League Of Augsburg - Fighting Talk

Dear All,
Just a little hello from a wargaming who has become enthralled with the wars of Louis XIV and greatly impressed by BLB. Now, after one solo game and one with a good friend I have some questions regarding aspects of the rules - which we found to be thoroughly enjoyable and challenging. I'm probably just being entirely stupid and/or blind, but here are the queries:

1. If the target of a charge routs through a friendly unit that is directly behind it. Does the charging unit continue to move its full movement allowance and contact the new interpenetrated unit instead? Or are the chargers obliged to halt where their original target was?
2. Does a horse unit pursue if it wipes out its opponent in the 1st bound (in effect a breakthrough charge)? If so how, towards the nearest enemy within a certain arc? Or does it take the ground and mill around in disorder?
3. Horse A charges Horse B. Horse B routs without interpenetrating anything. However, just behind and to the side is Horse C which is within charge range of Horse A – whilst Horse B will rout beyond it. My reading of the rules suggests that Horse A should follow Horse B. Am I correct in this?
4. Can artillery fire in the same turn as it unlimbered? I don’t think so but am uncertain.
5. I am beginning to think that this is a tremendously clever aspect of the rules to encourage players to think more holistically and historically but, the following situation arose: in a melee two horse squadrons charged each other. Horse A won the 1st bound with 3 kills to 2. The 2nd bound was drawn, so 2 kills for both sides. No reinforcements are available to be thrown in from either side. The melee goes to a third bound. But what happens now? Whatever the result both units will lose 2 more figures, so both units will be wiped out. Is my opening judgement on this point accurate?
6. According to the rules, morale checks are taken at the end of the turn, with only one check even if there are multiple reasons. But which results count? For example, Horse failing on seeing foot rout and taking casualties from shooting give very different results. So is it that which occurs first or the most severe? Reading the Steenkirk scenario in the rulebook confirm this and suggest the possibilities for a more gamesmanlike approach (see page 97, turn 8 with Mackay’s regiment). My friend Ray and I have been doing the checks as they occur (e.g. units taking casualties from artillery done after the artillery firing stage, with movement taken off next turn as per the sequence). Some guidance on this would be appreciated.

I expose my ignorance to you in the hope of gaining greater wisdom (I bet you want to throw up now!!).

Thanks
Blindjack

I expose my ignorance to you in the hope of gaining greater wisdom (I bet you want to throw up now!!).

Yes throw up!!!!!
I've been checking the forum every day to see if you put the questions up, about bloody time.....Now I shall hand you back to chaps who know more about the rules than us!!!

1. If the target of a charge routs through a friendly unit that is directly behind it. Does the charging unit continue to move its full movement allowance and contact the new interpenetrated unit instead? Or are the chargers obliged to halt where their original target was?

Page 55 see Pursuing, Your example states there is a unit directly behind so that unit now becomes the victim of a breakthrough charge. They will check morale for being charged. The morale result and possible combat will take place the next turn.

2. Does a horse unit pursue if it wipes out its opponent in the 1st bound (in effect a breakthrough charge)? If so how, towards the nearest enemy within a certain arc? Or does it take the ground and mill around in disorder?

I think after you read the pursuing section you will see the answer to this.
If opponents are destroyed the charging unit halts disordered. There is no breakthrough or continuing melee into fresh troops.

3. Horse A charges Horse B. Horse B routs without interpenetrating anything. However, just behind and to the side is Horse C which is within charge range of Horse A – whilst Horse B will rout beyond it. My reading of the rules suggests that Horse A should follow Horse B. Am I correct in this?

Yes the pursuit is after the vanquished enemy, not an opportunity charge into a fresh unit. Think of the horse as never really loosing contact, the attacker is hacking away at the fleeing unit. It's attention is on them.

4. Can artillery fire in the same turn as it unlimbered? I don’t think so but am uncertain.

You are correct, limbering and unlimbering takes one turn to complete. Artillery in this period is ran by civilians, no way they are in a hurry to do anything. "Where you need this gun general?" "Right there son" "OK there ya go, calls us when it's over"

5. I am beginning to think that this is a tremendously clever aspect of the rules to encourage players to think more holistically and historically but, the following situation arose: in a melee two horse squadrons charged each other. Horse A won the 1st bound with 3 kills to 2. The 2nd bound was drawn, so 2 kills for both sides. No reinforcements are available to be thrown in from either side. The melee goes to a third bound. But what happens now? Whatever the result both units will lose 2 more figures, so both units will be wiped out. Is my opening judgement on this point accurate?

Yes you sure can fight to the death in this game. Single squadrons are extremely brittle. If you are going to have single squadron units roaming around it's best to have supporting squadrons nearby. I never use single squadrons anymore in my deployment. I keep them regimented and this give me the option of a single squadron charge, which gains a support squadron in the 2nd bound or I can all or nothing charge.

6. According to the rules, morale checks are taken at the end of the turn, with only one check even if there are multiple reasons. But which results count? For example, Horse failing on seeing foot rout and taking casualties from shooting give very different results. So is it that which occurs first or the most severe? Reading the Steenkirk scenario in the rulebook confirm this and suggest the possibilities for a more gamesmanlike approach (see page 97, turn 8 with Mackay’s regiment). My friend Ray and I have been doing the checks as they occur (e.g. units taking casualties from artillery done after the artillery firing stage, with movement taken off next turn as per the sequence). Some guidance on this would be appreciated.

I will leave this to Barry to explain.

Thanks, that's been really helpful.

You know what it's like sometimes you get a little word blind. Though having said that I found the contents page sufficiently useful for finding most things.

I await Barry's pearls of wisdom on the morale question with great anticipation.

Ray and I will have to get together soon for another test game. Lets hope he can show more patience than his message above suggests

Moi??

Ray.

Churchill wrote:Hi Guys,
Joe, correct me if I'm wrong, but in Question 5 wouldn't the losers of the 1st bound have to test for losing the melee Just that it may have not gone to a 2nd or 3rd bound.
Ray.

Ray, you are correct, the losers of the first round should have tested morale.
Cheers
Dave

Now you mention it I'm not so certain that we did test morale. In this case I believe that we may have been overwhelmed by the excitement of the moment. We certainly followed the checks for other melees during the game. That may be why we got to that situation of mutual self destruction.

Sorry, I'm a little hazy on the memory of this action - only on the outcome.

You are correct Ray, the unit that looses the melee would check morale. Also if that unit were Raw it would break upon loosing the melee without needing to take a morale check. Remember, Raw loosing any melee breaks, Drilled any two consecutive melees breaks, Veteran any three consecutive and Guard any four consecutive.

Joe

6. According to the rules, morale checks are taken at the end of the turn, with only one check even if there are multiple reasons. But which results count? For example, Horse failing on seeing foot rout and taking casualties from shooting give very different results. So is it that which occurs first or the most severe? Reading the Steenkirk scenario in the rulebook confirm this and suggest the possibilities for a more gamesmanlike approach (see page 97, turn 8 with Mackay’s regiment). My friend Ray and I have been doing the checks as they occur (e.g. units taking casualties from artillery done after the artillery firing stage, with movement taken off next turn as per the sequence). Some guidance on this would be appreciated.

Try and avoid the 'tidy' method of doing morale checks as you go. Use markers to denote who needs to check at the end of a turn. Checks for being shot at, seeing officers die, casualty thresholds etc are all done together at the end. The only time a check happens during the play sequence is
Check to Charge
Check in response to charge
Check to countercharge
Check to charge home
Check for losing Close combat / ROUT or continue.

The most damaging CHECK outcomes in multiple check situations are the ones to check against. Using markers is very useful for this activity whether that be BLB type or pebbles, counters, chits etc.

Does his help Blindjack and Ray(The Silent) ?

So at the end of a turn, if one unit needs to check for three different reasons, do they check individually for the three or just once, if once, which check takes precedence??
Ray the Silent!!

From my reading of what Barry wrote, you do one test the one with the worst consequences if failed, and if that is passed then all the rest are as well.

Ginger

That's what's I got out what Barry said...curious I had always wondered about that too...even though the sequesnce of events cleary states when to check for morale...with everything going on...one could take several morale checks.

Thanks for the explaination Barry.

Thanks Barry, that has cleared up this particular situation. I can certainly follow the rationale and how it fits into the sequence of play.

I guess what I'm a little worried about is that it potentially leaves players with an opportunity to avoid said checks re: Steenkirk scenario in the rulebook confirm this and suggest the possibilities for a more gamesmanlike approach (see page 97, turn 8 with Mackay’s regiment).

Whilst I greatly like the chaps I wargame with, I can see one or two of them trying to push the boundaries here.

Gamey Wargamers are a little like water running down hill.. they'll always find a way.
Fact is though, there is no way to avoid a check/ multiple checks.. you have to do it anyway for whatever reason so the chances of them failing are pretty predictable as the factors themselves vary little.
I used a logic thread with the checks which means there are many reasons to check relatively speaking however the factors vary little which means the main event is the 'check' not the factors. That is why there are no minus modifiers for

seeing routing friends etc

You 'check' because friends are routing (REASON) not take a minus because friends are routing(FACTOR). Where the potential loophole you mention exists is in the severity of the consequence of failing. You can however look at this in different ways, take the Mackay's example:

1. Yes they can avoid another type of check by trying to join a melee. A possible loophole

OR

2. The player owning Mackays is forced into committing them too early into the battle to avoid the risk of them running away before their real fight begins. It has thus limited the tactical options of that player 2 turns down the line.


I favour the latter interpretation as I see the game as as kind of 3D chess which is about thinking 3-4 move ahead. In this period if you don't have your troops where you need them to be BEFORE you need them to do anything.... you are screwed! I am certasin over the centuries many commanders have sent their men 'in' only to stop them spectating and getting spooked by what they were seeing happen to others!

I hope this peep behind the logic curtain frames the process a little more clearly. Frankly, I have nothing but contempt for rules lawyers so empathise with your fears. I wrote the rules expressly with rules lawyer stymying in mind!