[John Towles]

Let me first say it was not my intent to insult anybody.

What my game group is trying to do is come up with the rational usage of the naphtha weapon as described with the scenario in the rule book.

How are you guys even seeing this thing? We did some investigation and came up with several theories:
a. It is a clay or similar “grenade” that breaks on impact and catches fire with contact to the air.
b. It is two clay or similar “grenades” that contain substances that when in contact with each other after breaking on impact catch fire.
c. It is a clay or similar “grenade” that contains an oil type substance that in turn needs to be ignited after breaking on impact with a fire arrow, fuse, or some other such item.
d. It is a “flame thrower” device that squirts a burning substance like shown in Greek Fire illustrations.

The point I was trying to make (I guess poorly) was that a missile must strike and penetrate the target to be effective. An arrow that falls between four infantry men does nothing. A fire “grenade” that falls between four infantry men sets four men on fire. It is also an interesting discussion on what horses and camels thought about fire bursting around them.

We also see that weapon as being only good for one or two shots. It is not like you can carry them around in a basket given what happens if you break one! Also, it does not seem to be a good skirmish weapon again it is not like a quiver of arrows.

Lastly, on the open order question. Are you stating that a heavy cavalry unit could not go into open order and move up to the woods on turn X and then attack into the woods on turn Y? This would imply that non-light units that go into open order must move into the challenging ground the same turn.

The descriptions we have found for this area of Damascus at the time of the battle was one of abundant agriculture (fields and orchards) along with plenty of close built structures. There are paintings of Crusaders moving along narrow streets to get at the defenders. I guess what I’m trying to say is that most Middle East battle fields would not present these issues.

Again, thanks for any assistance provided.

[John Towles]

I respectfully disagree with that. The -1 is to “effectively hit” the target. A man of a given size at a given distance has the exact same chance of being “hit” no matter what the man has on. It is a matter of what happens after the missile “hits” the target that the -1 is telling us. In effect, did the weapon not penetrate the armor or get deflected by a shield. It could even be argued a fully armored heavy infantry man would be easier to “hit” since he is moving slower and has more difficulty in avoiding missiles speedily heading in his direction.

So if a heavy cavalry unit gets a successful “follow me” order, they could; move to the woods, change formation, and charge the enemy open order unit in the orchard?

[John Towles]

Thank you for the speedy reply!

[John Towles]

While playing the Damascus scenario from the Hail Cesare rule book, two questions came up.

1. The rules state that light units may enter woods in open order with no problem. However in the same rule section on open order it states that other unit types may go into open order to enter terrain that would otherwise cause issues. It the game, an Arab light cavalry unit in open order entered an orchard in front of the approaching Crusader army. The Crusaders stated they wanted to exercise the option with their heavy cavalry to go into open order to attack and drive the enemy out of the orchard. The question is; is the rule allowing any non-light unit to go into open order just for maneuvering or may the unit using this option initiate combat?

2. When using a range attack against certain unit types, the firing unit may take a -1 because of the armor of the target (i.e. heavy infantry from the front). Does that -1 also apply to naphtha since the fire fluid really does not care about armor?

Thanks in advance for any insight you may provide to the above questions.

[John Towles]

We found another rules conflict!
On page 37 – Troops That Leave The Table – It states that unit can leave the table via a blunder result or from a break test result. It goes on to say that such units can potentially return as described under Orders to Off Table Units.
However, on page 77 – Retiring Units – it states that units that retire from the table are deemed to be destroyed.

So when a unit is retired off the table via a break test and is NOT shaken, can it return to the table or not?

As always, any help you may provide is golden!

[John Towles]

Another one came up at our last game. Can mounted missile units fire while mounted and if so, are there any restrictions? We have a problem seeing a mounted arqubus unit firing while moving!
We have seen some period art that seems to support them shooting but it looks like a single shot while moving into combat with other mounted units.

[John Towles]

Thanks! The game worked more like we were expecting when we removed the skirmish formation from all the missile units.

[John Towles]

Wow, really! We are placing nearly all of the crossbow and arquebus armed line units into skirmish formation. They become harder to hit with shot with no loss to their own firepower. They also are immune to close combat from a formed unit since they freely evade any attack (other than by another unit in skirmish formation).
Are we doing something very wrong in our understanding of the rules?

[John Towles]

This one came up in our last game. How do units in skirmish do traversing fire since they do not have an actual “front” for an enemy unit to traverse? Or is it that since a skirmish unit may fire in any direction, they may fire traversing fire no matter where a unit moves around them? Or lastly, can a skirmish unit fire traversing fire at all?

[John Towles]

Thanks for the speedy reply!
We are using Pike & Shotte to do the tabletop battles generated by the Pike & Plunder game of the Italian Wars.

[John Towles]

Another one. May artillery pivot and fire during the same turn?

[John Towles]

Central Maryland – Near BWI airport.

[John Towles]

The rules state that when a commander is attached to a disordered unit, he may still issue orders to other units. The question is, if the unit the commander is attached to is NOT disordered, may he still issue commands to other units? A follow up would be if a commander is attached to a unit that is in continuing combat, may he still issue commands to other units?

[Author]

Posts