Skirmishes assualts

[Forst22]

Just noticed in the latest game that on the quick reference sheet it says skirmishes can't assault  unless 4 or more bases greater. 

A) I can't find this in the rules anywhere so wondered if it was dropped at some stage? Ie Is it a error on the qrs? 

B) does it only apply if looking at skirmishes on skirmishes only assaults or to all assaults?

[martin goddard]

I had better check that out Graham.
Sounds familiar though.



martin

[martin goddard]

Hello Graham
The intention is that pure skirmisher zones cannot assault  unless they outnumber the target by 4 or more bases.
If it has "fallen out" of the rule book than that is a shame.

Thus, we must allow players to have it either way.
I don't think anyone would assault with just skirmishers, because they cannot achieve a pursuit 5D6 or winning fight markers.

Given the choice, which way would you play it Graham?


martin

[Forst22]

The situation which occurred in this and other games was skirmishes only squares facing off on the flanks. Although the situation of lone or badly battered heavier units being prey to large numbers of skirmishes (Parthians!) Is a reasonable situation.

Given the minimum 4d6 in melee rule, then the temptation to charge rather than shoot creeps in!

To stop the silly situation of a single base of skirmishes charging a bigger force and winning then some form of rule is required.

A minimum of the skirmishes bases out numbering the target would seem reasonable.

4 or more bases than target seems very high given a max of 8 can be in the square.


My gut says that and applying the magic 4 rule, i.e. Min of four skirmishes in total and they must out outnumber the target by either a) atleast one or b) at least two?

I'm tempted by B)!

[martin goddard]

Skirmishers on their own should really just shoot their opponents away.

martin

[Forst22]

I could live with an out right ban on "all skirmisher" squares being banned from assualts.

Just have to ensure they get reinforced with a heavier unit next time!!

Tactic!

[martin goddard]

I agree with you Graham.

If you do another game report we can put it in the MILL?

martin

[Leman (Andy)]

This is confusing me. Are we talking skirmishes within a skirmish game, skirmishers within a skirmish game or skirmishers within a battle game, or even skirmishes within a battle game? That R is very important.

[Colonel Kilgore]

Skirmishers within the C&K battle game 

Spelling matters 

Simon

[Forst22]

Tell the software which keeps changing what is typed. It has some "original" takes on what should be in a sentence!

[Colonel Kilgore]

I think the problem is that not enough of the folk who program these things know anything about wargaming.

They really should get out a bit more 

Simon

[martin goddard]

Auto correct can be a real pain.
My e mails to Duncan Macfarlane got to him as Dunce Macfarlane.
Most embarrassing for me.

Naturism/naturalism?

martin

[Leman (Andy)]

I was not intending to be rude, but it was confusing. I used to have a constant autocorrect problem with Flodden Field, which kept being rendered as Flooded Field.

[martin goddard]

You must be pacific Andy

martin

[Leman (Andy)]

You must be pacific Andy

martin

It was more reminiscent of Atlantis.