Competitions bring together players from a wide variety of
places and groups. With a set of rules written in the style of
WRG 1685-1845, each group develops its own
interpretations, conventions and house rules. With players
reading rules differently and making moves where the
expected result is different to opponents' understanding,
there is potential for argument and ill feeling. Even with the
predominate good will and give and take that I have
experienced in our competitions, there is a definite slowing
of games, which detracts from enjoyment.
Listed and discussed below are issues which were raised as a result of play and queries at CANCON 99. Some relate to the ACT Cumberland Society amendments and interpretations, others relate to basic rules. It is hoped that we can produce a consist set of rules and interpretations for use in the major Australian WRG horse and musket competitions.
Visibility: Can troops be seen over other troops?
There are two opposing conventions concerning visibility of troops through formed bodies of troops. This mainly effects testing reaction to being charged, where there is a penalty "For each friendly unit currently visible broken or in rout within 300 paces".
The argument for bodies of troops blocking visibility is based on the explicit statement under the visibility heading "Generals can see or be seen by their own troops over other troops". The inference being that if such an explicit statement is needed for generals then it is implicit that troops block line of sight.
The argument against troops blocking visibility is based on there being no explicit statement that they do so. Historical argument would imply that formed bodies of troops do block visibility. There is the classic tactic of screening a deploying horse battery with a squadron of cavalry.
Recommend: Treat formed bodies of troops as blocking sight. (This also has implications for charge declarations.)
90 degree turns to form line from column: do you need to wheel first?
(page 29 versus page 30)
Under "Direction Changes" the rules specifically state: "Turning 90 degrees to convert a line into a column or vice versa, or to march to a flank, is not allowed under these rules". Earlier, under the same heading, it is said "Except for turning about and those cases in which a units change of direction results from uncoordinated turns by individuals, as in evades, routs, pursuits and rallying back, all changes of direction by units are made by wheeling." However, under other formation changes, it states "... a column can also change into a line at right angles to the direction the column faces and vice versa, the front corner of the column corresponding to the extreme flank of the line."
These statements are mutually contradictory.
Local practice in the ACT has been to give the earlier statement precedence. To change face by 90 degrees, first wheel the lead element of your column, and then expand into line. Alternatively, form column from line, then wheel the lead element 90 degrees.
Historical arguments: I believe the 90d change of front was more from a column of march, rather than from an attack column. Column under the rules is more of an attack column. Does anyone have a source quoting actual drills on change of front?
Recommend: follow current ACT local practice.
Artillery moving and firing
The Cheltenham lists for 18th C armies give amendments permitting battalion guns to move and fire provided animals are also available to help move the piece.
The rules state that "Manhandled and elephant artiller y are always ready for action, though they still cannot fire and move in the same bound. However, this does not apply if animals are helping move pieces at manhandled speed." It has been pointed out that this means if animals are helping move pieces at manhandled speed, then guns are not ready to fire and some form of unharnessing/action move is required to make them ready to fire. (I think this is meant to cover the case where there is insufficient crew available to manhandle the pieces, but there are some animals available.)
WRG seven years war lists amendments allow that a battalion gun to be manhandled with a single crew figure and to move and fire if par t of an infantry line.
Historical argument: There are several cases in Revolutionary and Napoleonic battles where the French moved their artillery forward very rapidly and maintained fire (eg Friedland). Also, after each firing, an artillery piece needed to be run up to where it started. Further, most sets of Napoleonic rules do permit some form of "prolong" where firing batteries can be moved forward while firing.
Recommend: Allow Light Medium and lighter artillery to be manhandled 50 paces and fire in the same bound. Allow Medium and Heavy Artillery to be manhandled 25 paces and fire in the same bound. This is dependent on minimum crews for manhandling being available, and is not permitted to raw gunners. This permits battalion guns to move and fire as part of a firing line and permits battery guns to realign after firing. (Possibly do not permit for batteries using civilian drivers.)
Deployment of limbers
Especially for heavy batteries, a full complement of limbers takes up enormous area on the table top. It certainly complicates manoeuvre. Is the size of this area realistic?
Certainly the artillery model base only covers the 10 yard (15 pace) gun line and the 40 yard safe zone immediately behind the guns. There should be an additional area for placement of limbers, caissons etc. However, just what depth should this area be?
Taking heavy guns, parking is required for 5 caissons plus a limber for each gun.
Some years ago I tried the amendment where only a single limber was required for each battery, to represent all limbers, placed sideways behind the guns, with a 40 pace gap between gun and limber. These seemed to work successfully.
Recommend: Use amendment as outlined in previous paragraph.
Overshoots and danger zones
The only really contentious issue here is with overshoots through skirmisher screens. The rules (for once) are reasonably clear in all other cases.
If a friendly unit is in a danger zone and in direct line of fire between shooting and target unit, then it is the primary target and is diced for first, with misses being potential hits on the selected target. Otherwise, the target unit is diced for first, with misses being potential hits on friends in the danger zone.
Should there be overshoots through deployed skirmish screens? ACT Cumberland convention is that if a unit has its integral skirmishers deployed less than 100 paces ahead, then normal overshoot rules for small arms fire apply and e the main body is a valid overshoot target. However, the rules state, that for skirmishers and supports, "The unit counts as a skirmishing target to elements shooting with small arms from nearer to the skirmishers than to the supports, as a main body target if other weapons or circumstances".
This would imply that if small arms are firing through a skirmish screen, then the main body is not subject to overshoots.
Skirmisher rules
While the rules give a maximum distance skirmishers can be placed ahead of supports, they do not give a minimum distance. I would suggest a minimum distance of 50 paces from front of support to rear edge of skirmisher base, with skirmishers being forced to rejoin the main body if this distance cannot be maintained.
Mounted infantry - limitations while mounted
Mounted infantry should not be useable as cheap cavalry. Mounted troops in hand-to-hand have major advantages over foot, even at even factors. At the very least, mounted infantry must be counted as unsteady on the grounds that they are not capable of "maintaining a precise rigid formal formation" while mounted.
The rules state that infantry charged while mounted become shaken. It may be worth amending this to infantry in any form of hand-to-hand while mounted become shaken. A unit may only be countercharged if its initial charge has not contacted an opposing formation. Common practice appears to be that chargers can be "charged" if they contact enemy on initial charge. The difference is considered to be one of phasing. A counter-charge contacts in the response phase of the bound in which the charging unit has its final charge and pre-cedes hand-to-hand. A charge into a charging unit commences with the initial charge in the manoeuvre phase and contacts in the following response phase after that in which it is declared. The original charger gets an unimpeded hand-to-hand.
It is also common practice that a unit testing to "charge" a charging unit in this manner tests using the 3 point penalty for countercharging enemy charging friends. It can also be played that chargers cannot be charged, they can only be counter-charged. This gives very major advantages to who ever gets the initiative in a round of charging and has major implications over siting and use of reserve units.
Recommend: Need more play testing before making a recommendation.
Infantry disorder when charging
As previously mentioned, infantry making any form of charge move become disordered. This means an infantry formation which fails to hit a target becomes vulnerable.
This particularly limits an infantry unit's ability to make a feint charge to clear away skirmishers - it is just too vulnerable to a subsequent charge by supporting units. One option is to make infantry disordered only if they have made a final charge without contacting enemy, as is the case for cavalry.
Historical argument: Different nations had different practices. The French tended to whip advancing troops to a frenzy at early stages during an advance and in effect launch a charge at a relatively long distance. More stolid nations tended to keep troops in formation until about 40 to 60 yards away from the target and then launch into a charge. Once a charge is launched troops clearly would become disordered.
The key is what an initial charge move is intended to represent.
Recommend: If using amended rules permitting formed bodies to charge through enemy skirmish screens, then leave this rule as is. If playing that chargers must stop on the line of deployed skirmishers, then consider that infantry not having contacted enemy and not having made a final charge move remain ordered.
Testing to charge raw troops as if steady infantry Raw regular troops are automatically unsteady. This makes them very vulnerable to charging regular infantry, who do not test with the 4 point penalty for charging steady regulars. It considerably lessens the value of raw troops.
Treating raw regulars as if steady for the purpose of testing to initiate charge is a very common convention. This makes raw troops considerably less vulnerable.
Recommend: Treat raw regular infantry as formed for the purpose of testing to initiate charge.
Cumberland ACT uses an amendment based on that published in the WRG seven years war army lists, where units must test on the "rally from pursuit" table to successfully feint charge.
The amendment currently used uses the "rally from pursuit" table exactly as given. There is a feeling that if this test is to be kept, then it should be amended to make it difficult for irregulars to feint charge and easier for cavalry to successfully feint charge against an infantry square.
The seven years war army lists have amended the "rally from pursuit" table so that the 3 point penalty for cavalry is for "cavalry or irregulars". As squares were not a big issue in seven years war, they have not considered any correction for these.
Recommend: Changing "rally from pursuit" test so Cavalry penalty reads "Cavalry or Irregular". Adding line to test: "Cavalry testing to feint charge steady square ... -2".
Auto evade into supporting square amendments
ACT Cumberland amendments permit independent skirmish companies and deployed artillerymen to automatically evade from a charge, into a friendly square within 100 paces. There is some feeling that this evade should not be automatic, but should be tested for, but without the "Foot not in square charged by cavalry in open" penalty.
Conceptually, this was thought of as equivalent to deployed skirmishers in a skirmishers and supports for mation evading back to supports, where even if the skir mishers broke, they rallied on meeting the supports.
One possibility is having the supporting square test for being charged.
When can shaken troops be rallied (repulsed or falling back)
When troops are shaken as a result of shooting casualty reaction, they must retire at least 25 paces in their following manoeuvre phase. This obviously prevents troops rallying forward on that phase. However, does it prevent troops rallying back?
The rules state "…troops who were halted must retire shaken at least 25 paces next bound…". This can certainly be read as that they cannot do anything else, including rally.
Under the heading "Rallying on the battlefield", it says "Rallying takes place in the manoeuvre phase, replacing all other activity by the ralliers during the phase." If "retiring shaken" is viewed as an "other activity" then this further reinforces the interpretation that the unit can't rally.
There is also the question of troops which are repulsed shaken as a result of a failed test to charge home? Can they rally on the same turn as they fail their test? If they can, then it denies the opposition an opportunity of charging them while shaken. The rules do not discuss this point.
Looking at other cases where a unit acts in the response phase, one finds that evaders are compelled to rally, where those making emergency formation changes may not make any activity in the manouevre phase except an initial rout. Should a charge or final charge be considered more like an evade or more like a formation change? Intuitively it is more like an evade, which means that a rally back should be permissible.
The problem from an historical perspective, is that it negates the British tactic of firing at the last minute and charging, which usually resulted in an opponent routing.
Recommendation: Permit the rally back.
Shaken penalty on shooting casualty reaction
Reaction to shooting casualties test is one where there is no penalty for testers being shaken. It has been suggested that shaken troops receive a 2 point penalty on this test.
My understanding is that historically, troops recovered quite readily from disorder etc provided there was no immediate threat. Also, troops could get involved in very prolonged firefights.
Recommendation: Do not make this change.
Which figures count in hand to hand
I once had a problem in a game where with 10 figure of cavalry facing 10 figures of cavalry on a matched frontage, not only did I have only 3 effective elements facing four, one of those elements was at advantage because it was overlapping me!
"Odd figures of any kind are treated as a full element if only one figure short, otherwise are ignored."
My unit of 10 cavalry was facing 2 units of five figures. My 10th figure was deemed not to exist at all for hand-to-hand purposes and the 2 figure element opposing it was considered to have overlapped the three figure element it was in partial contact with.
There is another problem with determining how many elements fight against a charging unit of narrower frontage.
The rules state "…troops…can only fight bodies in contact with part of their elements front base edge."
Consider the case of one cavalry element facing three, basing as illustrated below:
The single element is exactly lined up with the middle one of the three opposing elements. It can be viewed as there is no part of the front of either flank element in contact with the single element |OOO|, and so only the one element of the three |XXX| elements is permitted to fight. Whereas, with the case of one element versus two as illustrated below,
Recommendation: Odd figures are ignored only for the purpose of determining number of dice to be thrown. They count in hand to hand for all other purposes, and do prevent overlaps. Also, a player is permitted to determine his element boundaries in such a manner as to maximise the number of el ements fighting.
Overlaps in hand to hand
The rules state that:
"When an element partly overlaps an enemy formation, the whole of the element is usually assumed fight. It is therefore legitimate to move troops into contact in such a way that two friendly elements contact one enemy element. It is not necessary to line up opposing formations exactly opposite each other. It is therefore possible for two opposed formations possessing the same number of front rank elements to overlap each other on opposite flanks."
The key thing with overlaps is that these give an advantage in both hand-to-hand combat and in charging home. However, overlaps are not strictly defined in the rules. Cumberland convention is that an element must overlap its opponent by at least 30 paces to gain any advantage.
Literal interpretation of the overlap section of the rules gives some very strange results. Take the case of a column with a one element front charges the end of a line. If it contacts so that only 5 paces of its front element contacts the very end element of the line, then it gains all the overlap bonuses.
Consider the case illustrated below:
Where all elements are infantry and element OOOO has charged into the right hand XXXX element, and is just out of contact with the left hand XXXX element. In this case, it appears that the rules give OOOO reaction benefits for charging home and advantage for overlap in hand to hand. The right hand XXXX gets no overlap consideration because OOOO is charging.
Recommendation: Only count an element as overlapping another if it both overlaps an opposing element by at least 30 paces and it is not itself overlapped.
Removing casualties and effects on formations
Consider the case of a column two elements deep and with a single element in the rear rank. If it suffers two or more casualties, and these are taken from the rear rank, then the formation is technically no longer a column. Specifically, consider the case illustrated below:
Two regular infantry elements in column, with the rear element being only three figures. If it loses two figures, it is no longer in a recognisable formation. If it loses three figures, it is a line.
Also consider a three element column, as below:
If it takes two casualties, where are these taken from? If these are taken from the front, then the fighting ability in terms of effective elements for shooting and h2h are reduced and vulnerability to overlap is increased. If taken from the rear, then the formation is no longer a column and is, in fact, no longer a recognised formation. Further, for reaction purposes, when does it cease to be a column? This important for receiving a charge and for testing in response to shooting casualties.
Historical arguments: In terms of historical reality, this is quite absurd. The situation arises purely as a result of a rules artifact, where the requirement is to form up by elements.
Historically, an attack column for a battalion was usually on a one or two company front – this would equate to a column frontage being a quarter to a third the number of figures in a unit. This would be most closely modelled by a single element frontage column.
Recommend: This needs further discussion. One possibility is to limit columns to a single element frontage. A wider frontage, two elements deep is treated as an extra deep line, but gets column bonuses for defending against cavalry.
Surrendering - permissible times and effects on opponents
Under unamended rules, any body of troops can be honourably surrendered at any time their player wishes. This is very easy to abuse, so that a unit can be surrendered at such a time so as to make a pursuing unit vulnerable to a charge or a fire trap. One amendment has been to limit surrenders only to the owning player's movement phase. This can still be used to make pursuers vulnerable to a charge.
Recommend: My suggestion is to modify surrender procedure as follows. The decision to surrender is made at the end of the owning player's manoeuver phase, but the figures are not removed until the accepting player's immediately following response phase. This way pursuers are still treated as pursuing for reaction tests etc.
Units falling below fighting element strength
When a unit is so damaged as to fall below fighting element strength, it can only effect the game by forcing a pursuit or obstructing other units. It is not strong enough to directly inflict damage on the enemy. One convention is that when a unit has fallen below fighting element strength, the remaining figures are surrendered at the next permissible opportunity. An alternate convention is that they are removed the moment the unit falls below fighting element strength.
Winning and losing - point counts
Standard point count for deciding competition game wins is both tedious and artificial. It is possible for a player to have lost on point count because of damage to a single expensive unit (especially artillery), or scattered damage to expensive units, but have a clear tactical advantage looking at the game as a whole.
Point count can be avoided altogether, if organiser's/umpires assessment is used. However, this is potentially very subjective and open to dispute. Two alternative quick point count methods have been tried and seem to be reasonably workable.
The first is to count on a whole effective unit basis. Points are counted for whole units only, single figure casualties are ignored. A unit which is not in rout nor permanently shaken counts full points if on table, half points if off table. A unit which is on table, in rout, but not permanently shaken counts half points. Count the value of ar tillery models whether lost or not – this represents all the specialists, caissons, train etc which is purchased for artillery, but is rarely actually lost, and reduces the point count effect of artillery being overpriced in the rules. Full value of crews and limbers are taken into account in assessing losses.
The second is to count losses on a simplified individual figure basis. Score losses only. Each infantry and artillery crew figure counts one point, each cavalry figure counts two points. Elephant models count 3, gun models count two points, each limber and team counts one. Staff figures count two. Permanently shaken figures count as lost as do off table routers, routers on table count half (if not permanently shaken), other troops off table also count half. Win, lose, draw is determined by differences in losses inflicted against a nominal value for a given army size. (eg 120 loss points for a 750 point army).
Recommend: The second method works very well for small games, up to around 1000 points. It is still workable for larger games. However, for larger games, definitely 1300 points WRG upwards, I would prefer the first method.
CONCLUSION
The points listed above are all ones which have caused problems when I have either refereed or played WRG games. They can not be considered exhaustive, but certainly include the ones I consider most problematical.
Back to Table of Contents -- Kriegspieler #6
To Kriegspieler List of Issues
To MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1999 by Kriegspieler Publications.
This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com