Keils - Official Discussion Thread

[rbodleyscott]

I can't get my head round all the discussion on keils in the errata thread.

If anybody has points to make that they still consider valid, please make them in this thread. (Feel free to cut and paste your post from the other thread if you think it is still valid. The best way to do this without losing the formatting is to hit the Edit button before copying your post.)

[kevinj]

I think this is still relevant:

The modification from the last errata to prevent concertina behaviour could do with some tightening. For example, if due to a base loss in the opponent's turn my (now) 10 base BG is 3-3-3-1, am I allowed to charge in my Impact phase, or must I resolve my formation in my next manouvre phase? Personally, I'd like this to be rectified at the time of the base loss in the same way that an Early Tercio mutates into a later one, but with the same restrictions regarding restricted areas.

[daveallen]

It makes sense for Keils not in contact with enemy to reform automatically when base losses from shooting knock them out of the permitted formation. Since Keils ignore restricted areas that shouldn't be a problem.

A question would be whether this happens immediately in the shooting phase or in the usual way for reforming.

Also, in my view, it wouldn't happen if the Keil was in combat or pursuing as these are chaotic occasions when reforming might not be feasible.

Dave Allen

[grahambriggs]

oops duplicate

[grahambriggs]

There's the issue of whether troops in Kiel have to follow the general formation rules. People seem very confused over this and seem to want the pikes to follow the genreal formation rules and the (say) heavy weapon guys not. But that's not what the RAW say at all. If they say anything it's that special formations don't follow the general rules.

If they do follow the general formation rules:

A GBG or 16 would have to have at least 2 files of 4 (Kiel definition). So they could be a 4-4-4-4, a 5-5-6, or a 8-8. They couldn't be a 1 wide 16 deep column (not a Kiel). They could not be more than 4 bases wide as, e.g., a 4-4-3-3-2 is a problem for the general formation rules as only the rear rank can vary.

There is a problem with this though in that the RAW say each troop type must be in a block. In a Swiss Kiel, for example, the troop type is determined foot, some of which have heavy weapons capability. So you couldn't pop out a single HW base to give that nice ++ overlap, which is I think the intention.

If they don't:

Then as long as they have two files of 4, they can be in any daft formation you like, e.g. 4-2-2-2-2-4 might be handy, though 4-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-4 would cover most width. So they are sort of half concertina.


Perhaps what is needed is that they follow the special rules for Kiels and where they have bases with different capabilities, the main close combat capability type (e.g. the pike bases) must follow the general rules, but troop types with other capabilities need not. Hence a GBG of 10 pike, 2 swordsmen and 4 arquebus could be three files of 4 pike/sword, with 2 files of 2 shot on either flank.

[hood_mick]

The expanding of single bases of HWs is covered in the diagram at the top of page 98.

[grahambriggs]

The expanding of single bases of HWs is covered in the diagram at the top of page 98.

It is. So you could read the diagram and say to your opponent "look, hear's a Kiel which has 2 files at least 4 deep of determined foot and other determined foot bases have been allowed to pop out into overlap which is a clear breach of the normal formation rules. So normal formation rules can't apply to Kiel". Which, IMHO, means the RAW say Kiel ignores normal formation rules. But deploy a Swiss Kiel 4-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-4 in a competition and I suspect it'll be ruled illegal - it certainly looks daft.

Having played with my Swiss against RBS, I think he intended the Swiss to be able to pop out the heavy weapons troops, but not to completely ignore the normal formation rules. So the errata probably need to clear that up.

[grahambriggs]

There's a bit of an oddity caused by the current errata: "If as a result of base losses it ceases to be a keil, but still has at least eight heavy foot or determined foot bases, it must attempt to reform as a keil as soon as it is able."

So, say my 16 base Kiel has come through some fire and arrives in charge reach of the enemy pike and shot having lost two bases and so in a 3-4-4-3. The enemy fire again and I lose another base to become 3-3-4-3. I'm now not a Kiel.

Can I declare a charge? Historically, I think the Swiss would. And I'd probably like to 'cos I'm nomally on a schedule. But if I do, then I usually won't be able to reform in the movement phase.

You could argue that you can't declare a charge, because the only way to "reform as a Kiel as soon as possible" is to wait until the movement phase to reform. In the interim, the enemy could put it in a 2MU pin zone. So you'll never be able to contract to form a Keil, and would just sit there and get shot to pieces. Or you could argue "it's the impact phase. I can't reform in the impact phase. So I can charge now"

It depends what effect you want, but I can't see the Swiss waiting to dress their lines before getting stuck in. If you want that add something like "this does not affect any ability to charge in the impact phase"

I'm not really sure you even need this part of the errata. If the Keil deploys, say, 4-4-4-4 and gets three bases shot off does it really matter if the Swiss player wants to lose his advantage (especially when the contract while advancing move doesn't slow you down)

[rbodleyscott]

There's a bit of an oddity caused by the current errata: "If as a result of base losses it ceases to be a keil, but still has at least eight heavy foot or determined foot bases, it must attempt to reform as a keil as soon as it is able."

So, say my 16 base Kiel has come through some fire and arrives in charge reach of the enemy pike and shot having lost two bases and so in a 3-4-4-3. The enemy fire again and I lose another base to become 3-3-4-3. I'm now not a Kiel.

Can I declare a charge? Historically, I think the Swiss would. And I'd probably like to 'cos I'm nomally on a schedule. But if I do, then I usually won't be able to reform in the movement phase.

You could argue that you can't declare a charge, because the only way to "reform as a Kiel as soon as possible" is to wait until the movement phase to reform. In the interim, the enemy could put it in a 2MU pin zone. So you'll never be able to contract to form a Keil, and would just sit there and get shot to pieces. Or you could argue "it's the impact phase. I can't reform in the impact phase. So I can charge now"

Of course they can charge. The erratum says they must reform as soon as able, it doesn't say they cannot do anything in the meantime.

[hood_mick]

But entering combat in the Impact phase, instead of waiting until the Maneuver phase and becoming a Keil again is not as soon as able. It could add turns.

[rbodleyscott]

But entering combat in the Impact phase, instead of waiting until the Maneuver phase and becoming a Keil again is not as soon as able. It could add turns.

Once again, the rule does not say they have to wait until they reform before they do anything. Even if you chose to see it as Mick does above (which I find a rather bizarre interpretation) , Reforming Is not prevented by having charged in the impact phase - in fact it is explicitly permitted. So reforming will occur at the same time whether they charge or not.

[hood_mick]

I didn't say reform. Reforming implies the battlegroup that can be a Keil and is not, is in an illegal formation and then cannot make any voluntary move.

[rbodleyscott]

I didn't say reform. Reforming implies the battlegroup that can be a Keil and is not, is in an illegal formation and then cannot make any voluntary move.

Ah right, I see. The erratum does then need to be amended to allow them to charge (without an argument).

[madaxeman]

The expanding of single bases of HWs is covered in the diagram at the top of page 98.

Having a diagram which illustrates something that isn't covered in the text, and is therefore used to infer an exception to the accompanying text is possibly not the best way to create clariy in the rules....

[Vespasian28]

I posted this query in another thread and I think it got lost in the discussion so I am none the wiser so here goes again.

We had a situation this weekend when a keil in melee, three wide, took losses and ended up with files of four,three,one. Does it contract the one to form another file four deep? We decided not as you are supposed to leave a base in contact with each enemy BG. But could that have been done if that one base was fighting the same BG? In other words does maintaining a keil overide the usual rules about removing losses?

[daveallen]

We had a situation this weekend when a keil in melee, three wide, took losses and ended up with files of four,three,one. Does it contract the one to form another file four deep? We decided not as you are supposed to leave a base in contact with each enemy BG. But could that have been done if that one base was fighting the same BG? In other words does maintaining a keil overide the usual rules about removing losses?

To answer the final question first: No, maintaining keil formation is something you have to "attempt" as soon as it is "possible," ie permitted in the rules. *

The expectation was that losses in combat would eventually result in a loss of the keil formation (and its advantages). This could be rectified after the combat, but I don't think there's anything in the rules that allows you to withdraw a base in contact and put it in another file. You could, of course, remove the single offending base as a casualty, but I believe the rules require it to be replaced from another file.

* The intent of writing the rule in this way was to give the player some tactical flexibility:

It does not say you have to reform keil before you do anything else. So you could charge with it if that was more important than regaining formation.

Nor does it say that you must reform keil. For instance, if the bg is facing enemy 2.5 mu's away and fails its CMT it could still move forward to 'pin' said enemy. It made the "attempt" to reduce frontage going forward less than 3 mu's (the CMT). Otherwise, it would be forced to turn 90° to regain keil.

Interestingly, if the bg itself had been pinned in a restricted area it would not have been able to reform keil. Hence the option to charge is sometimes more sensible than waiting to reform.

Dave

[nikgaukroger]

Which issues with keils still need clarification/errata?

What formations it should be able to legally deploy in looks like one still.

[daveallen]

Which issues with keils still need clarification/errata?

What formations it should be able to legally deploy in looks like one still.

Eh? I'd have thought keil formation, am I missing something?

The question of what happens when casualties cause a bg to no longer be in keil formation Is still causing problems. I thought the requirement only to attempt to form keil when possible allowed sufficient flexibility, but it seems others take this to mean a bg can't do anything until it has reverted to keil.

Perhaps keil(able) bg's should just reform at the start of the manoeuvre phase if not in close combat.

Dave

[daveallen]

Just a question that's dropped into my slightly fuddled Sunday night brain:

If a keil has turned two bases to face an impact on that side does the file they were originally part of still count as four deep?

Dave

[nikgaukroger]

Which issues with keils still need clarification/errata?

What formations it should be able to legally deploy in looks like one still.

Eh? I'd have thought keil formation, am I missing something?

I was thinking about the questions Graham posed above.


{quote]The question of what happens when casualties cause a bg to no longer be in keil formation Is still causing problems. I thought the requirement only to attempt to form keil when possible allowed sufficient flexibility, but it seems others take this to mean a bg can't do anything until it has reverted to keil.

[/quote]


Richard has commented that it should be able to charge IIRC, but this may need to be made explicit?