Page 1 of 1
Later Tercio casualties
Posted: Thu May 19, 2011 4:23 am
by hazelbark
If a 9 base Later Tercio has lost 3 bases it is now a 4 pike and 2 shot unit.
Does it still count as a Later Tercio for flank and support purposes? In reading the rules i could find nothing saying it doesn't stay an LT.
Posted: Thu May 19, 2011 6:13 am
by nikgaukroger
IIRC it always remains a tercio.
Posted: Thu May 19, 2011 7:40 am
by rbodleyscott
nikgaukroger wrote:IIRC it always remains a tercio.
Yup. We decided not to complicate the rules by doing otherwise.
Posted: Thu May 19, 2011 10:17 am
by Scrumpy
Do Tercios count as self-supporting even if fragged ?
Posted: Thu May 19, 2011 10:51 am
by rbodleyscott
Scrumpy wrote:Do Tercios count as self-supporting even if fragged ?
It would appear so.
Posted: Thu May 19, 2011 5:16 pm
by hazelbark
Its what I figured, but was found by omission, not clearly stated.
Posted: Thu May 19, 2011 6:23 pm
by Scrumpy
So in theory a LT that is routing can count as self-supporting if it has no enemy within range of its own rear edge to stop the support ?
Posted: Thu May 19, 2011 7:16 pm
by rbodleyscott
hazelbark wrote:Its what I figured, but was found by omission, not clearly stated.
The general rule is - if it isn't in the rules, it isn't in the rules.
Posted: Thu May 19, 2011 7:17 pm
by rbodleyscott
Scrumpy wrote:So in theory a LT that is routing can count as self-supporting if it has no enemy within range of its own rear edge to stop the support ?
Sad, but true. We probably would have put in an exception for this if we had thought of it, but think how much simpler the rules are for not having the exception.
I don't think I will lose any sleep over this one. They have to be at least 12 MUs away from their defeaters before they can count it.
"Good enough for government work" as the saying goes.
Posted: Fri May 20, 2011 2:50 pm
by hazelbark
rbodleyscott wrote:hazelbark wrote:Its what I figured, but was found by omission, not clearly stated.
The general rule is - if it isn't in the rules, it isn't in the rules.
That's what I thought. But it was suggested elsewhere I might be wrong.
Posted: Sat May 21, 2011 10:05 am
by timmy1
Dan, I did not know dave was on this forum...
Posted: Sat May 21, 2011 2:58 pm
by shadowdragon
Posted: Sun May 22, 2011 3:27 am
by hazelbark
timmy1 wrote:Dan, I did not know dave was on this forum...
Dave's avoided me since he was so catastrophically defeated.
Posted: Mon May 23, 2011 4:51 pm
by viperofmilan
If I remember my POAs correctly, artillery gets a + for shooting at tercios. Since LTs continue to be treated as tercios, would artillery firing on a reduced LT still get the + shooting POA? I assume it would given the tenor of this thread.
Kevin
Posted: Mon May 23, 2011 5:36 pm
by nikgaukroger
They sure do
Posted: Tue May 24, 2011 7:41 am
by rbodleyscott
Think of it as the later tercio attempting to maintain a deeper formation than normal pike and shot units by bunching up after casualties.
(This may or may not be what actually happened, but it at least gives a rationale for the LT retaining its LT properties after losses).
Posted: Tue May 24, 2011 6:34 pm
by hazelbark
rbodleyscott wrote:Think of it as the later tercio attempting to maintain a deeper formation than normal pike and shot units by bunching up after casualties.
(This may or may not be what actually happened, but it at least gives a rationale for the LT retaining its LT properties after losses).
A small price to pay for not having flanks and getting self support.
Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2011 2:28 pm
by viperofmilan
Are tercios and kiels exempt then from the requirment that supporting BGs must be steady? I would have thought they must be steady in order to self-support.
Kevin
Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2011 3:49 pm
by rbodleyscott
viperofmilan wrote:Are tercios and kiels exempt then from the requirment that supporting BGs must be steady?
That rule only applies to support by other BGs. So yes, they are exempt.
