I believe a), b), and c) are all correct.

The way you have been playing it until now would be correct if the target were cavalry, who are only hit on a 4 when assaulting and when the assault commenced from a position directly ahead of the unit firing defensively.

Andy D

How does this tie in with the statement on p.58 that "Non- Skirmishers in unfavourable terrrain fight as 1 cohesion level lower"? Is this in addition or instead of the 2 level drop for being in difficult terrain? I had always assumed the later, so that non-skisrmshers fight at reduced dice...

I would say that making a half move to the rear to reduce the amount of fire taken or get out of assault range has been a consistent feature of my recent games (in part due to the higher quality troops in the 1809 ToN lists, in part due to understanding the game better). The ability to do this fairl...

The actual requirement after taking 1 or 2 shooting hits is for a "CMT to advance" (see p.54). An "advance" is defined in the glossary on p.104 and not all moves would qualify as an advance. For example, IMO a 180 degree turn followed by a half move ending facing the original fro...

I don't think you're missing something. I think the natural reading of the text does produce the problems you highlight. Nevertheless, I think that the intention of the authors was that the answer should be option 1 on your list (see Terry's reply on this thread, for example, http://www.slitherine.c...

Personally I don't see a problem with this. Units in FOGN are not solid blocks of men, but multiple lines with significant gaps between them. The units in the third line of cavalry in deep formation are perhaps up to 200m from the actual melee, being kept in reserve until required. It is worth notin...

p.112 of the rules states that "base width" is a constant measure regardless of the actual base size being used, but it is silent on "base depth". However, it does state that: "No player may gain an advantage purely because his figures are based differently to the rules stan...

Judging from the points cost and the classification of French Chasseurs the the other 1809 lists, I'd say Average Drilled is the second option.

Andy D

I believe thay both may be correct. The large size of Hungarian units is consistent with the other Austrian 1809 lists and is probably to represent the large size of Hungarian battallions (even a regiment fielding only 2 battalions could qualify as a large unit). The minima of 4 seems inconsitent at...

There is no need to meet the cavalry minima if you import a Dutch Belgian infantry division or to meet the infantry minima if you import a Dutch Belgian cavalry division. See Terry's response in this thread http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=188&t=35226 . You could therefore field t...

keep in mind if you are working off a separate allied list you can only take core units from the allied list I'm not sure this is always true. The restriction on only using core troops only applies when using the "Mixed Nationality Corps 1813-14" provisions and perhaps some other lists wh...

I believe you can. IMO the restrictions in the special instructions for a list apply to units and formations from that list only, unless otherwise specified (for example in some lists the type of division that can be imported and/or the units the imported division can contain are specified). The imp...

I can't see anything in ToN that explicitly states (or even implies) that the maxima for infantry units in mixed divisions in the rules no longer applies. As you say ToN is totally silent on the issue. I can only suggest you hold back on your "grande" plan until Terry returns from his holi...

I'm not sure there is any great conflict. The rules limit you to 4 units of cavalry plus 4 units of infantry and a unit of artillery in a mixed division. ToN tightens the limit to 2 units of cavalry unless otherwise specified in the list. I can't see any reason why they can't both apply. i.e. unless...

When there are no enemy capable of shooting at them, unreformed infantry without a skirmisher attachment, but with an artillery attachment, get 2 dice at a single target within medium range (i.e. 0+2 for the attachment). They lose no dice for cavalry as normal. If they have no attachments at all the...

I'm not sure that there's much I can add. I would agree with the way Hazelbark played it, if only because in situations where it is the position of the target that's important to getting a positive or negative POA its normally made clear in the third column of the table (i.e. POAs for cavalry vs inf...

So far we have never figured out the whole ACV thing in our games. When it looks bad enough one of us surrenders. Advantage of playing friendly games In the last game I played, 1809 French v 1809 Austrians, the Austrians fairly quicky got themselves within 1.5 ACV of getting a 30-10 victory when a ...

Given the divergence of views on this subject, I did start sketching out a system for variable points games a couple of days ago. The aim would be to allow people to compete against each other with unequal forces, but hopefully with each having a fair chance of success. It would work over a 200 pt r...

but scale and feel are not good enough for most people; they want easy, they want pretty and they want NOW. People don't have the patience to sit around painting for a year before they get enough ready to start an army. I'm sorry, but what gives you the right to talk on behalf of "most people&...

The minimum number of bases of each troop type applies to the whole of your army (i.e. a corps), not to each division within the army. However, each infantry division must contain one Hanovarian and one British unit . This represents the organisation adopted at Waterloo where British and Hanovarian ...