Auto disorder?

[rigolgm]

Anyone know how I can get this one 'formally' resolved in the FAQ?

I don't think I'm happy with either extreme:
- Explicit rules as written, which seems to imply no penalty even when Evading multiple times in a turn
- Heavily implied rules as written, where pretty much all Retires in the game result in Disorder ... so it follows that an Evade also DIsorders because it is described as working just like a Retire.

Something in the middle would make more sense to me i.e. no DIsorder, but no more than one Evade in a turn from each unit. However this is nowhere in the rules.

[Big Al]

Why not try sending Rick a PM?

[rigolgm]

Done! Thanks.

[CplJohn]

For what it is worth.

In LAOK we always play that a skirmish unit "evading" is treated as infantry getting a retire move eg: they end the turn disordered.

If this rule is not played, then Player A will charge skirmishers of Player B, who evade. Player A unit remains in place. Next turn, player B moves his skirmishers back to where they were before and fires. In his turn, Player A tries to charge them. Player B evades. Player A unit remains where it is and in pPlayer B turn he moves the unit back and fires etc etc etc

If you have been playing the game that Skirmishers are not Disordered after an Evade then no wonder you are frustrated! You will never get them to move away! Remember that, on their next turn, they suffer -1 for Disorder on their firing as well.

cheers

[Big Al]

For what it is worth.

In LAOK we always play that a skirmish unit "evading" is treated as infantry getting a retire move eg: they end the turn disordered.

If this rule is not played, then Player A will charge skirmishers of Player B, who evade. Player A unit remains in place. Next turn, player B moves his skirmishers back to where they were before and fires. In his turn, Player A tries to charge them. Player B evades. Player A unit remains where it is and in pPlayer B turn he moves the unit back and fires etc etc etc

If you have been playing the game that Skirmishers are not Disordered after an Evade then no wonder you are frustrated! You will never get them to move away! Remember that, on their next turn, they suffer -1 for Disorder on their firing as well.

cheers

If the skirmishers weren't disordered and followed your example then Player B would always suffer a -1 to his order to move the skirmishers back because of the proximity of the enemy unit, so there is a better chance of failing that order. Also, there will come a time when the skirmishers will be unable to return. If the cycle you describe continued often enough, the skirmishers would eventually evade off the table. However, the chasing unit might also suffer enough casualties that it might break This is why it can be worth attacking in pairs of units. The skirmishers can only evade once. Another unit would then be able to catch them. However, all the retire moves from the Break test results do end in disorder, so an evading unit should be disordered as well.

[CplJohn]

This was very well playtested for the French Indian War.

If the skirmishers weren't disordered and followed your example then Player B would always suffer a -1 to his order to move the skirmishers back because of the proximity of the enemy unit, so there is a better chance of failing that order

Agreed, although they have fallen back one move and usually move again using initiative.

Also, there will come a time when the skirmishers will be unable to return. If the cycle you describe continued often enough, the skirmishers would eventually evade off the table

That depends on how big your table is and how many turns of firing the skirmishers get. By always evading and then moving again, a clever player will run rings around a regular formed unit. The disorder after evading prevents the double move ( evade, then move around the flank ) and should result in the skirmishers eventually being pushed off table.

This is why it can be worth attacking in pairs of units.

Chasing Skirmishers about with pairs of formed battalions is both unseemly and Ungentlemanly. Do the decent thing and run at them, forcing them to evade and reveal their formed troops behind, who you can then charge with dignity! This is especially effective if you force the skirmishers to evade through their supports.


Chasing skirmishers can be fun, but it is not war!

[Big Al]

Also, there will come a time when the skirmishers will be unable to return. If the cycle you describe continued often enough, the skirmishers would eventually evade off the table

That depends on how big your table is and how many turns of firing the skirmishers get. By always evading and then moving again, a clever player will run rings around a regular formed unit. The disorder after evading prevents the double move ( evade, then move around the flank ) and should result in the skirmishers eventually being pushed off table.

The skirmishers wouldn't be able to move around the flank of the charging unit on their next turn anyway! The proximity rule doesn't allow it.

This is why it can be worth attacking in pairs of units.

Chasing Skirmishers about with pairs of formed battalions is both unseemly and Ungentlemanly. Do the decent thing and run at them, forcing them to evade and reveal their formed troops behind, who you can then charge with dignity! This is especially effective if you force the skirmishers to evade through their supports.


Chasing skirmishers can be fun, but it is not war!

Totally agree with this. I only mentioned it because there are some that would do it. Personally, I find skirmishers are a minor irritant that can be ignored a lot of the time, although those pesky 6's do cause trouble. The real way to deal with them is to use your own against them, then they can't evade or slow you down.