"Victory Without Quarter rules questions." Topic

I posted some new player queries on the LoA Fighting Talk forum over a week ago asking for clarification from experienced players on a few points which puzzle us. My posts have had some views but no comments yet and I'm wondering whether the higher footfall on TMP makes this a better place to get answers.

My queries were about 1) rules treatment of trotter horse in "charge" and melee, and 2) when the morale test for routing friendly units is taken.

Can anyone shed light on the following please? References are to rules pages and previous posts on Fighting Talk.

1) I have read the rules and the previous Q&A on this topic but am still confused.

Back in March 2014, flick40 posted the following answer to a question about trotters and charging:

"They are weaker in melee because they trot in vs the gallop, the reduced die is because of a lack of shock on impact."

On an earlier question (November 2013) Joe answered a query about whether trotters get the +1 charge bonus:

"If they meet the requirements to charge, yes."

I may well be missing a nuance here, or perhaps evolution in the rules is at work, but the two answers seem contradictory to me. Specifically, I thought all horse except cuirassiers get 3D6 in melee, so trotters do not appear to be weaker in melee than gallopers (see 7.1).

From my reading of the rules, the main differences are:

- gallopers have a longer charge move, reflecting pressing home the attack at a gallop (page 4)
- steady gallopers must attempt to counter charge, while trotters may choose not to (page 6)
- trotters are assumed to fire at short range, while gallopers are assumed to always charge to contact without stopping to fire (6.2)

Although the rules do not say so specifically, all this seems to suggest to me that trotters do not (or at least should not) get the +1 charge bonus and the best they can do is avoid taking a -2 penalty in the first round by either:

a) making contact at the trot rather than the gallop if initiating melee, or
b) not being caught flat footed if charged (i.e. they will "counter charge" but won't get the +1 bonus

Am I right in this?

Also, if "charging", I assume trotters would get to discharge pistols at short range per table 6.2 before they trot into contact (assuming any necessary morale test is passed first). This may be at odds with Clarence's answer in January 2014, which suggested that rules evolution now meant that a unit could not fire and then charge. However, the question there was about a regiment of foot and it is not clear whether the answer would have been the same for trotters. Can Clarence, Joe or another veteran clarify please?

Finally, table 6.2 says that horse shooting hit on a 5+ and are assumed to be firing at close range. The list of modifiers does not mention a short range fire bonus, and I assume range is already allowed for in the 5+. Am I correct?

Confirmation and/or clarification from the more knowledgeable would be much appreciated!

2) I have another new player question for the more experienced out there.

Section 8, page 9 states a) that horse units test when their card is drawn, and b) foot units only need to test for routing foot, presumably also when their card comes up.

I am not clear what happens in this situation:

- unit A and B are foot units within 6 inches of each other
- unit A's card comes up and it is ordered to hold and give fire
- a little later in the turn, unit B routs as a result of enemy fire and heads for the rear
- the turn ends
- unit B's card comes out, it fails to rally and continues to rout putting it at least 12 inches away from A
- unit A's card comes out; it has no friendly routing unit within 6 inches

Does A need to test then, retrospectively, for the rout of unit B in the previous turn?

Bearing in mind that A's card might not come out for several turns after B initially routed, players would presumably have to keep a manual record of which units are potentially affected by routing friends, but this doesn't seem to be in keeping with the 'no record keeping' essence of the rules.

Assuming I haven't misread the rules, is the intention that unit A escapes the need to test if its card doesn't come up while B is within 6 inches?

On the other hand, if A has to test belatedly, wouldn't it be easier and make more sense to test as soon as B routs rather than wait for A's card to come up?

Do you ever have dreams where you are standing at the bottom of a very deep hole and shouting for help but no one seems to hear you?

I think the dude that wrote these rules does read this board on occasion…

… I can't help you though.

Hi Some Chicken, VWQ are our rules of choice at my club for ECW. They have a lot to offer, but a few gaps to fill in. I can answer your questions thus

1.Trotters do not fire as they charge in to combat. Their firepower is based on them caracoling forward and firing pistols and then retiring. This is why they can be eight inches away but still fire. Pistols are always assumed to be short range so there is no short range bonus
Trotters can attempt to charge gallopers and the charge is carried out as per the rules. Trotters can attempt to counter charge also but will not fire as they do so.

The best use of trotters is to caricole against foot from eight inches trying to get them shaken, after which they can charge without needing a morale test. When charged by cavalry they have the choice to charge or shoot, shooting can be quite effective and mirrors the real battles, sometimes it stopped chargers and sometimes it didn't !

No unit can fire and charge in the same turn

2.It is all about the situation when the card is turned. So a routing unit may be long gone when the steady unit card is pulled. So you are right, no record keeping required.
We also keep units on the table routing when the number of casualties reaches the number of bases. In the rules the unit is just removed, in real life the troops would stream to the rear

Check out other threads on VWQ on this forum, there are some useful Q and A's and house rules to cover the gaps.

Good to hear from you guys; it seems I'm not alone after all!

John – thanks very much for your comments. I am with you with how trotters were used in reality (and should be in the rules). However, what is puzzling me is this:

a) historically, the Royalist horse was superior to Parliament's in the early stages of the war, due (so it seems) largely to training and doctrine, i.e. they were gallopers while Parliament relied on trotters. Under the rules as written, trotters are arguably better than gallopers, as they have the option to fire instead of countercharging and are no different in melee, albeit they have a shorter change range (gallopers' only real advantage in the rules).
b) Joe/flick40 (who seems to be the author's chief playtester) has answered a lot of questions over the years and implied in one post that trotters had reduced die and are weaker in melee due to lack of impact (see quote in my OP). However, that melee disadvantage isn't reflected in the rules that I can see.

It seems logical that gallopers should be stronger than trotters in the first round of melee given their greater momentum, and arguably trotters wouldn't get much benefit from trotting into a melee target for the opposite reason.

The rules are very much a first stab and I'm sure we both hope they will be developed and published eventually. In the meantime, and trying to balance what seem to be conflicting answers on the LoA forum, I think I will deny trotters the +1 charge bonus but allow them to avoid the -2 horse not charging penalty providing they aren't caught flat-footed.

I would be interested in your thoughts if you think this is worth commenting on!

Hi, good to debate these things. Some of the difference comes from the unit stats and some from the drawing of the cards.

Trotters have less charge range 12" instead of 16" It would be foolish for trotters to try and soften up a unit of gallopers at 8" range and then hope to charge in. If the gallopers card comes up next there is not much distance between them.

However if the trotters provide a defensive role, the gallopers cannot soften them up (gallopers will have to pass a morale test to charge unshaken) and then will have to endure fire if the charge distance allows the trotters to fire, any casualties causing another morale test. If the gallopers get through all this then the trotters are caught at the halt. However the trotters could decide to ignore firing and counter charge themselves or evade the charge.

It is a good idea to let gallopers come on, firing is a charge reaction and does not need a card. If the trotters halt the charge with firepower (failed morale test by the chargers) then their card comes up they can then charge in themselves and finish the job. If a charge is halted by firepower we make the chargers be shaken (the rules say not)leaving them vulnerable to a counter.

Trotters are always best supported by foot or artillery. Successful trotter tactics used these combined arms (parliament at Newbury and Cheriton, intention of Byrons horse at Marston Moor) Unsupported trotters could get a pounding (parliament at Roundway Down)

To add to the debate, both sides used trotter or galloper tactics depending on situation. Rupert often used his horse mixed with commanded shot to provide extra firepower, It was intended at Marston Moor for Byron to stand and receive the charge but he left his supports behind and countercharged. Fairfax's Yorkshire horse were nearly always using galloper tactics. Balfour and Waller at Cheriton seemed to use a mixture. That can easily be incorporated into the rules. And of course even trotters can not obey commands (event 46 or brigadier who is reckless)

The main issue we come across with horse to horse combat is two squadrons wiping themselves out by getting two casualties each. In theory they should just be removed. Any thoughts on that?

John – I am not sure I like the idea of a charging unit becoming shaken (rather than simply halting) if it takes a hit, as it has then lost the opportunity to pass a morale test and countercharge. That might not matter much in practice, as trotters would presumably fire at 6" range or less, leaving too little room for the gallopers to countercharge, but it would hurt them badly in the ensuing melee. I think the shaken result probably shifts the balance too far in favour of trotters.

And as I said in my last post, I don't think the gallopers get enough credit for their charge speed if counter- charged by trotters (there were two awful massacres in our second game when trotters chose to stand and fire which scarred the Parliamentarian player!) who also get the +1 bonus.

In three games we haven't found two squadrons of horse wiping each other out at the same time. That shouldn't happen too often (with six hits needed in a round per side to achieve) but we tend to have squadrons charge side by side (two in the front rank with hits divided between them) and that might be a factor. We also can't bring ourselves to call them "squadrons" and anyone who does gets shouted down with "troops!"

We are not fans of removing units when they take sufficient casualty markers, and will rout them instead. Not only is it more logical, it looks better and the victorious unit might be forced to pursue.

I agree with the squadron comment although Squadron was used at the time for foot and horse units but the units in VWQ are more akin to the division, a grouping of troops to make up 150-300 men. One of the things I like with VWQ is that a cavalry battle can be had with multiple divisions which is how they fought at the time, other rules do not break the cavalry down in those terms.

How do you think VWQ rates against other rules?

I'm a relatively recent returnee to ECW having dabbled a bit in my far off youth but have been predominantly a WW2 gamer since then. After doing some research, I decided Forlorn Hope would be my rules of choice but also wanted a faster play set to use with a campaign of Tinker Fox I was planning. We liked VWQ so much when we tried it that we haven't used FH yet.

I am a fan of card activated systems (IABSM has been our main WW2 rules set for years), so was pre-disposed towards VWQ from the start. Although there are holes and some things which (to us at least) seem counter -intuitive (trotters seem more effective than gallopers per my OP), on the whole the small group I play with like it a lot.

I agree the idea of breaking horse combats down is a good one. We find it does come at a price though, because keeping track of casualties by sub-unit can be a bit of a pain.

It would be great to hear that VWQ is moving up LoA's priority list and that a fully developed and expanded version is being readied for publication. In the meantime, I have a large custom card deck and a plethora of single figure markers (shaken, reload, casualty etc) for VWQ so will continue to play!