| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| drusty |
Posted - 10 Nov 2011 : 08:29:37
Page 39: second paragraph from the top. Has anyone any ideas on how a pikeman offers 'protection' to a friendly figure in base-to-base contact? An example would be great.
Many thanks. |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Black Sheep |
Posted - 15 Jan 2012 : 15:59:16
Hello Drusty. I hope you are having a good weekend. Your explanation of the intended use of Slash and Gallop and the consequences of a lone figure moving within fighting distance of more than one opponent is correct.
|
| drusty |
Posted - 12 Jan 2012 : 10:13:08
Thanks again, Black Sheep. Am I right in thinking that 'Slash and Gallop' can only occur if the mounted figure's opponents are beyond each others'fighting distance, allowing the mounted figure to move on from one bout of fisticuffs to another? If the opponents' fighting distances overlap, as in the case of 'pikeman protection', then the mounted figure will be involved in a bout of fisticuffs in which he's outnumbered? |
| Black Sheep |
Posted - 11 Jan 2012 : 22:21:15
Hello again Drusty. I have added a couple of key words to the new temporary download with a view to adding more clarity. I think my first version illustrated 'direction'for head on fisticuffs to occur but the accompanying text did not also make it clear that one of the 'imaginary fighting distance arrows' shown in the photos must also make contact with an enemy model's base too. |
| drusty |
Posted - 10 Jan 2012 : 10:16:05
Black Sheep,
Many thanks for the examples; -love the photos. |
| Black Sheep |
Posted - 10 Jan 2012 : 00:12:01
Happy New Year to you too Drusty. I have done a quick PDF download this evening in reply to your query about fighting distance for mounted troops.I hope that helps answer your question? The photos on the download are not that good so it will only be a temporary download. I will amend the quick reference sheets as soon as I get chance and include the additions you suggested too. All the best for 2012. The link to the temporary download is http://www.dashingdicegames.co.uk/Fisticuffs%20and%20Mounted%20Figures.pdf |
| drusty |
Posted - 07 Jan 2012 : 15:32:00
Happy New Year everyone. And, Black Sheep, many thanks for the photo-illusration of pikeman protection. I must admit, in the interrim, we'd be playing the situation as illustrated as a 'Slash and Gallop': cavalry's first attack is against the pike point, so to speak; if he wins, he gets under the pikeman's guard and can go for the musketeer with his second attack; if he wins this, he can move up to the pikeman, but not fully enagage in melee until the next round.
Our reasoning for this is that a mounted figure only has a 1/2" forward fighting distance (i.e. because of the difficulty of striking over the horse's head). But could you tell us more generally how this 1/2" reach affects mounted figures in melee? |
| Black Sheep |
Posted - 02 Jan 2012 : 20:31:46
The download that gives two examples of how a pikeman can attempt to protect his comrades is now available http://www.dashingdicegames.co.uk/Pikemen%20download.pdf |
| Big Al |
Posted - 12 Nov 2011 : 12:05:09
That's ok. I didn't think it was, really. I was only asking the question in light of the one about Senior Officer and whether or not it added anything or superceded it. I now see that it supercedes it. Thanks for your answers. |
| Black Sheep |
Posted - 12 Nov 2011 : 11:18:49
does it mean that the Blinders get a cumulative +1 to their Self Control roll if they are also within 6" of a Vampire? Or does the Vampire's Master Gumption take precedence? It would be nice to know that it is Cumulative.
Hello big Al. Sorry to disappoint you but it is not the intention to routinely make it cumulative - the Master does take precedence. When a Vampire 'Master' is within 6" of his (or her) Blinders they only get +1 to their self control. The trained Blinders would in effect have a self control rating of 2 or higher (making it very difficult, but not impossible, to make them scarper). A Blinder Captain within 6" of his Master (inspired by characters like Joachim in Twins of Evil)would 'fight to the end' as he would then in effect have a self control of 1 or higher. Witchfinder General has been written with the premise that players would tweak and adapt some of the rules, if required, to fit with their own encounters. If you do want the vampire to have henchmen that will not falter in the presence of their master, that is absolutely fine. As we know, etiquette dictates that both players should have a go at facing them. Have you been inspired by thinking of the Whitecoats "stood like rocks" at Marston Moor?
|
| drusty |
Posted - 12 Nov 2011 : 10:15:35
Black Sheep,
Many thanks for the detailed reasoning; and I'm looking forward to the photo-illustrations. |
| Paul |
Posted - 12 Nov 2011 : 00:13:02
Thanks that makes the intention of the rules a lot clearer.
Right now time to go and glue some Heresy Miniatures bits and pieces together!
May this Samhain cleanse your heart, your soul, and your mind! |
| Black Sheep |
Posted - 11 Nov 2011 : 22:30:39
it's not obvious to me -a rules' reader. That why I asked what I thought was a reasonable question.
[/quote]
Good evening everyone. I have enjoyed reading the debate about pikemen etc and the other questions.
I have chosen a quote from ‘Drusty’ because it is of course my job as rules writer to make things clear to the rules reader. With regards to explaining how a pikeman can defend his comrades, I have clearly not done as good a job as intended.
The rules do advise that figures are placed in base-to-base contact to indicate they are engaged in fisticuffs. This is suggested with the intent to make it clear ‘who is fighting who’ and I am sorry if some fellow wargamers find this misleading. The rules do acknowledge that it is not always possible. On page 27 it states “Once within fighting distance the attacking player moves their model into base to base contact with the enemy model or adjacent to any low terrain feature that may separate them”. I omitted to specify a figure that may separate them too.
On page 40 the example of the cavalryman attacking a pikeman does show (photo 2) the cavalryman moved into base contact with the pikeman to indicate they are engaged in fisticuffs. Photo 3 shows how the cavalryman was held back by the pike and the text explains “it can be assumed the cavalryman did not get past the pike during the fisticuffs”. Paul’s approach to the game of not moving a cavalryman, when it is possible, into base-to-base contact with a pikeman would work. However we found in some of our earlier games it could become a bit unclear who was engaged in fisticuffs if we had not moved opponents into base contact – hence the rule in the book.
I now appreciate it would have been helpful to provide an example to support the rule on page 39 that states “a single pikeman positioned in base- to- base contact at the rear or side of a friendly model on foot will offer ‘protection’, due to the pikeman’s larger fighting distance”.
I will create an example, in the same style as page 40, as a free download. In the interim please imagine that on page 40 in photo 1 there is a musketeer positioned in base-to-base contact at the front of the pikeman. Photo 2 would show the cavalryman in base-to-base contact with the musketeer, although at this stage he is in fisticuffs with the pikeman behind him. If the pikeman successfully strikes first the cavalryman would be moved back out of the pikeman’s fighting distance. It would again be assumed that the cavalryman did not get past the pike.
If we then use Drusty’s earlier example of the cavalryman who only sustains a scratch on his breastplate during his attack against a pikeman and a musketeer. The cavalryman could then be in base-to-base contact with the intervening musketeer- although any successful blows that got him that close would be against the pikeman (it can be imagined the real pikeman our static model represents did get in the way of a broadsword during the fight). As the cavalryman has now fought his way past the pike he is now in fighting distance of the musketeer too. This would now either initiate round 2 of a bout of fisticuffs as the attacking cavalryman is outnumbered (page 36) and the musketeer is the ‘second defender’ or (subject to the terrain and route ahead etc) the cavalryman may be able to ‘Slash and Gallop’ and avoid fighting the musketeer if his attack was not ‘head on’. I appreciate some of you have said you don’t like the idea that a cavalryman could be classed as outnumbered in this situation- but he has moved into the fighting distance of two determined foe.
I will share my view on the other questions on Saturday. The screen has died on my PC and my daughter wants her laptop back (Facebook). Time for a pint of Black Sheep. Have a good weekend everyone.
|
| Paul |
Posted - 11 Nov 2011 : 12:45:16
Having been mad enough to be involved with re enactment for a couple of years (Albeit Early medieval not ECW)I do know that when in a block of infantry it's virtually impossible to fight anyone apart from the guy directly in front of you.
Thinking about it though we had guys with 9ft spears who would fight from the second rank, protecting the front rank guys in the way suggested for Pikemen here.
May this Samhain cleanse your heart, your soul, and your mind! |
| Big Al |
Posted - 11 Nov 2011 : 08:50:10
I didn't realise that was how you were looking at it. Remember that this is a skirmish game, so the troopers have more freedom. I mean, with proper, regimented pike blocks I doubt very much that a pikeman would have the freedom to be able to affect any zone outside of his front 45 degrees. I wouldn't have thought he could have a 2" zone on either of his sides and certainly wouldn't have the room to bring his pike round to bear. Now I understand why you were asking the question. |
| drusty |
Posted - 11 Nov 2011 : 08:41:56
Paul, Big Al,
Many thanks for your insights. I suppose I was thinking too much along the regimented lines of pike-blocks and closed formations. But I see what you mean now: once under the radius of the pike, the attacker can go for whom he wants. In fact there are photographs in the book of musketeers loosely clustered around their pikemen, much as I suppose it should be played.
Thanks again. |
