Auto disorder?

[rigolgm]

There are a few brief mentions in the rulebook of things like the below, but I can't find the 'core' rule behind them:

- "As this formation change requires an extra move, the unit automatically becomes disordered." (pg 73)
- "Such a unit is automatically disordered ... In effect the evading unit had made two moves: a move and a formation change." (pg 63)

Does anyone know what the core rule is that means multiple moves force an automatic disorder? I can't find it anywhere in the rulebook. Just the above derivations.

In particular, I'm keen to know if this rule in any way helps to disorder skirmishers, so that they can no longer evade. I know it does against irregular troops forced to change formation (as per above), but how about skirmishers in other situations? I'm keen to understand if skirmishers become disordered if you push them around enough in one turn, preventing them from further evading. Otherwise they just seem so formidable except against cavalry.

Best

Mike

[Big Al]

The extra move is to form line (you left that bit out) which the unit was forced to do because of the break test result. That is the core rule in the rest of the paragraph that you have quoted that sentence from. Read it again and it will make sense.

Your second question is also the rule as it is written. It points you to Page 68, which I think is the wrong place and should refer you to the Break Test results on Page 72/3. That said, the only real reference to units being allowed to move twice is on the break test results table itself and under Units That Hold Their Ground. What it is trying to point you to is the rule that a unit that takes an action that requires an extra move becomes disordered automatically.

[rigolgm]

That's all fine and I understood all that.

But that just means that all we have is a couple of swift references that basically say (not in these exact words): "and because the unit has to both move AND change formation all at once, it automatically disorders as usual". Yet it never seemed to have been spelled-out fully elsewhere in the book.

No worries. At least it doesn't sound like I'm missing anything. Thanks for your help.

Any views on the skirmisher bit in my question? Is there a way I can stop skirmishers from constantly evading, short or boxing them in or using cavalry etc? THe rules momentarily seemed to imply to me that an evade move automatically disorders them (preventing further evades) because they are treated as Retire moves. However it doesn't look like Retire moves automatically disorder - only if a unit has to change formation while it retires or if it's stated as part of a Retire on the Break Test table

[Cubster]

Any views on the skirmisher bit in my question? Is there a way I can stop skirmishers from constantly evading, short or boxing them in or using cavalry etc?

Some people have expressed annoyance at this before I think and want to crush their enemies, see them driven before them, and to hear the lamentation of their women. I have some sympathy with that but I do feel BP rewards a more historical perspective for table generals. If the skirmishers are driven off, the job has been done and much as the player may wish to get medieval on their asses (or other pack animals) I'd say if you tie up your cavalry trying to chase down skirmishers then your opponent has played you very well!

[rigolgm]

Well yeah ... ish! But I don't think driving off skirmishers achieves much other than maybe exposing an enemy flank they were covering. The evading skirmishers will immediately be zapping you at +1 to hit in their own turn, even at long range, and that'll usually be 3 dice at +1 if it's a full size unit skirmishing. They are a shooting powerhouse in Black Powder.

This is why I was trying to locate the specific core segment on auto disorder (whcich may not exist). Because I thought maybe it might have a rule saying something like "a unit forced to make a second or subsequent charge reaction move is automatically disordered." But I don't think such a rule exists.

[Cubster]

This is why I was trying to locate the specific core segment on auto disorder (whcich may not exist). Because I thought maybe it might have a rule saying something like "a unit forced to make a second or subsequent charge reaction move is automatically disordered." But I don't think such a rule exists.

Well I don't think a unit can make two charge reactions in a turn, so if you have two cavalry units in a brigade, for example, who charge the skirmishers in a single turn then it can only evade the one and, assuming it is still in range, the second unit will hit it without it being able to do any more than wheeze and pant. If ther skirmishers have positioned themselves such that they can evade into safety from the first charging unit (into a wood or swamp, for example) then they have been well deployed and should enjoy a well deserved escape!

If the skirmishing unit successfully evades in subsequent turns from subsequent attempted charges then they are acting as every good skirmishing unit should and fair play to them. There's a reason why countries were so keen to develop well trained light infantry in the 19th century.

[rigolgm]

Thanks for your cheery replies! You said you don't think a unit can make two charge reactions in a turn. This would be cool but I can't find it anywehre in the book - not in the Charge Reaction, Evading or Retiring Units sections.

Unless people say otherwise, it seems to me that skirmishering units can too easily constantly slip away from enemies - even multiple times in a turn - and are far superior in gunfights too. It doesn't seem completely right.

Apologies for this thread being similar to my other current one. They've converged a bit but not totally.

[Cubster]

Thanks for your cheery replies! You said you don't think a unit can make two charge reactions in a turn. This would be cool but I can't find it anywehre in the book - not in the Charge Reaction, Evading or Retiring Units sections.

No, I can't find it either, I'm probably getting it mixed up with Hail Caesar. It seems a common sense approach to me though to restrict a unit to a single charge reaction in any one turn and BP is all about players coming to sensible agreement about things the rules don't cover. If your opponent tries to argue their units can make as many reactions as they like, I suggest throwing hard things at them until they change their minds.

Unless people say otherwise, it seems to me that skirmishering units can too easily constantly slip away from enemies - even multiple times in a turn - and are far superior in gunfights too. It doesn't seem completely right.

Well they were elusive little swines and their firepower probably reflects the fact that skirmishers were often the elite sharpshooters of whatever army they belonged to. If you want to charge skirmishers without them evading, you can always charge them with a unit they aren't allowed to make an evade move from. After checking the rulebook in front of me (p63) it seems I was wrong to use cavalry charges as my example before, because it says infantry skirmishers may only evade non-skirmishing infantry, not cavalry.

[rigolgm]

Yeah that does seem common sense. But it feels like it should be in the rules somewhere. Just something to allow infantry to run-down skirmishers without having to get them in a perfect pincer movemement first. Or at least to do something like disorder skirmishers after they evade a second time. Maybe I'm worrying about it too much!

I have a feeling that almost all my ACW troops might stay in skirmish formation from now on, unless facing strong cavalry. What's to lose? About the only advantage the enemy could have is forming attack columns to get +1 Command and slowly control manoeuvre. But he'll be shooting at 1 dice/unit against my +1 save, whereas I'll be shooting with a full 3 dice at +1 for standard units who've taken skirmish formation.

Seems unbalanced.

[Cubster]

I'd say deploying in skirmish order is a sensible approach in ACW gaming so long as the enemy isn't too close and you don't want to benefit from the quicker movement of column. Since skirmishers get a penalty in combat and cannot be supported by nearby units, if you don't change formation as the enemy gets within charge range then evading is what you should indeed do ... all of which sounds historically reasonable.

Many ACW battles had cases of irate commanders trying to force their men forward to the assault, when they (quite sensibly) preferred to skirmish at range and trade potshots to stay healthy! If you want to assault a defended position then you have to accept you'll probably take more casualties in exchange for holding that ground. It ain't all about killing as many of the enemy as possible.