Slitherine

We are currently working on Duty & Glory.

It seems that we need to add Bayonet to the Impact phase cell for Salvo and Impact Foot types with Bayonet. (Otherwise people will argue that enemy mounted get their POA against them in the Impact phase when they are detached from their Pike).

Does that cause any (double whammy) problems? I can't see any myself - the two effects seem to be mutually exclusive - the Salvo/Impact Foot being Offensive (giving POAs), and the Bayonet Defensive (cancelling enemy POAs).

I suggest phrasing it in the form "Salvo + Bayonet" or "Impact Foot + Bayonet" to make it clear that both count.

Can anyone see any problems with this?

[And yes we are aware of the fact that Detached Shot with Bayonet get the Bayonet as a freebie, but that applies to all armies with Bayonet in Pike & Shot BGs, not just those with Salvo or Impact Foot capability.

This makes detaching shot a better bet in such armies than in earlier armies, but it still isn't overwhelmingly worthwhile - pike & shot BGs fight well enough in disordering terrain - they don't lose any dice - they just have their movement slowed. But detached shot, even with bayonet, are significantly more vulnerable to mounted in the open than pike and shot, which makes detaching them something of a gamble. More often than not you will want to move them out of the terrain at some point, or they may get caught before they reach it.

It could be argued that this means that the points cost of Bayonet in all MF BGs is too high. This may be so (slightly) but, given their high firepower, we felt that it was important to ensure that Open tournaments would not be dominated by such armies from the very end of the period - so we should err on the side of overcosting, rather than risking undercosting them.]

No comments on this, one way or the other?

Richard,

having been away from gaming for a number of years and new to FOG:R I hesitated to reply, expecting that more seasoned forum members would have a view. However, in the absence of replies to date and having spent some time working through the POAs here's my assessment.

I can't see that combining salvo or impact foot with bayonet capablities provides any greater advantage than the existing combination of salvo or impact foot with protected shot or protected pike status. In deed, bayonet armed troops with these capablities will be weaker at impact against mounted than a protected pike/shot combination. If there is a double counting issue, its probably that protected pike already get their salvo or impact foot POAs for free whilst the shot, whether bayonet armed or not, need to pay the points. It also seems that it is possible within the rules, although I expect not using any of the current or future published lists, that pike could get impact foot and salvo POA's an the 4th rank POA. In conclsuion, I can't see that allowing the bayonet + other impact capablity is likely to overely distort game balance.

On the issue detached shot with bayonet, it is also worth considering not just the detached until, but also the parent unit. Effectively, one will transform two 1:5 pike:shot BGs into one 2:4 pike: shot BG and BG of 6 shot. The new combination will between the have a additional shooting dice at long range and one of the units will be faster in teraaign but at the cost of an impact POA v mounted and a -1 on CTs v mounted and HF in the open. I don't expect that this will be the optimal use of these BGs in many situations.

On the cost of bayonets, it might also be argued that the issue isn't whether they are too expensive, rather whether 1:5 pike:shot BGs are very good value. The one pike base protecting 2.5 times the number of shot than earlier formations, allowing an extra short range shooting dice for only 3 extra points with no loss of impact or melee capablity.

Andy

Richard

Having given it some thought I am in agreement that I can't see any problems with it.

I think it will make the late 17th C armies more popular. If it does make them l'army de jour then either just changing the points to read 'each base with bayonet' rather than 'each base with bayonet in BG with no pikemen', or adding a line 'each base with bayonet in BG will one or more pikemen' costs 1 point, will fix it.

Regards
Tim

Thanks

I assume unlike some other rules the plug bayonet will not affect the overall shooting ability of the shot ?

I agree that your right to err on the side of slightly over than under in costing stuff too.

panda2 wrote:
On the cost of bayonets, it might also be argued that the issue isn't whether they are too expensive, rather whether 1:5 pike:shot BGs are very good value. The one pike base protecting 2.5 times the number of shot than earlier formations, allowing an extra short range shooting dice for only 3 extra points with no loss of impact or melee capablity.

Andy

Thats so true that I'm building a Dutch/English army now.

david53 wrote:

panda2 wrote:
On the cost of bayonets, it might also be argued that the issue isn't whether they are too expensive, rather whether 1:5 pike:shot BGs are very good value. The one pike base protecting 2.5 times the number of shot than earlier formations, allowing an extra short range shooting dice for only 3 extra points with no loss of impact or melee capablity.

Andy

Thats so true that I'm building a Dutch/English army now.

OTOH the quality of the horse drops in most 1:5 armies (apart from the French, who have Musket*), and most are Unarmoured.

So some list-based swings and roundabouts are in operation.

rbodleyscott wrote:

david53 wrote:

panda2 wrote:
On the cost of bayonets, it might also be argued that the issue isn't whether they are too expensive, rather whether 1:5 pike:shot BGs are very good value. The one pike base protecting 2.5 times the number of shot than earlier formations, allowing an extra short range shooting dice for only 3 extra points with no loss of impact or melee capablity.

Andy

Thats so true that I'm building a Dutch/English army now.

OTOH the quality of the horse drops in most 1:5 armies (apart from the French, who have Musket*), and most are Unarmoured.

So some list-based swings and roundabouts are in operation.

I did notice the British was just average and the dutch cavalry poor it might change in the actual list, hope not as after a bit research it seems about right. Not sure why the Danish are Superior both foot and Cavalry. Is it somethinfg to do with their experience around that time fighting for different armies?

david53 wrote:I did notice the British was just average and the dutch cavalry poor it might change in the actual list, hope not as after a bit research it seems about right. Not sure why the Danish are Superior both foot and Cavalry. Is it somethinfg to do with their experience around that time fighting for different armies?

You would have to ask Nik about the reasoning. There are no longer any Superior Danish cavalry in the Anglo-Dutch list. In their own list the Danish get 1 BG of Superior horse, but less Superior foot than the Anglo-Dutch.

Guess it is based on their performance against their historical opponents. I assume the French still get superior mounted in the Ausburg period ?

Scrumpy wrote:Guess it is based on their performance against their historical opponents.

Oddly enough

I assume the French still get superior mounted in the Ausburg period ?

Yup.

rbodleyscott wrote:

david53 wrote:I did notice the British was just average and the dutch cavalry poor it might change in the actual list, hope not as after a bit research it seems about right. Not sure why the Danish are Superior both foot and Cavalry. Is it somethinfg to do with their experience around that time fighting for different armies?

You would have to ask Nik about the reasoning. There are no longer any Superior Danish cavalry in the Anglo-Dutch list. In their own list the Danish get 1 BG of Superior horse, but less Superior foot than the Anglo-Dutch.

That being the case they must be one of the few armies without any superior mounted?

david53 wrote:That being the case they must be one of the few armies without any superior mounted?

Nope

rbodleyscott wrote:

david53 wrote:That being the case they must be one of the few armies without any superior mounted?

Nope

Theres more? what I ment in that war the french have loads of Superior if I remember correctly and they were the historical foe.

david53 wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote:

david53 wrote:That being the case they must be one of the few armies without any superior mounted?

Nope

Theres more? what I ment in that war the french have loads of Superior if I remember correctly and they were the historical foe.

You will have to wait and see.

Oh dear. Does this mean the late Swedes are going to be salvo foot also?

footslogger wrote:Oh dear. Does this mean the late Swedes are going to be salvo foot also?

After a certain date yes, before that they are Musket.

rbodleyscott wrote:

footslogger wrote:Oh dear. Does this mean the late Swedes are going to be salvo foot also?

After a certain date yes, before that they are Musket.

OK. I have a prediction. You'll never see Swedes with muskets. No one takes late Swedes to shoot things up. I might even generalize that to no one ever takes Swedes of any period to shoot things up.

Footslogger, I think you might find that will not be entirely the case.