able to charge like many troop types while their target is fragmented be reasonable?

I think we could keep it simple. While there are recorded cases of 1500 men fleeing from 50, I suspect such cases were fairly rare. The comm shot still have the chance of causing a cohesion test by shooting. (Also over-represented, but probably safe to leave unchanged as it doesn't seem to be devastating in practice).

[Sarmaticus]

I think we could keep it simple. While there are recorded cases of 1500 men fleeing from 50, I suspect such cases were fairly rare. The comm shot still have the chance of causing a cohesion test by shooting. (Also over-represented, but probably safe to leave unchanged as it doesn't seem to be devastating in practice).

Elegant, common sense solution

[scuzi]

P.82 TROOPS WHO CANNOT CHARGE.

Should read: "Commanded shot, battle wagons and artillery cannot move in the impact phase. They cannot charge and cannot intercept."

Very nice I like it

[kevinj]

I like it as a neat solution that doesn't require list changes. Is it possible to say when we will get the next errata version?

[rbodleyscott]

The following rules changes will be in the V1.09 errata sheet, which will be issued this week.

P.82 Troops Who Cannot Charge

Section should read:

"Commanded shot, battle wagons and artillery cannot charge and cannot intercept."

Note: This is to correct an unhistorical anomaly which allowed commanded shot to be used as assault troops.

P.122 Shooting POAs

Delete the whole of the following sentence: “Exception: When shooting at the front edge of a battle group in Swedish brigade formation, the shooters’ POAs are determined by the armour class of the front rank pike base.”

Note: This rule “over-egged the pudding”, allowing Early Swedish armies to reliably outshoot equivalent non-Swedish troops at long range. This caused the optimal tactic for Swedish armies to be to shoot it out at long range until the enemy is forced to move into close range to try and even the balance, whereupon the Swedes charge. This was not historical.

Swedish brigades still have the following advantages:
1) 3 hits are required to cause a Cohesion Test when the BG is at full strength.
2) Swedish brigades can have a 3 base deep central file without being an easier target for artillery.
3) Swedish brigades lose 2 pike bases before losing any shot bases, thus maintaining their firepower longer than other BGs.

Sorry if Early Swedish players feel hard done by, but this change has been made after long consideration. The change allows Early Swedish armies to shoot at long range at equal effect to equivalent non-Swedish troops, and they remain a terror in close combat. It by no means renders the Early Swedes ineffective, as the popularity of Later Swedish armies testifies.

[kevinj]

Thank you Richard, that will definitely be in time for BHGS Challenge.

[rbodleyscott]

I am working my way through the long list of corrections needed as per the errata thread, but the list checker might like to know that the following is definitely going in:

Wars of Religion

P.61 Thirty Years War French

Building a Customised List

Second bullet should read:

• "If Regimental Guns are used, there must not be a greater number of Average BGs with Regimental Guns than Superior BGs with them, unless all Superior BGs used have Regimental Guns"

[rbodleyscott]

Hi just a thought

when artillery breaks / or is contacted when not supported it is just removed from the table I have played lots of games when we end of with lots of units trying to retake guns etc this causes lots of issues with mounted not being allowed to move etc as well as I just think it would simplify a lot of things without ruining anything, that said i love the rules anyway

cheers

Alasdair

Or "any unit can pass through captured or recaptured artillery, or occupy the same space as captured or recaptured artillery"

Most problems I've seen have come from not being able to pass through , making the artillery an unrealistic road block

Dave P

Agreed, but some thought needs to be given to the exact wording. We don't want troops to be able to teleport from one side of a captured artillery BG to the other, and we don't want troops on top of each other.

[Maniakes]

I put in the second part of the sentence to avoid teleporting - but I can see how it might cause aesthetic and practical problems. Guess that shows why I'm not a rules author!

[timmy1]

Richard

While it makes my favourite army worse I agree with the changes for Cmd Shot and Swedish Brigades from a historical perspective. Shame the Swedes will suffer the pain before the Salvo charge but there it is. A good set of changes. Thanks

[kevinj]

Agreed, but some thought needs to be given to the exact wording. We don't want troops to be able to teleport from one side of a captured artillery BG to the other, and we don't want troops on top of each other.

I think the simplest solution would be to allow the option of capturing guns to those able to re-crew them, otherwise remove them.

[rbodleyscott]

Aye, I think some version of this could be considered for the Errata sheet.

While you're at it can you remove the anomaly created by: "uncontrolled artillery does not count as enemy to either side"? (p 127)

I know we all know what it means (at least we think we do), but what it actually says is that uncontrolled artillery can't be recaptured. Because you can only charge enemy - if they aren't enemy they can't be charged and thus would be tricky to recapture...

Dave

I don't think it was our original intention that it was necessary to declare a charge on unsupported artillery to capture it. I think the intention was that moving into contact was sufficient.

However, the wording in the RAW is ambiguous and early on I gave a ruling that it was necessary to charge it. That ruling seems to have become standard practice.

Is there any reason why we should not disambiguate it so that troops can capture artillery by moving into contact with it either by charging or as a normal manoeuvre phase move, e.g.: "in a way that would result in close combat if it was a charge"?

Or is it better to keep it as requiring a charge, but correct as suggested by Dave above?

[rbodleyscott]

Agreed, but some thought needs to be given to the exact wording. We don't want troops to be able to teleport from one side of a captured artillery BG to the other, and we don't want troops on top of each other.

I think the simplest solution would be to allow the option of capturing guns to those able to re-crew them, otherwise remove them.

The problem with that is that it makes it better to capture guns with cavalry, if you know that the enemy is liable to recapture them, than with infantry. That doesn't really make much sense.

[kevinj]

The problem with that is that it makes it better to capture guns with cavalry, if you know that the enemy is liable to recapture them, than with infantry. That doesn't really make much sense

It might encourage people to deploy them away from the flanks...

[rbodleyscott]

Note that the erratum preventing Commanded shot from charging prevents them from capturing guns if we maintain the ruling that capturing guns requires a charge.

However, it might be reasonable for them to capture and man guns - changing the wording to clarify that a charge is not required would allow them to do so.

Probably not a big deal either way, but which would people prefer?

[timmy1]

Prefer the rules do not require a charge to capture guns.

[kevinj]

Not requiring a charge would eliminate the anomaly that Dave pointed out (i.e. as uncontrolled artillery are not classed as an enemy BG you can't charge them). Unforthunately, it doesn't prevent artillery tag where the guns change hands every turn, or the fact that uncontrolled artillery is more of an impediment to moving than an undefended field fortification.