Rally and units locked in Hand-to-Hand

[Cubster]

Hey, looks like Phil missed one.

I suppose 'expandable batons' makes a change from 'Viagra' ... then again ...

[rigolgm]

I can't think of anything in the rules that stops a commander using rally on units in close combat.

The rules say the commander can try it on ANY one unit in his/her brigade within 12" and with 2 or more casualties. So if we're talking about 'rules as written' I think it's fine.

Also, I think it makes enough sense. I wouldn't get too hung-up on the word 'rally'. It just represents any attempt by a commander to maintain his men's fighting spirit.

And, most importantly, I think it's quite good fun. I love the gambling aspect - putting the commander at risk!

(Incidentally my favourite commander mega-gamble is doing a 'Follow Me' order on horse artillery, sprinting 54" up to an enemy's side and enfilading them at short range - quality! And I think legitimate).

[Phil]

Hey, looks like Phil missed one.

I didn't miss... He just got to run a bit further before I shot him... It was getting too easy.

Phil

[Alan Charlesworth]

This a puzzling one!

I had assumed that a Rally order could not be given to an engaged unit. It has never come up in one of my games as none of my opponents has tried it.

As has been stated the rules seem to allow it. But if you roll a Blunder how can you execute it with a unit that is engaged? Also can an attached leader give a Command to a different unit than the one he is attached to?

[rigolgm]

I can't see any real worry or rules problem about the leader still issuing orders later to other units apart from the one he's in.

I love your point about blunders, Alan. Interesting! Not sure about an answer. There appear to be several little complications/contradictions, as most of the Blunder results don't quite 'fit' with units that are engaged. House rule time? Maybe just make them become Disordered as a house rule instead of applying the results?

[Big Al]

Hey, looks like Phil missed one.

I didn't miss... He just got to run a bit further before I shot him... It was getting too easy.

Phil

Ah! Sport, eh?

[Big Al]

I can't see any real worry or rules problem about the leader still issuing orders later to other units apart from the one he's in.

I love your point about blunders, Alan. Interesting! Not sure about an answer. There appear to be several little complications/contradictions, as most of the Blunder results don't quite 'fit' with units that are engaged. House rule time? Maybe just make them become Disordered as a house rule instead of applying the results?

With regard to a blunder, you could just use a simple solution like if you roll for a charge forward (double 6) then the unit gets a +1 in combat and if you roll double 1 the unit becomes disorderd. All the rest are ignored.

[Alan Charlesworth]

This is another complicated mess that does not yield easily to Cubsters mantra of applying common sense and historical precedent. There is no single obvious answer to any of this. Yet another thing to add to the already long list of things that has to be negotiated with your opponent before you you can start a game

[Cubster]

This is another complicated mess that does not yield easily to Cubsters mantra of applying common sense and historical precedent.

In case you, or anyone else, somehow managed to miss it the first time I posted it, then when I referred you back to it when you somehow missed it that first time -

"Since it is becoming popular to quote from the book, here's a little something from the last paragraph of p4, going into p5.


Before getting to grips with the rules of play, we shall be entirely honest about our aim. The Black Powder game is first, foremost and most decidedly an entertainment. Naturally, we wish our game to be a tolerably convincing representation of real battle; however, no pretence is made to simulate every nuance or detail of weaponry, drill, or the psychology of warfare. We leave these matters to more complex rule-sets that are primarily concerned with such things. Nor have we attempted to define and regulate every detail of play - it is taken as read that participants are sensible, manly fellows, who will quickly resolve any doubts and incongruities in an appropriately sanguine fashion. We realise that this goes somewhat against the spirit of many rulesets, which courageously attempt to be both definitive and comprehensive. Our looser approach reflect the origins and practical application of our game - a game played between friends in a spirit of mutual empathy.
Now let me see, my comment that the rules "are deliberately vague, intended to be combined with common sense and friendly discussion" doesn't seem like a bad abridgement. I'd say it's the most important paragraph in the book. "

I don't recall writing the rulebook and I've checked the acknowledgements for my name without result, so I guess labelling this as 'my mantra' probably isn't as accurate as it could be, nor is misquoting me as using the phrase 'historical precedent' instead of 'historically accurate'. I understand it's tricky to read things sometimes, but take your time and perhaps you'll find it easier to absorb the information. I've emboldened the paragraph from the book to help you. I think understanding the importance of this paragraph will probably unlock a lot of the mysteries for you.

Don't be afraid to ask if you suffer any more confusion.

[Alan Charlesworth]

Cubster

Do you have anything usefull to contribute like a reference to a part of the rules that clarifies the question or a suggestion as to how you have dealt with this issue in your games?

Or I suppose you could post the extract from pages 4 & 5 yet again