Slitherine

My cavalry unit charges enemy cavalry. Fair fight, evenly matched, offset by one stand, but we each fight with all our stands in melee. They fight some number of rounds of combat, both remain intact.

Now my Pike phalanx charges into the front of the enemy cavalry cavalry unit, so it's now fighting half stands against each of my units. It doesn't break, and my pikes are still steady. Enemy unit gets to break off its full move backwards. My cavalry stand there dumbfounded, as they're unable to chase the enemy cavalry. Enemy cavalry on its turn turns 90 degrees and moves off, now out of reach of both my units. WTF?

Is this entirely correct by the rules? Why do my cavalry just stand there?

doctormm wrote:Is this entirely correct by the rules? Why do my cavalry just stand there?

Sounds right. There have been many circumstances where enemies of mind have hoped that they DO or DON'T disrupt my foot. In one case it was the worst possible thing to happen. I was disrupted but advantaged with overlaps, which meant that he couldn't break off where any sensible mounted person would have done so and I had more dice AND advantage .

The quick answer to 'why do my cavalry just stand there?' is 'because it's in the rules'.

Looking at it from another perspective though, whilst the enemy cavalry appear to have moved off in good order, you've won the fight. That part of the battlefield is now yours.

Ian

We took the view that rather than complicate matters with other restrictions:

1) if you felt your cavalry could beat them then dont charge with the pikes

2) If you are charging with the pikes the purspose os to break the enemy cav quickly or force them away.

So the move you have executed above is really a rescue my cavalry move. The outcome will usally be to push the enemy away.

Longer term a turn 90 and move is soemthing that is tricky usually if you have Cv as you will move 5 and catch them up. They can usully only escape easily if they have some soid support to protect them - in which case fair enough.

Also we have been very carefyl not to introduce rules that look ok bottom-up but damage the top-down feel. An obvious one would be to not allow a break off if fighting troops of same speed or faster. But while this might look OK in the above siutation, what it then ecnoourages is lots of mounted and foot coordination to try to trap enemy mounted - which is very unrealistic.

The situation you desribe above - with pikes helping a mounted fight - is not one we would want to be become the norm. Hence trated as a reduce move rather than a killer play. Course if yoiu roll bad enough pike dice you might fool them to stay in by going DISred - but then you might lose too!!

Si

shall wrote:The situation you desribe above - with pikes helping a mounted fight - is not one we would want to be become the norm. Hence trated as a reduce move rather than a killer play. Course if yoiu roll bad enough pike dice you might fool them to stay in by going DISred - but then you might lose too!!

Order the front rank of Pikes to trip over on impact thus automatically going disordered

Ian

Requires a CMT on a -3 though so difficult.

Si

shall wrote:Requires a CMT on a -3 though so difficult.

Si

No problem Si, though I've now added that rule in crayon to my rule book, so if it happens... I'll be saying 'Si said...'

Ian

DaiSho wrote:No problem Si, though I've now added that rule in crayon to my rule book, so if it happens... I'll be saying 'Si said...'

It's in the rules, so doesn't really need a note, but when it does I try to be diligent and note something like "Si T10263" which happens to be this topic number.

I am however noting it as a design explanation - - if you imagine it all in real time with Cav fighting in pulses and one side waiting for infantry support to come up, it seems reasonable to me.

I had a situation where a BG of Cav was loosing a fight to a Disrupted BG of my Pike that had a general fighting in the front rank.
In the JAP my opponent declared that I MUST attempt to bolster which coulod have allowed him to break off in a subsequent JAP. (I know the break offs would have occured first so no help in current phase).

I declared that bolstering was a CHOICE and that I chose no to do so.

After some arguing and in the interest of speeding up the game we diced off for whether or not I HAD to attempt. I lost this roll and made a subsequent roll. (Hoping not to bolster). I rolled a 4 and a 1. Now my Pike were superior so I again asked. "Do I have to re-roll the 1 or is that a choice?"

Another round of arguing ensued. (Remember we were trying to speed up the game.) I agreeded to re-roll the 1 and again rolled a 1 so did not bolster.

I later clarified on here with RBS that bolstering is a choice but have not found out if quality re-roll for superior and elite are a choice.

It realy felt like we were in a Bizzaro universe for a few moments. Me hoping to fail a roll and my opponent hoping that I passed.

Gino
SMAC

but have not found out if quality re-roll for superior and elite are a choice.

I believe it is optional.

Page 24.

Elite & Superior 'can' re-roll.
Poor troops 'must' re-roll.

Not many situations where you wouldn't want to but the exception always proves the rule!

Pete

yes it is

si

shall wrote:We took the view that rather than complicate matters with other restrictions:

1) if you felt your cavalry could beat them then dont charge with the pikes

2) If you are charging with the pikes the purspose os to break the enemy cav quickly or force them away.

So the move you have executed above is really a rescue my cavalry move. The outcome will usally be to push the enemy away.

Longer term a turn 90 and move is soemthing that is tricky usually if you have Cv as you will move 5 and catch them up. They can usully only escape easily if they have some soid support to protect them - in which case fair enough.

Also we have been very carefyl not to introduce rules that look ok bottom-up but damage the top-down feel. An obvious one would be to not allow a break off if fighting troops of same speed or faster. But while this might look OK in the above siutation, what it then ecnoourages is lots of mounted and foot coordination to try to trap enemy mounted - which is very unrealistic.

The situation you desribe above - with pikes helping a mounted fight - is not one we would want to be become the norm. Hence trated as a reduce move rather than a killer play. Course if yoiu roll bad enough pike dice you might fool them to stay in by going DISred - but then you might lose too!!

Si

If I had my pikes in a single column the enemy cavalry would not have been allowed to break off. I guess in that case they're not trying hard enough to "rescue" my cavalry. So in the interest of avoiding a complication you've chosen to introduce a a complete "WTF??" game mechanic.

Also, in order to chase the enemy cavalry after it moves off, I would have to move my own cavalry across in front of the pikes, both exposing their flank, and placing them square in the way of my pikes.

C'est la guerre.

doctormm wrote:So in the interest of avoiding a complication you've chosen to introduce a a complete "WTF??" game mechanic.

I'm sure this mechanic is unrelated to any Warhammer rules set.

Also, in order to chase the enemy cavalry after it moves off, I would have to move my own cavalry across in front of the pikes, both exposing their flank, and placing them square in the way of my pikes.

A good reason not to chase them off?

MikeK wrote:

doctormm wrote:So in the interest of avoiding a complication you've chosen to introduce a a complete "WTF??" game mechanic.

I'm sure this mechanic is unrelated to any Warhammer rules set.

Also, in order to chase the enemy cavalry after it moves off, I would have to move my own cavalry across in front of the pikes, both exposing their flank, and placing them square in the way of my pikes.

A good reason not to chase them off?

Right, so the choices are -
Leave the pikes standing around and risk my cavalry routing. Then deal with the effects of the morale check. Or maybe my cav win. In any case I'm at LEAST losing time.
Commit the pikes in a single column. Maybe takes an extra turn and costs me the cav unit (see above).
Commit the pikes two wide, pray I rout him in a single bound or let him get away.
Commit the pikes two wide, if I don't rout him I cross my cav in front my pike to try to catch him.

So great for adding "choices" for clever gaming, but going far too much towards "game" than "history" (IMHINHO).

If your pikes were in a one wide column the enemy still break off as half his opponents are steady foot, so stay 2 bases wide.
For him to be able to turn 90 degrees and move away your pike must have been on the end of your line, otherwise you would have another unit ready to charge from behind his flank when he moved sideways.
I would suggest you were just unlucky not to have broken or fragmented him after fighting him with twice the number of bases at either evens (with your cav) or + or maybe ++ (with the pikes). Being fragmented would make it hard for him to pass the complex move required for him to move off.
So just shrug it off as the fortunes of war.

awesum4 wrote: So just shrug it off as the fortunes of war.

Why?

Why should my cavalry stand around like statues? I fully understand the mechanics of mounted breaking off from foot. It's my mounted, in fine shape, just standing there and watching that's the problem (again, IMHINHO).

doctormm wrote: Why?

Why should my cavalry stand around like statues? I fully understand the mechanics of mounted breaking off from foot. It's my mounted, in fine shape, just standing there and watching that's the problem (again, IMHINHO).

Well, write a better, more easily memorable, more playable rule.

It would be nice 'cos I keep forgetting break offs because of years of rules without them.

Actually I think its all quite realistic ubnles you being influenced by hollywoodesque views of the world.

1) whether you are 1 wide or 2 wide a Pikes makes no difference at all - so no gaming to be done there - and you are better 2 wide so proper formation encouraged.
2) your cavalry can fight it out wind and chase the enemy to their hearts contents if they can do it
3) if rescued by freindly foot then they stand an re-organise themselves

The idea that foot joined in a large mounted melee as an aggressive concept is a bit of a myth I would suggest. Foot and Mounted largely fought apart from each other, not much in coordination. They tended to help each other out in two ways

1) Foot providing a safe place for mounted to fall back or helping to save them from trouble
2) Mounted helping foot by swarming flanks of enemy foot.

Besides I really don't understand why - if your cav are confident - you don't just ride off after the enemy cavamlry in your bound. They can't get facar away with a turn 90 and move after a break off. Maybe give us a diag of the wider bit of the game?

What would be very unrealistic IMHO would be having them stay around to get killed, or running off and you getting to seriously cuase them problems with your cavalry.

Si