'Recovering' while steady

[pugsville]

When recovering units get to reform and change facing. Why not allow steady units to do this if passing an unnecessary 'recovery' , Sometimes after an assult it's very very useful to be able to turn facing, why should unsteady units that recover be able to do something that steady units cannot?

[terrys]

When recovering units get to reform and change facing. Why not allow steady units to do this if passing an unnecessary 'recovery' , Sometimes after an assult it's very very useful to be able to turn facing, why should unsteady units that recover be able to do something that steady units cannot?

That's because the rule isn't exactly as intended. It's supposed to read "A BROKEN" unit passing a recovery test ....."
It makes a big difference - especially to units that have just retired facing backwards.

I'll be adding it to the next errata - but use the rule as written for now.

[KitG]

Can I suggest that you do not do that, Terry.

The current recovery mechanism is an excellent one in terms of encouraging a quick moving game of attack and manoveur. It is an essential, if accidental part of the game.

If you take it away this will lead to slower, more stagnant fire power based games, where no one charges because they don't want to lose any units - I'd like to see the play testing results of a system that did not allow the phasing player the option of reforming his troops in any direction. I predict that they would become rather humourless chess piece exchanges - who wants that?

If something must be done about the discrepency of steady units being unable to reform in any direction during the recvoery phase then just allow ANY unit in the recovery phase to take a CT and if passed allow them to reform to face in any direction.

In view there are way more important things to clear up than changing a game dynamic which actually makes the game MORE fun to play.

[BrettPT]

I would back Kit on not errata-ing, the turn to face when recovering, away.

It gives breakthrough units a chance to try and turn and line up a target for their next turn, or try and avoid an immediate flanks charge/shot.
Both of these make breakthroughs (and consequently the game) more decisive, a good thing IMO.

The issue Pug speaks of is (I believe) an inconsistency in that disordered/wavering troops can attempt this, but not fresh troops.

Could I politely suggest that more pressing areas for your attention are cavalry in difficult, and perhaps the effectiveness of guard cavalry?

- as a side note, on day 2 at the Melbourne Tournie (as a result of the cavalry super-difficult terrain-clearing-troops dynamic showing it's face on day 1) the umpire introduced the rule that mounted cannot declare assaults against infantry who are in difficult - the simplest fix to this IMO.

Cheers
Brett

[Saxonian]

I would like to add my support to Brett and Kit's sentiments.
As a player of unreformed armies, it is frustrating enough that there is a minimum 50% chance that my infantry will show their backs to the enemy on an outcome move.
The only consolation is that they at least have a possibility to face the right direction by managing to recover.
Extending this to a steady unit if they pass a CT seems fair. My experience has been that at the times when this would be desirable (or necessary), I probably don't have the spare commander to do this anyway - they are usually fully occupied with the troops who are wavering or disordered!

[KendallB]

Performing a CT on a steady unit to reform does use up one of the precious few opportunities that a player has got, ending in another choice to make. To me, making players choose what to do is good and the more choice the better.

However I would limit the steady reform CT to units that have performed an outcome move that turn. This way units that have pursued the enemy get a chance to change their facing rather than just changing their facing if they haven't done anything this turn except move. This will promote attacking as your unit may not isolate itself from the rest of your army.

[Saxonian]

However I would limit the steady reform CT to units that have performed an outcome move that turn.

Maybe say "units that have been involved in an assault". A charging unit could have their wavering target flee, or be cavalry which destroy their opponents.
No outcome move, but still a change of face here would be nice.

[KitG]

Nah - keep it really simple and let anyone do it regardless. Afterall if you really want to 'waste' one of your recovery attempts on something that is just going to spin a unit around why have a whole lot of conditions attached to it? Laissez faire in an open market - what could possibly go wrong?