GHQ Models Forums

I am new to miniatures and war gaming. Please excuse the following
clarifications if they seem obvious to experienced players.

Scope:
Section 1.0 Paragraph #2 (page 1) -- 1" on the playing surface represents
roughly 25 yards
Section 8.3 Paragraph #3 (page 21) -- Ground scale is 1" = 25'
Which statement is correct? Does one inch approximate twenty five yards or
twenty five feet?

Linear Obstacles / Line of Sight:
Section 6.31 Paragraph #2 (page 7) -- Line of sight is broken by trees,
stone fences,
Section 6.31.1 Paragraph #6 (page -- Linear obstacles are rail fences,
stone fences, railroad tracks and trench works. With the exception of raised
rail beds, no linear obstacles block line of sight
Which statement is correct? Do stone fences block Line of Sight or not?

Formation:

Section 6.51 Paragraph #20 (page 16) -- Skirmish. Is there a maximum and/or
minimum distance between stands of a unit in Skirmish? Since a unit in Skirmish
formation blocks Line of Sight, it might be able to screen an entire brigade in
Line formation if the stands can be spaced a "good" distance apart.

Section 6.51 Paragraph #25 (page16) -- Disorder. As with Skirmish, is there a
maximum and/or minimum distance between stands of a unit in disorder?

Rifle Fire Example (page 10):
"Step 4. The range is 8", short range for rifled musket. The AV per stand is
1. (chart 4)." Is this a mistake? Chart 4 shows that 8" range for rifled
musket is "Long" and therefore the AV per stand is .5.

"Step 10. The target unit suffers two step losses or 1 stand." Per the result
in chart 6 (difference of 3, AV – DV, with a 2D6 roll of 7) the unit will suffer
two step losses. Per the chart instructions I understand this to be two
cohesion step losses, not stand losses. Is the example incorrect? If not, why
not?

While reading the rules, it was confusing for me to understand what type of step
losses were being discussed in the text (the firing example added to my
confusion). I understand that casualties are taken in two methods, cohesion
step losses and stand step losses. I believe the rules would be more clear if
either the word "cohesion" or "stand" were used each and every time the words
"step losses" appear. (ie. cohesion step loss or stand step loss)

Charge against an Artillery unit:
Section 6.52 Paragraph #13 (page 17) -- If the unit that has failed to stand
the charge is an artillery unit, the crews will abandon the guns and fall back
1D6" shaken and in disorder.
How is this represented on the playing surface? I assumed that (for this set of
game rules) the crew is mounted (glued) to the same base as the gun. To
properly represent the crew abandonment, should they not be mounted on the base
with the gun, or should a separate gun and non-mounted crew replace the original
gun and crew?

Hi Dana,

Daryl Nichols who wrote the rules is a moderator on this forum so with any luck he will be along to give you a definitive reply but in the mean time I'll tell you my interpretation of the rules (which may or may not be correct)

I think one inch represents 25 yards.

I take it that stone fences do block line of sight (though I must admit it has never come up as I don't have any stone fence models)

I've always taken it that there should be a gap of roughly one inch between skirmish stands. I can't remember where I got the idea from but it seems to have been borne out by a conversation I had with Daryl on this forum where I suggested mounting skirmishers on two inch stands and having them in base-to-base contact. Here's a link to that thread: http://www.ghqmodels.com/forum/viewtopi ... highlight=

When a unit is disordered I just jumble up the stands a bit so they are not in a straight line. I leave slight gaps to make it clear the unit is disordered but I keep them close together.

I think there is a mistake in the example and the chart is correct.

I think the example is wrong and you are right. The losses are cohesion step losses. (I also agree that this is very confusing. Hopefully, it will be addressed if there is a second edition)

I think the best way to handle this is to glue your artillerymen to the base but leave the gun so it can be removed. That way you can leave the gun behind if the men abandon it. You can also put the gun behind a limber if it is being towed.

I hope I have got this right. And if I haven't I hope someone will be along to give you the correct answers.

Happy gaming

Stephen

Mr (I made an assumption here, please forgive me if you are not a Mr.) Donovan.

Thank you much for the reply. Great answers.

Dana W

My pleasure Dana. It's always good to have more people interested in the ACW posting on these boards.

Stephen

Daryl is up to his backsides in Alligators and trying to drain the swamp while dealing with people who are suffering from Cranial-Rectal Impaction Disease. It involves a major project at his primary job & Daryl is spending 15+ hours a day at work. Hopefully this will resolve soon. But I sent the Major an email informing him of your question & I'm sure he will pop over here as soon as he can & answer it succinctly for you. I apologize for not letting him know earlier, but I've been dealing with some major health issues & haven't kept up on this forum.

However since Daryl & I are writing the Napoleonic rules together roughly based on the mechanisms of the ACW rules here's a bayonet thrust at the answers.

1" = 25 yards. We're using the same in Nappies

Stone fences block line of site & linear obstacles (including stone fences) do not block line of sight if the base is in contact with them & facing them.

As to the rifle fire question - I believe this is in error but Daryl will be along shortly to answer that but SJ is correct.

Formations: we're handling both of these in a different manner & more in keeping with the Napoleonic tactics so I'm not absolutely sure, but from gaming with him - I would say no particular minimum distance, just a visible gap - in practice this seems to be about the width of a base of an individual figure. a base width gap is preferred for skirmishers though to be clear.

The rest I would be as SJ answered.

I hope that helps.
Sköl,
Sven

Thank you for posting your questions on the forum, I am always happy to talk ACW. My apologies for not getting back to you sooner on your questions. As Sven, said, up to my eyes in alligators at my work.

Formation:
Section 6.51 Paragraph #20 (page 16) -- Skirmish. Is there a maximum and/or
minimum distance between stands of a unit in Skirmish? Since a unit in Skirmish
formation blocks Line of Sight, it might be able to screen an entire brigade in
Line formation if the stands can be spaced a "good" distance apart.

The frontage on a stand is 1". When a unit goes into skirmish place open the stands 1" apart.

Stand 1" Stand 1" Stand 1" Stand 1" Stand

A 5 stand unit now occupies a frontage of 9". An ACW unit when it went into skirmish just about doubled it's normal frontage.



Section 6.51 Paragraph #25 (page16) -- Disorder. As with Skirmish, is there a
maximum and/or minimum distance between stands of a unit in disorder?

Disorder the stands with a distance between them of no more than 1". Good catch by the way, this really is not addressed in the rules. I just took in all place test games jumbled the stands up and called it good.

Rifle Fire Example (page 10):
"Step 4. The range is 8", short range for rifled musket. The AV per stand is
1. (chart 4)." Is this a mistake? Chart 4 shows that 8" range for rifled
musket is "Long" and therefore the AV per stand is .5.

---Typo that didn't get caught by the proofer, sorry. The correct ranges are on page 23, Chart 4. One note as this question has come up before. What if the range is exactly 6", is it short or long? Roll a dice and even it is short and odd it is long.

"Step 10. The target unit suffers two step losses or 1 stand." Per the result
in chart 6 (difference of 3, AV – DV, with a 2D6 roll of 7) the unit will suffer
two step losses. Per the chart instructions I understand this to be two
cohesion step losses, not stand losses. Is the example incorrect? If not, why not?

--- Again, a text error that didn't get caught during proofing. Your interpretation is correct it is two cohesion steps. Chart 6, "Butcher's Bill" is correct.

While reading the rules, it was confusing for me to understand what type of step
losses were being discussed in the text (the firing example added to my
confusion). I understand that casualties are taken in two methods, cohesion
step losses and stand step losses. I believe the rules would be more clear if
either the word "cohesion" or "stand" were used each and every time the words
"step losses" appear. (ie. cohesion step loss or stand step loss)

---Agreed. I would love to do a Version 2.0 and make that change.

Charge against an Artillery unit:
Section 6.52 Paragraph #13 (page 17) -- If the unit that has failed to stand
the charge is an artillery unit, the crews will abandon the guns and fall back
1D6" shaken and in disorder.
How is this represented on the playing surface? I assumed that (for this set of
game rules) the crew is mounted (glued) to the same base as the gun. To
properly represent the crew abandonment, should they not be mounted on the base
with the gun, or should a separate gun and non-mounted crew replace the original
gun and crew?

I have my artillery stands set up so that the crew are glued to the stand and the cannon can be removed, it just sits on the stand which makes it easy to play our the situation you outline above.

Thank you for your interest and questions on the rules and thank you everybody for jumping in.

Mr. Nichols and Sven:

Thank you much. My intentions were not meant to add to your work load.

I have both the ACW and the WW2 rules from GHQ. The only other rule sets I have are "free" copies published on the web. I do not want to disrespect the persons that created these "free" rules. I would rather thank them. That being stated, your rule sets are heads & tails better than the "free" sets.

Mr. NIchols: You mentioned possible interest in a version two of the ACW rules.

I would be happy to enter the ACW rules into Word and add any changes or clarifications as currently exist in the Yahoo group. I would be able to also add any clarifications based upon my own questions as a novice. The file could then be sent to you for your review and final edit. It would then be between GHQ and yourself as to whether this version could be issued when customers place new orders. Certainly there is also a way to offer just the updates to current owners.

I am not looking for any compensation or recognition. It would strictly be voluntary.

I retired 10 years early and have available time. The only issue might be a deadline. Should you or GHQ wish to announce a specific date for possible publication, you would need to notify me to ensure that I could meet the deadline.

Should you have any interest in my completing such an edit, I would of course give you my real name, email address, telephone number and a short bio.


Once again many thanks

Regards

Dana W

Thank you for your kind offer - I will leave that to Daryl to answer that question. I'll nudge him to check here again - right now he's relaxing for the first time in months by "Pea-ing" in his garden - ie he's planting, peas, beans, etc in his backyard, LOL

I'm sure Daryl will be very happy to hear your comments regarding the rules. On behalf of the late John Fernandes (writer of the WW2 rules) thank you - I had the distinct pleasure to be a contributor & mapper for the WW2 supplement "Wehrmacht '47" with John & Daryl. Both John & Daryl are some of the finest gentlemen I have ever me & put a great deal of love & focus & integrity into their work.

I too am retired early but entirely due to being crippled from a mugging & an industrial accident. Kind of ended my careers, LOL. John, Daryl, & I have always done our work for the hobby & GHQ on a volunteer basis & out of love of the hobby & hobbyists. So your offer is honestly & sincerely appreciated. However as I said above, I'll leave the decision to Daryl especially as he has the original electronic files.

Sköl,
Sven

Thank you for your kind offer Dana.

I actually would like your feedback and ideas for a Version 2.0.

I will drop you a note using the forum's private message system and give you my private e-mail.

* Thank you for your kind words Sven, both for myself but especially for our friend John F.