A couple of questions for the veterans...

A board for questions and discussion relating to Clarence Harrison's ECW focused rules which are growing in popularity. Please post here for questions and discussion relating to VWQ
Post Reply
Candoras
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 8:36 am

A couple of questions for the veterans...

Post by Candoras » Thu Aug 26, 2010 6:39 am

Some mates and I have been looking for a good set of ECW rules and, after trying several and being rather underwhelmed, I've downloaded VWQ (thankyou Clarence!).
I've got to say VWQ is looking to be just the ticket - we're having our first game at the club meeting in September. I do however have a couple of questions for veteran players:
Is a casualty marker placed per 3 hits or any time 3 or more hits are caused? ie, can more than 1 be placed at a time?

Charging units that stand and fire. Though the rules say that a faltered charge halts in good order (steady), does this still apply if a casualty was caused? or can the unit become shaken in this case?

Evading. Must a unit evade towards its own table edge if charged from the flank or rear? I must admit, I'm inclined towards evasion being initially directly away from the charge and then in subsequent turns towards the rear.

Does anyone have any house-rules for flank or rear charges? What advantages would they give? (an option might be to negate saving throws)

Thanks for any help :)
User avatar
quindia
General
General
Posts: 1259
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 4:51 am
Location: Chesapeake, VA USA
Contact:

Re: A couple of questions for the veterans...

Post by quindia » Thu Aug 26, 2010 11:06 am


Is a casualty marker placed per 3 hits or any time 3 or more hits are caused? ie, can more than 1 be placed at a time?


If you manage to cause six hits in one turn, then two casualty markers are placed.

Charging units that stand and fire. Though the rules say that a faltered charge halts in good order (steady), does this still apply if a casualty was caused? or can the unit become shaken in this case?

Remember that a unit only needs to make a Morale Test, which could result in being shaken if a Casualty Marker is placed (i.e. the unit suffers three unsaved hits). A unit that is charging has to test to charge home even if it receives a single hit. If the defender actually manages to cause a Casualty Marker, the charger must make a second Morale Test to avoid becoming shaken.

Note it is possible that a unit of horse that suffers three unsaved hits might pass the test to charge home, but fail the test to avoid being shaken. If this happens, they charge anyway, but suffer the -1d6 penalty per stand for being Shaken.

Charging is always the bugger in any set of rules; more so when the rule portion of the thing are only seven pages!


Evading. Must a unit evade towards its own table edge if charged from the flank or rear? I must admit, I'm inclined towards evasion being initially directly away from the charge and then in subsequent turns towards the rear.


Absolutely a unit should evade AWAY from chargers. The default is toward its own table edge to keep players from evading to the flank, etc. Common sense must prevail when a situation comes up that isn't specifically covered in the rules and you're on the right track.

Does anyone have any house-rules for flank or rear charges? What advantages would they give? (an option might be to negate saving throws)

It was obviously a glaring omission and I spent quit a bit of time correcting it when the e-mails started to come in. Having never published an update, I keep getting the question. I guess I need to get around to making a FAQ list (and maybe get started on a new manuscript...).

Units never have to test to charge the flank or rear of an enemy unit, however, foot may still not charge a horse unit unless the target is already engaged in melee.

An unengaged unit charged from the flank may preform all of the normal reactions, however if charged from the flank and they Stand and Fire only one stand may shoot. If the target successfully forms a Pike Stand, they are considered to have been engaged frontally as normal. A Pike Stand has no flank or rear.

An unengaged unit charged from the rear must make a Morale test. If they pass, they may preform all of the normal reactions. If they fail, they are shaken and must accept the charge at a halt. Note that this means a foot regiment charged from behind that wants to form a Pike Stand must pass two Morale tests!

Only stands in base to base contact may fight (or subsequent ranks of horse behind those touching the enemy).

There are no "to hit" modifiers for flank or rear attacks.

A new attacker joining an existing melee does get the charge bonus. A flank charge or a second frontal charge against an engaged opponent works as normal as long as the attacker may come into base to base contact with the target. A horse squadron cannot attack a target through another squadron unless they are part of the same regiment. In otherwords, the rule on page seven applies only to squadrons brigaded together as a regiment and deployed in columns of squadrons. Squadrons of different regiments must come into base to base contact to fight.

A rear charge against an engaged target cause the automatic surrender of that unfortunate target! Once again, note that a Pike Stand has no flanks or rear. The surrounded target is removed.


Thanks for any help :)


Hope this helps![/i]
Candoras
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 8:36 am

Post by Candoras » Thu Aug 26, 2010 11:37 am

It does indeed!
Thanks again for writing such an enjoyable set of rules.
Sadly I spent many years in the wilderness of "slide-rule, laser pointer & calculator" wargaming. It was only after buying and playing Beneath the Lily Banners and Black Powder that I realized that what I'd been missing all that time was... fun. :wink:

More than happy to assist in any play-testing required as the project moves forward.
User avatar
Bluebear
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 201
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 12:26 pm
Location: Vancouver Island, BC, Canada

Post by Bluebear » Thu Aug 26, 2010 11:46 am

Clarence,

Yes, an FAQ would be an excellent idea . . . and your answer above would make a very good start.


-- Jeff
Post Reply