Garry Wills

Activity

  • Given that only one unit can contact the front of a charged unit, giving a brigade an order to charge that defending unit automatically results in one unit charging into contact and the others supporting. Consequently this must be OK under the brigade order rules. So I agree exactly the same  thing is untenable. I guess that option 1 is the best…[Read more]

  • No. There is a bold answer I await correction.

     

    Garry

  • Great question.  Yes I would say that the support units would also test for the reason you state. The rule as written suggests that the charge  move is complete once the charging unit has made contact, but it also mentions pursuit moves. So this would imply that the charging unit gets a follow up move including a sweeping advance or charge d…[Read more]

  • This comes from Clash of Eagles pp.96-7. The formation deploys half the bases in skirmish order rather than a third, and each base seems to get a shot, which seems a bit excessive given half the unit can’t fire.

  • As Big Al has said elsewhere the rules do not exclude more than one charge response. So in this case  I would say that closing fire is allowed. The rider being that a unit can only give closing fire once per move (p.54).

     

    Garry

     

  • No you can’t give any orders to units in Hand to Hand combat.

  • There is certainly a case that these units are given too many bonuses and special rules, however one thing I do is modify the close combat such that if an attack column charges into contact and fails to break their opponent, then they are forced into a disordered line formation, losing the +1 attack column bonus. This is a beefed up version of the…[Read more]

  • No I don’t think there is anything wrong with you. Epic clearly means more figures to the unit than normal, which does look good. But as others have pointed out the Epic battalions fill the same frontage as their 28 mm equivalents. Similarly the full scale buildings also cramp the space on the battlefield unrealistically. I have wargamed in 15mm…[Read more]

  • You are referring to the optional rule in Clash of Eagles, for units in line formation with the must form square rule. The command test is used to determine whether the unit forms square, a disordered square or none at all. As big Al said it is not in the rules per se. I don’t use it myself.

     

    Garry

  • If you read through the special rules section you  will see that some are recommended for veterans. In particular Elite 4+ which allows them to remove disorder on a D6 4+ and Reliable which adds 1 to the command test, making them move more often and further. It is really up to your particular scenario.

  • Sergio

    Mixed formation can be either lines or columns this is clearly stated in the rules for mixed formations

    Regards

    Garry

  • OK yes understood. Your interpretation of the rules is correct according to the rules as written which determine it as a clear target because the leader model at the centre of the firing unit can see more that half of the target unit’s frontage.

    The leader model is used for determining visibility to speed up the game, but in this example it…[Read more]

  • Just seen this. The maths is interesting for nerds like me. If it is an clear shot the unit fires 3 dice getting an average of 1.5 hits (on 4+), an unclear shot gives it 1 hit (on 5+), if you reduce dice to two dice with a clear shot it gets 1 hit. To be extra nerdy, probably only 1 dice has a clear shot and 1 dice an unclear shot which gives 0.5…[Read more]

  • Yes p.20-1 of the rulebook only adds to the lack of clarity as they managed to avoid mentioning attack columns.  Your interpretation is certainly a valid one, given a lack of clarity from the authors. However I suspect that this would drive you towards separate units of skirmishers because a column screened by its own skirmishers within 12 inches…[Read more]

  • I am afraid the answer is not as simple as the question. I would say that yes an attack column in mixed formation is still an attack column and gets the morale bonus, because the rules define that the unit in mixed formation is still treated as one unit not two. Thus, as you say, when fired at form the flank or rear it is still an attack column.…[Read more]

  • Garry Wills replied to the topic Cavalry formations in the forum Black Powder 2 years ago

    I don’t have Epic, I can only assume they are referring to deep formation from Clash of Eagles. A column formation other than march column is clearly a valid option. One of the things with Warlord stuff is they are not great at being consistent from one publication to another.

  • Garry Wills replied to the topic Cavalry formations in the forum Black Powder 2 years ago

    Not under the standard rules but they are allowed ‘deep formation’ in the Clash of Eagles supplement (p.96), which gives them some benefits in movement and combat resolution but greater vulnerability to artillery and reduced combat dice.

  • 1. Well that is a bit unfair, the break tests are integral to the close combat results section.

    2. No the victorious units excess casualties are removed after all the ‘necessary break tests’ have been done. This is a case of the rules not being explicit as the victorious units don’t need to take break tests. However it is implied by how the rules…[Read more]

  • Garry Wills replied to the topic About Face in the forum Black Powder 2 years, 1 month ago

    Just for clarity, the same wording I referred to is in BPI, it is not a change. I, like Alex, think some movement is appropriate, so measuring any movement from the back rather than the new front of the unit could work.

    All the best

    Garry

     

  • Garry Wills replied to the topic About Face in the forum Black Powder 2 years, 1 month ago

    Hate to disagree Alex, but I will anyway, p.36 of BPII includes reversing facing (i.e. about face) as part of normal movement rather than a formation change. So it is free provided that the unit is ordered. This will seem too easy to some although the 28th Foot at Alexandria would beg to differ, I suspect.

    All the best

    Garry

  • Load More