Just a few questions regarding disruption:
1. If a disrupted unit is forced to recoil into a hex containing an unattached general, is the general now considered attached to the disrupted unit, or can he remain in the hex and be considered unattached, or can they make way to an adjacent hex without the usual disruption?
2. It is possible for a unit to be in a situation where it could make way several times for recoiling or fleeing units over the course of a combat round, is this allowed, or can they only make way once?
3. A unit is made to recoil but is not disrupted. In order to make this move it forces another unit to make way. Are both units now regarded to be disrupted or only the unit making way?
4. In a multiple combat several units are forced to recoil. Are these recoil moves considered simultaneous with each unit moving into different hexes, or could one unit recoil and then another recoil into the same hex causing the initial recoiling unit to make way thus limiting the impact of several units crashing into lines of following troops?
5. Can disrupted units make way?
6. An already disrupted unit wins a combat round resulting in the enemy recoiling. Does the victorious disrupted unit follow up or remain stationary?
7. A unit with the flee ability uses it to escape a dangerous situation. Does the unit have to flee the full move distance or can the player choose to move only a part of it?
8. Final question, not disruption related, gunpowder weapons nullify the protection provided by armour, do they also have this effect on the A2 protection given by pavisses?
1. I couldn't find any info on this situation and so made the following interpretation- hope this is correct. The unattached general can make way into an adjacent hex thus joining another unit or remaining unattached. If the general chooses to stay in the hex with the disrupted unit, then they too will suffer the effects of disruption until able to rally the unit.
2. A unit can make way or be passed through only once and is then disrupted. It cannot then be passed through or made to make way again until the disruption is removed. The unit can only move as a result of compulsory moves which directly effect the unit ie being forced to recoil, flee or follow up in combat.
3. The recoiling unit is NOT disrupted, although the unit making way is.
4. The recoil occurs simultaneously with each unit moving into it's own hex.
5. No, disrupted units cannot make way or be passed through.
6. Yes, the disrupted unit has to follow up as normal, however in a multiple combat the victor can choose which unit follows up and so could elect to leave the disrupted unit where they are and move a less vulnerable unit instead.
7. Not sure on this point. The rules state they can "move up to a full move away" and so can elect to move just part of the allowable move distance. This means, however, that cavalry could just replicate the same as an evade move. The advantage of evade over a response flee move seems to be that evaders remain facing the enemy and so can still shoot but those fleeing cannot- but if only part of the flee move is used the unit will still be in a position to shoot (because in the small arms shooting rules it reads "Shooters must fire at their nearest enemy unit and can turn before firing if they are not disrupted" . This ability to turn to fire in the shooting phase seems to make it too easy to just put your missile troops facing any way you like because there is no way for a cunning enemy to catch them on the hop with some devious manoeuvre as they can just turn anyway, the same is also true for artillery, so little thought needs to be put into the direction of facing. The only effect it has is that moving them in the next movement phase may be trickier if they've had to turn a new direction to fire. Any thoughts?
8. Again not sure, but decided to go with they do not negate the protection provided by pavisses (or woods, etc for that matter).
Hope this is correct, and looking forward to the rules updates
Missile troops receiving a charge fire normally at chargers to their front, but incur the +1 to hit penalty if having to turn to fire at attackers to the flank or rear. If multiple attackers make contact to different sides, eg one attacker hits the front whilst another strikes the flank, the defender chooses which to fire at- the front one with no penalty (but could be tougher troops) or the flank attack (which could be weaker troops but would now be harder to hit).
Just an idea
I'm not sure about that one, any modifiers over one might make it just too hard for C class troops- although looking at the quality of archers across the armies the roll needed to hit varies and does not always follow that A class archers are better at shooting than B or even C class English longbowmen for example. I think it reflects their resilience on the combat results table more than anything. The idea is more to reward good movement when attacking, and giving a small penalty to missile fire when threatened or attacked to the flanks or rear, but not too much to upset the balance completely. What do you think?
Sorry to jointhe discussion late - I was a very interested in the ideas expressed. There are anumber of issue raised, perhaps the shooting one does require some explanation from me, the others you seen to have pretty well sorted!
The principle that all un-disrupted units of shooters can always turn and shoot in any direction in response to enemy movement/action is very important. I'm sure that my thinking on this issue came about by playing other systems in which oponents are able to undertake actions to which you cannot make a response until your own turn. The 'I do it to you and then you do it to me' approach. In H&H the idea is that provided that you are not disrupted, you can respond to enemy activity which you can plainly see is taking place. This turning to face before firing I believe should be without penalty because it is a natural or ordered response to what is happening. It has proved very popular with players who agree with this automatic response philosophy.
Thanks for the reply. I too have played the systems you describe, and you're right they can be very frustrating to see your troops surrounded without the ability to respond. My idea was just a thought to not take this great strength away from the game, but just to throw out some ideas for discussion. What we're finding really great is the speed of play and just how closely fought our battles usually are. Looking forward to the updates to the rules, any news on possible release date. Many thanks,
The rules are great- just a little more clarification needed on certain areas. I also played Warmaster for years, when it worked it was great fun and entertaining. However, the command rules, needing to roll dice to perform an action, were just too random and could be unnecessarily frustrating- I had games where the majority of the army failed command rolls for the first few turns of the game and effectively spoilt it. In Hordes and Heroes, command structure does break down as the battle progresses, but only as a result of loss of command, enemy movement, disruption, etc. This has resulted in very close battles in every game. A well thought out and balanced set of rules,
Still unsure of the difference between the response moves evade and flee. In the rules it states that the player can elect to use these when contacted by the enemy. In units such as light cavalry with E2 and Flee, the E2 as an ability seems to be redundant because you can replicate E2 by just using part of the allowed Flee move, and then turning to shoot in the shooting phase. It also states that attacking units can
"follow-up using any movement remaining after making the initial contact. This may enable contact to be re-established and for hand-to-hand fighting to take place."
However, in the Flee response section it makes no mention of the attacking unit being able to pursue. Is this the difference, (although this would seem a little unfair), or can units mount a pursuit as in the compulsory flee move?
Can anyone help clarify the difference. Many thanks,