Honour Forums

Discuss the Honour system.

1. Another_Grognard
   Member

   Here are some questions for Sam.
   Hi Sam,

   I did a quick scan for some of the same questions I will be asking, but did not see any. It was only a quick scan, so sorry if these have been asked before.

   Question-1: Example 6 on page 63. It says that the British Hussars are rated as Valiant, but the Army List for the British (page 104) says they are Reliable - Hussars and Light Dragoons are group together. I didn't see anything on the official errata (dated 2 Feb 2010) regarding this. Which one should players use when using the Army Builder; Valiant or Reliable for the Hussars?

   Question-2: I know woods are "Bad Terrain" because there is an example in the rule book, but can you please define "Bad Terrain" on page 56 for combat purposes? Are towns "Bad Terrain"? How bout' ploughed fields? Rocky ground? Sand? Harvested Wheat Fields?

   Question-3: On page 38, under the title "Units that do not Fall Back from Combat", it lists six circumstances where a unit will ignore a fall back as part of their combat result. The sixth one down states, "A unit whose fall back is blocked by enemy units or not sufficient to break contact with enemy units." I'm guessing this is an error, because frankly, it contradicts some of the other rules and it is confusing. Also, it doesn't appear in the list on page 59, step "b)", in the listed order for resolving a combats. Can you elucidate please?

   Question-4: Regarding the examples on page 40. Shouldn't the artillery unit face the French cavalry? That is, the horse teams pointing toward the attacking cavalry. Because, "A unit does not otherwise change its facing when falling back... it ends still facing its attacker" as stated on Page 38 under the title "The Direction of Falling Back".

   I have a few more questions, but I don't want to overwhelm you with a lot of questions, so I'll stop here. Though, the the errata did answer some of my other questions.

   Thanks Sam for your time and efforts.

   Posted 1 year ago #

2. Sam Mustafa
   Le Grand Fromage

   1. The Army Builder is correct. I'll make a note in the Errata about the example illustration.

   2. Bad Terrain is defined by the three bullet points on p. 56. A Regular unit in the Rough, for instance. "Rough" is defined on p. 21. Towns are not "rough terrain," as per page 68, first column.

   3. I'm not aware of any contradiction resulting from that sentence. It is defined in the very next column, on page 39: "Situations that prevent a Fall Back." Several examples are then given of units that can't fall back, concluding with the "Unable to Break Contact... Unit Broken" rule.

   4. As per p. 18, limbered artillery has no facing; the enemy is always "to its front," but I suppose that I could have illustrated it facing either way in the example on p.40. All examples of infantry and cavalry falling-back, however, conform to the rule about facing.

   Posted 1 year ago #

3. cam_millar
   Member

   On bad terrain, note a field is not listed on p21. I can't recall if it is in the Errata, but I think Sam has said it is Rough terrain but no cover.

   One oddity that brings up for me is that infantry can't form square in a field, which does not sound right to me.

   Cam

   Posted 1 year ago #

4. Sam Mustafa
   Le Grand Fromage

   It depends on what you want a "field" to be, which might also depend upon your terrain collection. In our games we tend to differentiate between "rough" fields and those which merely force Reduced movement. Some terrain pieces look more imposing than others.

   Posted 1 year ago #

5. cam_millar
   Member

   I play the Army Builder game with the set terrain tables. At present, it is vague what the fields in the set terrain tables are (I think 2 tables include set fields), or what any fields added afterwards by the players are treated as.

   I can certainly foresee an argument ensuring in a competition when one guy tries to form square in a field and the other guy says he cant and hits them with cavalry. Whatever the umpire (if there is one) decides is going to fairly annoy the other guy.

   Fields can be defined quite a few different ways:

   Reduced Movement/No Reduced Movement
   Rough/Not Rough
   Cover/Not Cover

   That gives quite a bit of scope to add different types of fields - say muddy fields (reduced movement but not rough or cover) or high wheat fields (Reduced Movement, not rough, cover). Quite like that to add variety.

   But I would prefer that the fields in the set terrain game are defined exactly are so players don't end up arguing about it mid game.

   Cam

   Posted 1 year ago #

6. Another_Grognard
   Member

   Thanks Sam for answering my questions. But I have some follow ups :-)

   "1. The Army Builder is correct. I'll make a note in the Errata about the example illustration."

   F1. Really? I would have thought it the other way around, because Austrian, French, Prussian, and Russian Hussars are Valiant. So, of all the major powers, only the British have Reliable (inferior) Hussars throughout the Napoleonic wars.

   "2. Bad Terrain is defined by the three bullet points on p. 56. A Regular unit in the Rough, for instance. "Rough" is defined on p. 21. Towns are not "rough terrain," as per page 68, first column."

   F2. Doh!... I read it several times, "A town base is neither open nor rough terrain; it is distinct." But focused on, "... any other formation must pass through a town a[sic] base as if it were rough terrain."

   Sorry

   "3. I'm not aware of any contradiction resulting from that sentence. It is defined in the very next column, on page 39: "Situations that prevent a Fall Back." Several examples are then given of units that can't fall back, concluding with the "Unable to Break Contact... Unit Broken" rule."

   F3. It was a little confusing because in "The combat is resolved order:" step "d)" states, "If the loser is still there (he didn't fall back), then the winner has to fall back, instead." So, looking at the Austrian/French example on page 39, maybe it would have been helpful to add, "... presence makes a fall back attempt impossible. Also note that should the French infantry lose the combat, they will break."

   The latter of course falling under the "Unable to Break Contact: Unit Broken" rule which over-rides step b) of the combat order. Because step b) along with bullet six under "Units that do not Fall Back from combat" kind of confused me a little. Now I know why that bullet is absent from step b) of the "The combat is resolved order".

   "4. As per p. 18, limbered artillery has no facing; the enemy is always "to its front," but I suppose that I could have illustrated it facing either way in the example on p.40. All examples of infantry and cavalry falling-back, however, conform to the rule about facing."

   F4. Sorry, yes, limbered artillery has no flanks or rear and faces to the front in all directions (page 18 - Squares and Limbers have no flanks) and "they may always move in any direction, make any number of turns or facing changes, and end facing in any way, whether or not they are near the enemy..." (page 28). Just that when reading the rules for the first time I had stuck in my mind that a unit that falling back "ends still facing its attacker".

   Artillery can be very nimble creatures on the battlefield in Lasalle.

   Posted 1 year ago #

7. Another_Grognard
   Member

   change "b)" to "d)" as below. It should have read:

   The latter of course falling under the "Unable to Break Contact: Unit Broken" rule which over-rides step d) of the combat order. Because step d) along with bullet six under "Units that do not Fall Back from combat" kind of confused me a little. Now I know why that bullet is absent from step b) of the "The combat is resolved order".

   Posted 1 year ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.