Slitherine

Hi
Any views on whether Commanded Shot can move into overlap?
Hunter

I have number of views on this, but the relevant rule, from the Errata is "Commanded shot, battle wagons and artillery cannot charge and cannot intercept". Since moving into overlap is a normal move, nothing prevents commanded shot (along with LF and LH) from doing so.

I would agree with that ruling. Pretty clear in the amendments.
John

Thanks Kevin. So do you reckon the bit that says "artillery can be recaptured when a BG belonging to the previous owner moves into contact (in a way that would normally result in close combat) with an artillery base that does not have rear support from the current owners troops" allows commanded shot to recapture and use artillery?

Hunter

This is part of the mess that still needs to be sorted about captured Artillery. However, as this rule only allows Commanded Shot to move to an overlap position, I'd say no. In order to be an overlap, something else would need to be in contact, and presumably that would have already recaptured the artillery.

Thanks Kevin but

if the rule from the Errata is "Commanded shot, battle wagons and artillery cannot charge and cannot intercept then there doesn't appear to be anything stopping them moving (in bold in the rules) into contact (in a way that would normally result in close combat) with an artillery base that does not have rear support from the current owners troops.

Am I missing something important?

Hunter

Hunter, I think what you are missing is that the artillery is enemy controlled - it is now their unit. You can only move into contact with enemy ( other than as an overlap ) by charging which commanded shot are forbidden to do. there is no other way to move into contact.
By the way if the enemy behind the artilery are mounted you want to be careful as another amendment allows mounted to move through artillery they have captured as I recall.
John

Thanks John

but

you do seem to be able to move into contact with enemy (other than as an overlap) without charging

pg 127 seems to say you can

move (in bold in the rules) into contact (in a way that would normally result in close combat) with an artillery base that does not have rear support from the current owners troops.

It seems to be quite clear its a move not a charge ............

being only 70th in the rankings is enough to soberly reflect that I may well be missing something ..... but what

Hunter

kevinj wrote:This is part of the mess that still needs to be sorted about captured Artillery. However, as this rule only allows Commanded Shot to move to an overlap position, I'd say no. In order to be an overlap, something else would need to be in contact, and presumably that would have already recaptured the artillery.

Thread Hijack time... can anyone suggest why this 'mess' hasn't been fixed? Have the authors moved onto other things?

TBH, I find the whole capture/recapture guns thing something that people are arguing over and possibly don't play the ruling correctly (my only assumption).

To summarise:
ONLY Foot with shot capability can capture and use captured guns.
When they do so, they are treated as poor, and shoot with a -POA.
This means, when shooting at enemy foot, they ONLY hit on a 6... which they must re-roll. So, they are only going to hit 1:36 of the time... and that is after they get manoeuvred into position, as it is likely they are not going to be facing enemy (their previous friends) when captured.

So, why are we keeping a rule that is so useless, but causes so many problems? I think my ruling of 'captured guns are simply removed' is the most clean. Once you start on the 'can be kept on the table at the captors desire if it's a full moon on a Tuesday' sort of ruling it makes things overly complex. Possibly worth it if it made a huge difference to the game, but honestly, I can't see a couple of captured guns (if used correctly under the rules) would make any difference to the game.

You are of course right. Personally I would retain artillery capture for scenario games, but simple removal would be much cleaner. The current position is unclear, as Hunter says there's an implication you can recapture them with a non charge move, but it doesn't actually say that. A move that would result in close combat is either a charge, feeding bases in or a 90 degree turn if you're in contact with the flank edge.

Ah well looks lime another one to be referred to an umpire on the day. Going to be busy are they not!!
John

In any case, if it cannot be accepted what the word "behind" means in the rules then why should the word " move " be any more precise or clear. After all a charge is a form of moving and this is obviously what the authors meant although they did not say so.

Moves seem to be defined at page 56.

The type of move "charge" is any charge move. "Advance" is any other forward move with no more than a single wheel. I think its a stretch therfore to assume that move = charge. It might have been better if the "move" in bold in page 127 had said advance.

I suspect if RBS had meant "charge" he'd not have said "move ........ in a way that would normally result in close combat"

No matter - I am sure we will resolve any issues of whatever nature amicably as always on the day. Its ony a wargame.

Hunter

Seriously though, looking at Hunter's reference to page 127, I am not sure this resolves anything. The word move is used but this is qualified in the wording that this is "in a way that would normally result in close combat." this would tend to suggest it has to be either a charge, expanding as an overlap into an melee or overlap or as a sideways shift if in corner to corner.
Further qualification also comes in the next printed column on page 127 where it states that when artillery is captured it remains uncontrolled until a pike/shot or shot unit of the same side that captured it moves into contact or until the original owner recaptures it. This would seem to draw a distinction between the unit capturing it and the original owner in terms of taking possession,
This would make it seem that the original owner then reverts to the situation outlined for capture on page 126 para 2 which states that artillery without rear support is captured if contacted by an enemy base n a way that would normally result in close combat. So we are now using the word contact instead of move but the common factor is yet again "in a way that would normally result in close combat I.e. The three situations outlined above.
In essence if the Commanded shot cannot charge enemy artillery to start with then difficult to see how they can recapture if all of the above is read in it's entirety rather than as a single paragraph in isolation.
Re your comment on RBS's use of the word move presumably you will also accept if he used the word behind then he did not mean it to mean defending. You cannot have him being so precise in one area but dismiss it so casually in another. Behind is not qualified but move is.
John

Just for the pure badness of it. Hunter's argument is that commanded shot who are not allowed to charge could recapture artillery by just moving into contact rather than charging. In essence therefore other troops who are not allowed to charge could move in to do the same thing. There is therefore nothing to stop me pivoting an artillery unit into contact(pivoting is a move on page 56 ) and recapturing another battery. Equally a light artillery unit could move forward 2 inches and capture the guns.
John

All good stuff and I can grasp all the arguments for once - I must be getting into the BC14 groove