Charging Out of Command ++ ??

[KitG]

As Third Place Getter - or second loser, I should like to point out the following:

(a) - I was robbed (yet again)
(b) - The 1815 British Waterloo List is just rubbish and in its current state should never even win a game.
(c) - The draw was clearly rigged as I did not get to play either Keith (1st) Mike (2nd) or Steve (4th).
(d) - A combination of factors (a) through (c) inspired me to rob Steve of a placing, which I do not regret given his odd views on how artillery attachments should be modelled.

My slightly more serious observations of the rules at this tournament were:

(a) Charges when out of command – a real sea of confusion – chart suggests one thing, text suggests another and Terry has said a third thing on the forum. Even the text is not particularly helpful as it does not clearly state what should be the position as I see it, which is: A unit out of command that wants to charge has to pass a Complex Move Test UNLESS led by either a Brigade Commander or a Corp Commander (unless impetuous). If led by a BC the unit operates as if it was being commanded by a Divisional Commander (page 15(?) of Rule Book). If led by CC then the CC must use a Command Point to accompany the unit on the charge. If the unit is NOT led by a BC or CC then a CP must be spent by that units' Divisional Commander AND the unit must take a CMT. If the charge move the out of command unit wishes to make is going to be complex (eg – with a spent unit of Light Cavalry) then 2 CPs will need to allocated in order to TAKE the CMT to charge. Explanation – I see no reason why the CC can’t grab one of his units and go charging with it, if he really wants to – so why should a CMT be necessary for this if that unit is out of divisional command? If the unit concerned has to take a CMT when being led by their CC, why shouldn’t the same apply if they are led by a BC? In fact the text on page 28 suggests that this clumsy approach IS what the rule requires...Therefore remove it entirely and make things simple – the CC is still going to have to expend a CP in order to charge with the out of command unit anyway, whereas the BC will not. This might be an issue with an exceptional CC who has plenty of CPs, but given that his command distance has just been halved and probably reduced to 0 if a charge is involved (because he will soon be in combat) – maybe this is not a terrible thing? But either way, surely we can come up with something that is better than the current arrangement?

(b) In my game against Richard he pointed out that the text states that firing with a unit that assaulted may only be done if that unit has been stopped by defensive fire. I have to say that my reading of the text tends to suggest that he is right! The only reference to assaulting units firing in the firing phase comes with comments like ‘if the assaulting unit is halted by defensive fire it may fire in the firing phase’ and such like. But such a mechanism will be stupid as it will mean that shot up units get to shoot people, but perfectly fine units won’t – the example in our game was when my Scots Greys (who generally had a rather mixed tournament) charged a line of Light Cavalry (who evaded) and wound up within 2 inches of a small square of infantry (3+ to hit!) Richard said I couldn’t fire in the firing phase. Rather than annoy Brett (who was being asked lots of questions anyway) I let it go and did not shoot the Greys (who ended up surrounded and were generally blown to bits, although it took Richard about three turns to finally manage this).

(c) In my game against Richard he pointed out that the glossary definition of advance involves reference to where the front edge of your unit is. This had implications for the reforming/turn to face move if you receive a ‘no advance’ result in the firing phase . As the glossary definition of advance is moving any part of the front edge of a unit towards and enemy unit, I had to agree with him that turning to face involved moving the front edge of a base of the unit TOWARDS an enemy unit whilst the base at the other corner went away from the enemy. So although I was not coming any closer to the enemy unit, I was moving the front edge of a base towards an enemy unit and henceforth I was advancing in terms of the glossary definition. This is, off course, completely at odds with the page 39 rule book description (which goes into rather exhaustive detail) of how you reform/turn to face and enemy unit. We solved this by allowing the unit to simply turn on its central point – which had the effect of swinging AWAY from the enemy unit concerned and OUT OF 2 MU – something the text ABSOLUTELY FORBIDS – and was not to my advantage since it was a large Hanoverian unit that was steady (only just having taken two hits in the firing phase) and could, next firing phase, have fired a full volley at a disordered small Dutch line infantry regiment and I had a small SUPERIOR VETERAN Highlander Unit able to fire a medium range with an additional 4 dice…Yes, yes, this was the only game where the Highlanders managed to do anything without dying and even then they were robbed by this somewhat interesting interpretation of what ‘no advance’ can mean, so you can all have a good laugh about that as well. Once again I did not want to bother you, Brett.

(d) In my game against Richard the multiple CMT issue arose (again) – Richard wished to charge the Highlanders with both a Heavy Cav. Shock unit and an infantry unit (that was also disordered) – I pointed out that TWO CMTs would be necessary – one for a combined arms assault and one for being a disordered unit assaulting a steady unit. Richard said no, it’s just one test for both and that the rule book does not say that you have to take cumulative or consecutive CMTs for all of the factors listed. Brett, you told him that the tests were cumulative and taken consecutively. He failed to pass the second test. At this point I would also say that I could not actually find anything in the rule book that supports the idea that you take any CMTs cumulatively and consecutively, aside from the assault mechanism, whereby you may have to take a CMT to charge and then take a further CMT if you are hit by defensive fire, or the movement mechanism where you can take a CMT to undertake a second SIMPLE move, but not a complex one – thereby showing that the rule writer wishes to differentiate between the numerous categories for which a CMT is needed. But some PROMINENT statement about this should appear in the text in order to avoid this question as it isn't the first time I've heard it asked.

[Blathergut]

(b) In my game against Richard he pointed out that the text states that firing with a unit that assaulted may only be done if that unit has been stopped by defensive fire. I have to say that my reading of the text tends to suggest that he is right! The only reference to assaulting units firing in the firing phase comes with comments like ‘if the assaulting unit is halted by defensive fire it may fire in the firing phase’ and such like. But such a mechanism will be stupid as it will mean that shot up units get to shoot people, but perfectly fine units won’t – the example in our game was when my Scots Greys (who generally had a rather mixed tournament) charged a line of Light Cavalry (who evaded) and wound up within 2 inches of a small square of infantry (3+ to hit!) Richard said I couldn’t fire in the firing phase. Rather than annoy Brett (who was being asked lots of questions anyway) I let it go and did not shoot the Greys (who ended up surrounded and were generally blown to bits, although it took Richard about three turns to finally manage this).

I see no reason why your unit (I'm assuming cavalry with artillery attachment) cannot fire. Page 48 is clear:

-must be inf. or arty. or arty. attachment
-must have enemy within range
-must not have changed formation or retired as a reaction to an assault.

The next bit is just clarifying that a unit halted can indeed shoot (since all of the above apply).

[Blathergut]

(c) In my game against Richard he pointed out that the glossary definition of advance involves reference to where the front edge of your unit is. This had implications for the reforming/turn to face move if you receive a ‘no advance’ result in the firing phase . As the glossary definition of advance is moving any part of the front edge of a unit towards and enemy unit, I had to agree with him that turning to face involved moving the front edge of a base of the unit TOWARDS an enemy unit whilst the base at the other corner went away from the enemy. So although I was not coming any closer to the enemy unit, I was moving the front edge of a base towards an enemy unit and henceforth I was advancing in terms of the glossary definition. This is, off course, completely at odds with the page 39 rule book description (which goes into rather exhaustive detail) of how you reform/turn to face and enemy unit. We solved this by allowing the unit to simply turn on its central point – which had the effect of swinging AWAY from the enemy unit concerned and OUT OF 2 MU – something the text ABSOLUTELY FORBIDS – and was not to my advantage since it was a large Hanoverian unit that was steady (only just having taken two hits in the firing phase) and could, next firing phase, have fired a full volley at a disordered small Dutch line infantry regiment and I had a small SUPERIOR VETERAN Highlander Unit able to fire a medium range with an additional 4 dice…Yes, yes, this was the only game where the Highlanders managed to do anything without dying and even then they were robbed by this somewhat interesting interpretation of what ‘no advance’ can mean, so you can all have a good laugh about that as well. Once again I did not want to bother you, Brett.

This is silly. By reforming you have a new front edge. As long as this is not closer to enemy you are fine.

[Blathergut]

(d) In my game against Richard the multiple CMT issue arose (again) – Richard wished to charge the Highlanders with both a Heavy Cav. Shock unit and an infantry unit (that was also disordered) – I pointed out that TWO CMTs would be necessary – one for a combined arms assault and one for being a disordered unit assaulting a steady unit. Richard said no, it’s just one test for both and that the rule book does not say that you have to take cumulative or consecutive CMTs for all of the factors listed. Brett, you told him that the tests were cumulative and taken consecutively. He failed to pass the second test. At this point I would also say that I could not actually find anything in the rule book that supports the idea that you take any CMTs cumulatively and consecutively, aside from the assault mechanism, whereby you may have to take a CMT to charge and then take a further CMT if you are hit by defensive fire, or the movement mechanism where you can take a CMT to undertake a second SIMPLE move, but not a complex one – thereby showing that the rule writer wishes to differentiate between the numerous categories for which a CMT is needed. But some PROMINENT statement about this should appear in the text in order to avoid this question as it isn't the first time I've heard it asked.

Page 45, first paragraph, refers to "multiple CMTs." Further down, next paragraph, refers to "additional CMTs." You test for each case. A halted, disordered inf. unit wishing to charge along with cavalry would need three CMTs passed.

[Blathergut]

(a) Charges when out of command – a real sea of confusion – chart suggests one thing, text suggests another and Terry has said a third thing on the forum. Even the text is not particularly helpful as it does not clearly state what should be the p" osition as I see it, which is: A unit out of command that wants to charge has to pass a Complex Move Test UNLESS led by either a Brigade Commander or a Corp Commander (unless impetuous). If led by a BC the unit operates as if it was being commanded by a Divisional Commander (page 15(?) of Rule Book). If led by CC then the CC must use a Command Point to accompany the unit on the charge. If the unit is NOT led by a BC or CC then a CP must be spent by that units' Divisional Commander AND the unit must take a CMT. If the charge move the out of command unit wishes to make is going to be complex (eg – with a spent unit of Light Cavalry) then 2 CPs will need to allocated in order to TAKE the CMT to charge. Explanation – I see no reason why the CC can’t grab one of his units and go charging with it, if he really wants to – so why should a CMT be necessary for this if that unit is out of divisional command? If the unit concerned has to take a CMT when being led by their CC, why shouldn’t the same apply if they are led by a BC? In fact the text on page 28 suggests that this clumsy approach IS what the rule requires...Therefore remove it entirely and make things simple – the CC is still going to have to expend a CP in order to charge with the out of command unit anyway, whereas the BC will not. This might be an issue with an exceptional CC who has plenty of CPs, but given that his command distance has just been halved and probably reduced to 0 if a charge is involved (because he will soon be in combat) – maybe this is not a terrible thing? But either way, surely we can come up with something that is better than the current arrangement?

1. Charging out of range of Divisional command does not equal a CMT necessarily. Note that the bullet on page 28 concerning "outside command range" is not part of "It must take a CMT if..." section!

2. Anytime a CC moves he must spend the point. But this again is not requiring a CMT necessarily.

[KitG]

(b) In my game against Richard he pointed out that the text states that firing with a unit that assaulted may only be done if that unit has been stopped by defensive fire. I have to say that my reading of the text tends to suggest that he is right! The only reference to assaulting units firing in the firing phase comes with comments like ‘if the assaulting unit is halted by defensive fire it may fire in the firing phase’ and such like. But such a mechanism will be stupid as it will mean that shot up units get to shoot people, but perfectly fine units won’t – the example in our game was when my Scots Greys (who generally had a rather mixed tournament) charged a line of Light Cavalry (who evaded) and wound up within 2 inches of a small square of infantry (3+ to hit!) Richard said I couldn’t fire in the firing phase. Rather than annoy Brett (who was being asked lots of questions anyway) I let it go and did not shoot the Greys (who ended up surrounded and were generally blown to bits, although it took Richard about three turns to finally manage this).

I see no reason why your unit (I'm assuming cavalry with artillery attachment) cannot fire. Page 48 is clear:

-must be inf. or arty. or arty. attachment
-must have enemy within range
-must not have changed formation or retired as a reaction to an assault.

The next bit is just clarifying that a unit halted can indeed shoot (since all of the above apply).

Yes, I think it means that too, however all the other references are to troops who have been stopped by defensive fire firing back - this has what has caused the question to be asked.

[KitG]

(c) In my game against Richard he pointed out that the glossary definition of advance involves reference to where the front edge of your unit is. This had implications for the reforming/turn to face move if you receive a ‘no advance’ result in the firing phase . As the glossary definition of advance is moving any part of the front edge of a unit towards and enemy unit, I had to agree with him that turning to face involved moving the front edge of a base of the unit TOWARDS an enemy unit whilst the base at the other corner went away from the enemy. So although I was not coming any closer to the enemy unit, I was moving the front edge of a base towards an enemy unit and henceforth I was advancing in terms of the glossary definition. This is, off course, completely at odds with the page 39 rule book description (which goes into rather exhaustive detail) of how you reform/turn to face and enemy unit. We solved this by allowing the unit to simply turn on its central point – which had the effect of swinging AWAY from the enemy unit concerned and OUT OF 2 MU – something the text ABSOLUTELY FORBIDS – and was not to my advantage since it was a large Hanoverian unit that was steady (only just having taken two hits in the firing phase) and could, next firing phase, have fired a full volley at a disordered small Dutch line infantry regiment and I had a small SUPERIOR VETERAN Highlander Unit able to fire a medium range with an additional 4 dice…Yes, yes, this was the only game where the Highlanders managed to do anything without dying and even then they were robbed by this somewhat interesting interpretation of what ‘no advance’ can mean, so you can all have a good laugh about that as well. Once again I did not want to bother you, Brett.

This is silly. By reforming you have a new front edge. As long as this is not closer to enemy you are fine.

I tend to agree - but I do not think it silly that Richard has pointed out that the glossary definition of 'advance' - which describes in some detail how the front edge of your unit cannot move towards the enemy - conflicts with the reforming/turn to face rule. You may not have moved your unit any closer to the enemy, but you have moveed the front edge of your unit towards the enemy (as I have described) - therefore according to the glossary definition of 'advance', you have 'advanced'.

[KitG]

(d) In my game against Richard the multiple CMT issue arose (again) – Richard wished to charge the Highlanders with both a Heavy Cav. Shock unit and an infantry unit (that was also disordered) – I pointed out that TWO CMTs would be necessary – one for a combined arms assault and one for being a disordered unit assaulting a steady unit. Richard said no, it’s just one test for both and that the rule book does not say that you have to take cumulative or consecutive CMTs for all of the factors listed. Brett, you told him that the tests were cumulative and taken consecutively. He failed to pass the second test. At this point I would also say that I could not actually find anything in the rule book that supports the idea that you take any CMTs cumulatively and consecutively, aside from the assault mechanism, whereby you may have to take a CMT to charge and then take a further CMT if you are hit by defensive fire, or the movement mechanism where you can take a CMT to undertake a second SIMPLE move, but not a complex one – thereby showing that the rule writer wishes to differentiate between the numerous categories for which a CMT is needed. But some PROMINENT statement about this should appear in the text in order to avoid this question as it isn't the first time I've heard it asked.

Page 45, first paragraph, refers to "multiple CMTs." Further down, next paragraph, refers to "additional CMTs." You test for each case. A halted, disordered inf. unit wishing to charge along with cavalry would need three CMTs passed.

Page 45, eh? Very good. Should get put on the QRS as well.

[Blathergut]

Page 104: Advance: Any move which results in at least part of the unit ending further forwards than the original front edge.

As long as your unit does not move closer on its original front edge (which may not be its final front edge if reforming) you are fine. It has nothing to do with the original front edge somehow moving about in the unit as you reform. Draw a line across your unit's original front edge. When you are done reforming, you can not be past that line, closer to enemy.

[KitG]

(a) Charges when out of command – a real sea of confusion – chart suggests one thing, text suggests another and Terry has said a third thing on the forum. Even the text is not particularly helpful as it does not clearly state what should be the p" osition as I see it, which is: A unit out of command that wants to charge has to pass a Complex Move Test UNLESS led by either a Brigade Commander or a Corp Commander (unless impetuous). If led by a BC the unit operates as if it was being commanded by a Divisional Commander (page 15(?) of Rule Book). If led by CC then the CC must use a Command Point to accompany the unit on the charge. If the unit is NOT led by a BC or CC then a CP must be spent by that units' Divisional Commander AND the unit must take a CMT. If the charge move the out of command unit wishes to make is going to be complex (eg – with a spent unit of Light Cavalry) then 2 CPs will need to allocated in order to TAKE the CMT to charge. Explanation – I see no reason why the CC can’t grab one of his units and go charging with it, if he really wants to – so why should a CMT be necessary for this if that unit is out of divisional command? If the unit concerned has to take a CMT when being led by their CC, why shouldn’t the same apply if they are led by a BC? In fact the text on page 28 suggests that this clumsy approach IS what the rule requires...Therefore remove it entirely and make things simple – the CC is still going to have to expend a CP in order to charge with the out of command unit anyway, whereas the BC will not. This might be an issue with an exceptional CC who has plenty of CPs, but given that his command distance has just been halved and probably reduced to 0 if a charge is involved (because he will soon be in combat) – maybe this is not a terrible thing? But either way, surely we can come up with something that is better than the current arrangement?

1. Charging out of range of Divisional command does not equal a CMT necessarily. Note that the bullet on page 28 concerning "outside command range" is not part of "It must take a CMT if..." section!

2. Anytime a CC moves he must spend the point. But this again is not requiring a CMT necessarily.

1. On the QRS in the rule book there is an entry which says that a CMT is necessary when charging and not in command - how does this mean that a CMT is not always necessary, regardless of what one might make of page 28?

2. Yes, to move the CC must spend a DC (but he can move 4 inches in the recovery phase without using a CP) - the CMT is for the charge out of Command range of a DC and nothing else - hence my concern with page 28 and the QRS in rule book.

[Blathergut]

Hmmm...was going by the semi-latest reference sheet and not the slightly different one in the text. You gots me on zat vun. Hopefully another mind can help clarify!!

If a unit is led by a BC or CC, it does not require the point spent, since they have inherent. The CC, however, does need to spend, but not to pay for the CMT.

If a unit, out of command range, without a BC or CC, wants to charge, that requires a CMT.

[KitG]

Page 104: Advance: Any move which results in at least part of the unit ending further forwards than the original front edge.

As long as your unit does not move closer on its original front edge (which may not be its final front edge if reforming) you are fine. It has nothing to do with the original front edge somehow moving about in the unit as you reform. Draw a line across your unit's original front edge. When you are done reforming, you can not be past that line, closer to enemy.

Yes, that was something discussed at the time, but given the corner angle it was felt that turning to face was really a PIVOT type manovuer that promoted one corner of the unit past the original frontage as the large unit rotates on its centre point. It was a large unit, you see, one corner of which was within 2 inches of the enemy unit - It is very difficult to see how a large unit can turn upon its centre point and remain no further forward of its front edge without sliding a base width or somehow shuffling in order not to have its front edge end up further forward that the original front edge - if I can do this when reforming/turning to face, then no problem, but given the detailed rules for reforming units, I wonder if this is so?

[KitG]

Hmmm...was going by the semi-latest reference sheet and not the slightly different one in the text. You gots me on zat vun. Hopefully another mind can help clarify!!

If a unit is led by a BC or CC, it does not require the point spent, since they have inherent. The CC, however, does need to spend, but not to pay for the CMT.

If a unit, out of command range, without a BC or CC, wants to charge, that requires a CMT.

Yes, unfortunately that is the issue, along with the confused description then present on page 28 about BC and CCs NOT spending a CP and then taking a CMT...and when you add the commonly used convention that our club has followed - just spend a CP if you want to undertake a charge out of command range of your DC and the charge happens without the need for a CMT - a mechamism that was solely based on a post from Terry on this forum, you can understand why I say that this area is confusing.

[Blathergut]

Page 107: Reforming: ...end formation no nearer to enemy, with centre point as close as possible to starting point.

You don't consider any "movement" in between/during the reform, just how you end. Our figure bases may seem like they move closer, or when wheeling move into a nearby unit, but that wouldn't really happen.

The centre point may indeed have to shift to keep you away from enemy.

[KitG]

Page 107: Reforming: ...end formation no nearer to enemy, with centre point as close as possible to starting point.

You don't consider any "movement" in between/during the reform, just how you end. Our figure bases may seem like they move closer, or when wheeling move into a nearby unit, but that wouldn't really happen.

The centre point may indeed have to shift to keep you away from enemy.

So sliding a base/shuffling a base somewhat is permissable? As this is really the effect of a large unit reforming/turning to face if it does not do so around its centre point.

[Blathergut]

Yes. First priority is to not be closer. Second is to have centre point where it was or as close as possible to that point.

[KitG]

Yes. First priority is to not be closer. Second is to have centre point where it was or as close as possible to that point.

Hmmm - I generally thought that too, but also had thought that it was equally important that you not end up further AWAY from the enemy unit or units concerned? I had thought that there was quite the prohibition against being able to move your unit AWAY from the enemy unit and that the whole idea was to strictly maintain the existing distance between the units concerned? If not then it will come to be a commonly used tactic to avoid the volley, I would suggest.

[Blathergut]

Yes, must maintain distance.

[BrettPT]

My take on assualting when out of command is that a unit led by a BC or CC does not need to test (although the CC must use a CP to move). If not led by one of these, a CMT and 2 CPs are required from the absent divisional commander.

Reasoning:

1. Page 44 on Complex Move Tests. It states that a CMT is required for each move listed on the complex move table as requiring a test ... not listed as simple. The table below lists any attempt to assault when out of command range as Complex.

2. Page 46 says a Divisional Commander may make a CMT for a unit outside his command range, but that unit will require one additional Command Point. The table on page 46 confirms that a CMT when Out of Command requires 2 CPs.

So, to my mind it is clear that a unit that wishes to assault when out of command requires 2 CPs, and a successful CMT. If the unit was disordered (unless shock cavalry or guards) it would require 2 such tests (and 4CPs in total).

If a BC is attached:

3. On page 25, we are told that a Brigade Commander acts as a Divisional Commander only for that unit. It goes on to comment that a BC is particularly useful in Cavalry Brigades that may be required to operate seperately on a flank.

I believe the intent here is for a unit led by a BC to always be in command. So no CMT is required for a unit led by a BC to assault on the grounds of being out of command (it isn't). If a CMT was required for another reason (ie disordered) then that would be 'free' needing no CP as it is the BCs first CMT that phase.

For a unit by a CC, it is harder to work out what happens:

4. While we have various rules (pages 26, 28, 43, 45) making it clear that a unit led by a commander of any type does not require a Command Point for the first CMT taken in any phase, in we do not have a specific rule (like the BC one) that tells us that a unit led by a CC will always be in command. So is a CMT for being out of command range of the DC required?

5. We are also told (page 26, 28 and 43) that a Corps Commander must expend a point in order to voluntarily move, other than turning or reforming whilst otherwise remaining stationary (except in the recovery phase).

Tricky, and the rules don't tell us whether a CMT is required for being out of command, just that the CC provides a free CP. In my view it makes sense to treat a unit with a CC attached as being the same as one with a BC - ie always in command - so no CMT required. Just a CP for him to move with the unit. This seems intuitive, and any other interpretation causes a headache for me!

Lastly, the Assault Rules on page 28 - right hand column - state that "If the assault would normally require a CMT, then 2 Command Points are required". This is not inconsistant with the above. All assaults made when out of command range (unless led by a BC or CC) will require a CMT, so 2 command points will be needed.

Clear as mud?

Cheers
Brett

[KitG]

Nope - because you are going to have a probelm with a spent or disordered unit out of command and charging, aren't you? Which is exactly what happened in our game.

Normally, if in command this spent or disordered unit would require a CMT to charge and to my way of thinking the commentary on page 28 is designed to address this issue, 1 CMT is taken but it requires 2 CPs in the circumstance of being out of command. Using your suggestion then the Out of Command unit would have to use two CPs to take a CMT to charge and then...what? Because it is disordered take another CMT to charge, also using two CPs? Doesn't make sense when page 28 already says very clearly that if the charge would be complex TWO Cps are required.

The Out of Command Charge is not necessarily included under the general rule of out of command CMTs requiring two CPs. The Out of Command Charge has its own entirely seperate listing on the CMT table on page 46 of the rule book, which does not state that 2 CPs are required - it is simply entered as a CMT in its own right, therefore it would require a single CP, two CPs if the out of command unit has to do something complex - as the page 28 bullet point suggests. I suggest that this interpretation is more consistent with the rules as a charge is not a complex move in its own right - a charge is normally just a simple move, what makes it complex is that it is occuring out of command - hence the need for a CMT and a CP. Why double it up by making the expenditure of 2 CPs for what is otherwise a simple move?