Search found 274 matches

by KeefM
Sat Apr 13, 2013 12:53 am
Forum: Army Design
Topic: Attached divisions - minimums/maximums
Replies: 16
Views: 3751

Re: Attached divisions - minimums/maximums

Perfect - many thanks !!
by KeefM
Fri Apr 12, 2013 10:46 pm
Forum: Field of Glory : Napoleonic Era 1792-1815 : General Discussion
Topic: command point idea
Replies: 6
Views: 1527

command point idea

At present (complex moves) CMT are not possible to any unit that is out of command but those units are completely free to make simple moves . . . (I, for one, often operate a LC unit on the opposite side of the table to its Division Commander cos there is no penalty to doing so - it can be rallied b...
by KeefM
Fri Apr 12, 2013 10:31 pm
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: In Command??
Replies: 4
Views: 529

Re: In Command??

deadtorius wrote:Going through the rules lately and I noticed that all units in command move before any units out of command move,

BTB, actually this bit was deleted in the amendments !!
by KeefM
Fri Apr 12, 2013 10:29 pm
Forum: Army Design
Topic: Attached divisions - minimums/maximums
Replies: 16
Views: 3751

Re: Attached divisions - minimums/maximums

That all sounds very sensible IMHO . . . so, the general spirit of zero minimums should cause halved maximums for all units/troops whose minimums are waived too !
by KeefM
Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:02 am
Forum: Army Design
Topic: Attached divisions - minimums/maximums
Replies: 16
Views: 3751

Attached divisions - minimums/maximums

Just two quick questions of interpretation: When attached Divisions are used the rules in the army list books seem clear enough but I would like to know how to interpret the maximums. 1. Is it correct that In the case of artillery, 1/3 of of 2 is 2/3; therefore the minimum rounds up to 1 = half a un...
by KeefM
Mon Apr 08, 2013 6:52 pm
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: Mysterious missing POA
Replies: 6
Views: 733

Re: Mysterious missing POA

BTB, there is already effectively an existing -ve POA for extended lines in as much as extended lines are a 6 to hit at long range (see the top of the "to Hit" table on page 53 of the rules).
by KeefM
Thu Apr 04, 2013 6:36 pm
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: Shock Cavalry
Replies: 12
Views: 982

Re: Shock Cavalry

I rather like the idea of a CP required CMT test for spent non-superior shock cavalry trying to charge . . . at adds in more CP pressure and provides superior troops a wee fillip. Mind you, having said that, I don't think that there is too much of an issue of the tactical choices beween shock HC, LC...
by KeefM
Tue Mar 26, 2013 4:51 am
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: irregular Light Cavalry responding to a cavalry assault
Replies: 16
Views: 996

Re: irregular Light Cavalry responding to a cavalry assault

The key point was that only light cavalry in a single rank is allowed an evade move without a CT being required (bullet point on page 29). Also, it states TWICE on page 30 (both before and after the bullet points about CTs) that any failed CT results in a loss of cohesion. So: irregular LC in tactic...
by KeefM
Wed Mar 13, 2013 1:37 am
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: irregular Light Cavalry responding to a cavalry assault
Replies: 16
Views: 996

Re: irregular Light Cavalry responding to a cavalry assault

oh, BTB, currently (as written) then: if charged the cossacks MUST take a CT whether deciding to attempt to counter-charge or not; and if the CT is failed they MUST evade (but either way, if failed, they will lose a cohesion level - just like every other unit that fails a CT !)
by KeefM
Wed Mar 13, 2013 1:33 am
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: irregular Light Cavalry responding to a cavalry assault
Replies: 16
Views: 996

Re: irregular Light Cavalry responding to a cavalry assault

nah, leave it as written . . . there is some tactical advantage in being able to skirmish in tactical formation (even if simply in the amount of physical space taken up by the LC in a single rank) - it seems to me that letting irregular LC freely evade in tactical formation is an advantage undeserve...
by KeefM
Wed Mar 13, 2013 1:29 am
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: 2 of 2 shooting queires
Replies: 4
Views: 479

2 of 2 shooting queires

Dice Allocation (page 51) first two bullets, namely: a. "Artillery will always direct all their fire at targets within the closest range band." b. "A unit must allocate maximum dice at a close range target before any are allocated to a medium range target." Spliiting Fire section (page 52) c. provid...
by KeefM
Wed Mar 13, 2013 1:12 am
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: 1 of 2 shooting queries
Replies: 14
Views: 2573

1 of 2 shooting queries

1. Firing Ranges: the rules state (page 48/49, last/first sentence) "Use the shortest distance between any point of the firing unit and the target when calculating range." 2. Identifying Targets: the rules state (page 51, first sentence in section): "Artilerry and Infantry can fire at any target str...
by KeefM
Wed Mar 13, 2013 12:27 am
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: irregular Light Cavalry responding to a cavalry assault
Replies: 16
Views: 996

Re: irregular Light Cavalry responding to a cavalry assault

Too much time in the corporate sector don't you mean ?! :-) Ah, but Kendall, it VERY CLEARLY does NOT say " regular " LC . . . the bullet for evades without any cohesion test is: "Evade if LC in single rank" !! Indeed, the very next bullet point specifies infantry skirmishers ; but the LC evade with...
by KeefM
Mon Mar 11, 2013 5:28 am
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: irregular Light Cavalry responding to a cavalry assault
Replies: 16
Views: 996

irregular Light Cavalry responding to a cavalry assault

this has probably been covered before . . . a) page 29, Reaction Moves, under actions NOT requiring a Cohesion Test the last bullet point says "evade if LC in single rank". b) page 30, left hand column, 2nd text paragraph after the prior bullet points and before the next lot says, "all other reactio...

Go to advanced search