Retire, retreat and rout casualties

Moderators: Laffe, Vis Bellica

Post Reply
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2019 4:44 pm

Retire, retreat and rout casualties

Post by dakkadakka » Fri Dec 20, 2019 5:34 am

This point was (sort of) covered in a previous post; but not very clearly. Throughout the rules there are references to retire moves, retreat moves, and rout moves. However, the rules don’t always specify whether the unit conducting the move takes extra casualties.

I just want to be sure I have this right. Whenever a unit voluntarily or involuntarily makes one of these moves, for any reason, that unit will take the extra casualties required by that type of move (retire=1, retreat 1-3, rout 1-6). For example - an evading skirmish unit that fails its DC must retreat; therefore, it takes 1-3 extra casualties.

Am I correct?

Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2018 7:12 pm

Re: Retire, retreat and rout casualties

Post by wireme61 » Fri Dec 20, 2019 1:58 pm

I think you will find most of your answers on the play sheet.

The charge results table list casualties for the various retire, retreat and rout results.

Same with the discipline test table. Skirmishers are listed on the table result.
4-6 = Unit Unformed. **If a Skirmish Unit or an Evading unit, Retreat and Lose 1D3 casualties.**
3 or less = Retreat and lose 1D3 casualties.

There are no additional Casualties for results from Melee page 90.
Casualties in Melee. Units do not suffer extra casualties if Retiring,
Retreating or Routed in Melee – only the Melee casualties apply.

A voluntary Retire move Page 57
Close Order units may only undertake a voluntary Retire move when
Unformed. A Voluntary Retire move incurs one Fatigue Casualty. (Units
may About Face for free, there is no movement penalty). Skirmishers
and Cossacks may Voluntary Retire when either Formed or Unformed
without a casualty loss.
Hopefully that covers most of the possibilities.

Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2019 4:44 pm

Re: Retire, retreat and rout casualties

Post by dakkadakka » Sun Dec 22, 2019 2:06 am

Mark - thanks so much for the reply. I take your point about the extra casualties rule being listed on the play sheet. However, the rules don’t always support what is on the play sheet, due to some inconsistencies. For example, on page 50 it spells out the extra casualties inflicted by type of move (good so far). However, go back one page and look at the sections dealing with retire, retreat, and rout moves. The extra casualty for the retire move is listed; but, not for the retreat or rout moves.

What I am proposing is that that same inconsistency might be present for the rules concerning involuntary moves resulting from a melee; and, that the casualties might actually be taken then as well. Also, if you have additional casualties from a failed charge, it seems very logical that a failed melee combat would also result in additional casualties as well.

I’m not trying to be argumentative - just looking for clarification. Also, the limited hard drive space between my ears can probably better remember applying the extra casualties all the time, instead of only in certain circumstances. I guess the bottom line is - so long as the rule is consistently applied, it doesn’t make that much difference. The point is to have fun!

Posts: 4739
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2013 11:49 pm
Location: Linlithgow, West Lothian, UK

Re: Retire, retreat and rout casualties

Post by Archdukek » Sun Dec 22, 2019 2:08 pm

I don’t see any problem myself.

A unit which receives a Retire, Retreat or Rout result as a consequence of the Charge Procedure takes the casualties listed under Charge Casualties on page 50. They are the only casualties inflicted on it.

A unit which conducts a melee receives the casualties inflicted during the melee itself and no additional casualties for being forced to Retire, Retreat or Rout as a consequence. That’s quite clear from the explicit statement in the “Casualties in Melee” bullet point on page 90.


Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2019 4:44 pm

Re: Retire, retreat and rout casualties

Post by dakkadakka » Tue Dec 24, 2019 4:56 am

Thanks John - I had missed that cite on page 90.

Post Reply