Auteur |
Message |
SteveR
Signifer
Inscrit le: 21 Mar 2018 Messages: 369
|
Posté le: Lun Fév 21, 2022 5:04 pm Sujet du message: Does a cancelled ability still cancel abilities? |
|
Consider a unit of Heavy Chariot Impact charging a unit of Heavy Sword Armored with support.
The sword lose the first round of the melee
The Heavy Chariot's furious charge is cancelled by the support per page 18.
However the Armor is cancelled "During the first round of a melee if the enemy has Furious Charge..." per page 17
In my opinion the Chariot may not currently have Furious Charge but it still does have the Furious Charge ability. Even if the word "ability" does not appear on page 17.
So my conclusion is that the sword does not benefit from Armor.
Steve
(we now return you to the previously scheduled debate about how many Angels can wheel on the head of a pin if an enemy pin is right next door and the second rank of Angels would overlap it) |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
daveallen
Tribun

Inscrit le: 28 Jan 2016 Messages: 758
Localisation: Rugby & CLWC
|
Posté le: Lun Fév 21, 2022 11:21 pm Sujet du message: |
|
Of course the swordsmen don't get the benefit of armour as their armour class is the same as the Heavy Chariot.
A more interesting question is if the Chariot loses the combat does it get the benefit of better armour?
Yes - if its (cancelled) and furious charge still cancels the HSwd's armour (see http://www.artdelaguerre.fr/adlg/v3/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7848)
No - if its (cancelled) and furious charge doesn't cancel the HSwd's armour.
I hope that helps
Dave _________________ Putting the ink into incompetence
Dernière édition par daveallen le Mer Fév 23, 2022 9:41 am; édité 1 fois |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
SteveR
Signifer
Inscrit le: 21 Mar 2018 Messages: 369
|
Posté le: Mar Fév 22, 2022 12:39 am Sujet du message: |
|
Silly me, of course you are correct that with Heavy Chariots the Armor MAY be equal (see the example on page 17- if the Furious charge being cancelled does not cancel the foot's armor, they are equal. If it does then the Chariot would indeed have heavier armor.)
But the fundamental question remains.
Make the winning unit medium cavalry impetuous instead. It has impact and furious charge. But loses the furious charge due to support. Does the swordsman keep the benefit of Armor when it loses? |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Za Otlichiye
Signifer
Inscrit le: 07 Sep 2021 Messages: 341
Localisation: Lovecraft country (and you Dan?)
|
Posté le: Mar Fév 22, 2022 6:25 pm Sujet du message: |
|
This really isn't a page 17-18 question. Page 18 lists a number of situations where Furious Charge does not "apply", and page 17 asks whether a unit "has" Furious Charge. You might as well ask if the Armored foot is in rough terrain, does Furious Charge negate the armor advantage?
Page 63, however, adds confusion. It introduces the idea of cancellation in the 2d and 3d bullets. Furious Charge is explicitly "cancelled" by attack on flank or rear; But bullet 3 talks about the outflanked unit being unable to cancel the abilities of units attacking it in the flank or rear, but still able to cancel those of a unit attacking the front edge.
When I looked at this, I couldn't see any abilities that flank or rear attacking units would have to begin with, nor understand what cancelling abilities the outflanked unit would retain. It looked like the rules equivalent of code rot.
Be nice to have this cleaned up.
Dernière édition par Za Otlichiye le Mar Fév 22, 2022 7:35 pm; édité 1 fois |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
KevinD
Légat
Inscrit le: 23 Aoû 2021 Messages: 648
Localisation: Texas
|
Posté le: Mar Fév 22, 2022 7:11 pm Sujet du message: |
|
Units charging the enemy in the the flank or rear, where there is no other unit engaged I combat to that enemy’s front, get their abilities such as furious charge. |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
daveallen
Tribun

Inscrit le: 28 Jan 2016 Messages: 758
Localisation: Rugby & CLWC
|
Posté le: Mer Fév 23, 2022 9:35 am Sujet du message: |
|
Go to the wording on pages 17 & 18:
Page 17, Armour and heavy armour, para 4:
Citation: | In combat, Armour and Heavy armour abilities are cancelled in the following cases:
During the first round of a melee if the enemy has Furious charge (even if losing the melee),
... |
Then
Page 18, Furious charge, para 3, bp 4:
Citation: | Furious charge does not apply in the following cases:
...
Against foot with Missile support ability when charged by mounted units.
... |
The key words here are does not apply.
So the armour ability is retained because the ability that would cancel it does not apply.
Dave _________________ Putting the ink into incompetence |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
vexillia
Centurion

Inscrit le: 21 Nov 2017 Messages: 408
Localisation: Nantwich, UK
|
Posté le: Mer Fév 23, 2022 11:49 am Sujet du message: |
|
Thank heavens! A reply I can actual understand. Far too much sloppy logic on the forum at the moment. _________________ Martin Stephenson
Subscribe via email or rss. |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Za Otlichiye
Signifer
Inscrit le: 07 Sep 2021 Messages: 341
Localisation: Lovecraft country (and you Dan?)
|
Posté le: Mer Fév 23, 2022 4:53 pm Sujet du message: |
|
I agree with Dave that is what the rules mean, and with Steve that that is what the rules say. And I agree that it's sloppy...  |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Hazelbark
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 12 Nov 2014 Messages: 1669
|
Posté le: Jeu Fév 24, 2022 1:13 am Sujet du message: |
|
vexillia a écrit: | Far too much sloppy logic on the forum at the moment. |
It is a combination or sloppy, willful and trolling. |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
KevinD
Légat
Inscrit le: 23 Aoû 2021 Messages: 648
Localisation: Texas
|
Posté le: Jeu Fév 24, 2022 3:32 am Sujet du message: |
|
daveallen a écrit: | Go to the wording on pages 17 & 18:
Page 17, Armour and heavy armour, para 4:
Citation: | In combat, Armour and Heavy armour abilities are cancelled in the following cases:
During the first round of a melee if the enemy has Furious charge (even if losing the melee),
... |
Then
Page 18, Furious charge, para 3, bp 4:
Citation: | Furious charge does not apply in the following cases:
...
Against foot with Missile support ability when charged by mounted units.
... |
The key words here are does not apply.
So the armour ability is retained because the ability that would cancel it does not apply.
Dave |
What does the French version say? |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
daveallen
Tribun

Inscrit le: 28 Jan 2016 Messages: 758
Localisation: Rugby & CLWC
|
Posté le: Jeu Fév 24, 2022 8:18 am Sujet du message: |
|
KevinD a écrit: | What does the French version say? |
Pourquoi?
Dave _________________ Putting the ink into incompetence |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
vexillia
Centurion

Inscrit le: 21 Nov 2017 Messages: 408
Localisation: Nantwich, UK
|
Posté le: Jeu Fév 24, 2022 9:31 am Sujet du message: |
|
Hazelbark a écrit: | vexillia a écrit: | Far too much sloppy logic on the forum at the moment. |
It is a combination or sloppy, willful and trolling. |
What is the world coming to?  _________________ Martin Stephenson
Subscribe via email or rss. |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
SteveR
Signifer
Inscrit le: 21 Mar 2018 Messages: 369
|
Posté le: Ven Fév 25, 2022 12:10 am Sujet du message: |
|
Does an accusation of trolling not also constitute trolling? When applied to a legitimate question of course, which my modified version certainly is.
Daveallen points out
"The key words here are does not apply.
So the armour ability is retained because the ability that would cancel it does not apply."
This may indeed be correct, however it relies on an application of a linguistic nuance in the English version of the rules. That is often suspect in interpreting ADLG. The author does not rely on subtle word play to delineate distinctions - I doubt if the use of "cancelled" in one place and "does not apply" in the other was carefully crafted to anticipate this question. |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
KevinD
Légat
Inscrit le: 23 Aoû 2021 Messages: 648
Localisation: Texas
|
Posté le: Ven Fév 25, 2022 12:33 am Sujet du message: |
|
SteveR a écrit: | Does an accusation of trolling not also constitute trolling? When applied to a legitimate question of course, which my modified version certainly is.
Daveallen points out
"The key words here are does not apply.
So the armour ability is retained because the ability that would cancel it does not apply."
This may indeed be correct, however it relies on an application of a linguistic nuance in the English version of the rules. That is often suspect in interpreting ADLG. The author does not rely on subtle word play to delineate distinctions - I doubt if the use of "cancelled" in one place and "does not apply" in the other was carefully crafted to anticipate this question. |
I agree Steve - this is why I wanted to know what the French version says.
My intuition is that “does not apply†was meant as “cancelled†but my certainty about this is low. |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
daveallen
Tribun

Inscrit le: 28 Jan 2016 Messages: 758
Localisation: Rugby & CLWC
|
Posté le: Ven Fév 25, 2022 8:07 am Sujet du message: |
|
SteveR a écrit: | Does an accusation of trolling not also constitute trolling? When applied to a legitimate question of course, which my modified version certainly is.
Daveallen points out
"The key words here are does not apply.
So the armour ability is retained because the ability that would cancel it does not apply."
This may indeed be correct, however it relies on an application of a linguistic nuance in the English version of the rules. That is often suspect in interpreting ADLG. The author does not rely on subtle word play to delineate distinctions - I doubt if the use of "cancelled" in one place and "does not apply" in the other was carefully crafted to anticipate this question. |
I'm pretty sure Dan's comment was not aimed at you or at the perfectly reasonable question(s) you asked.
The linguistic matter of whether the French language entertains nuance I will leave to those better qualified to answer.
True, there have been instances where the English translation is ambiguous and a reference to the French original has been necessary. However, there is no (reasonable) ambiguity here and I don't see how it helps to suggest that the translator randomly inserts different constructions for the same words.
But let's assume for a moment that your surmise is correct and page 18 should say "Furious charge is cancelled in the following cases:" How does that change things? Is there a precedent for the effect of a cancelled ability still applying?
The only instances I can see are where Impact is cancelled by an opponent's abilities (Impetuous foot v non-Impetuous Swd and mounted v Sp/Pike), but Furious Charge, as an emergent property of the Impact ability, still applies. However, the rules make it clear that despite the cancellation of the initial ability the emergent property remains. (page 22)
There is nothing that says the cancellation of the Armour ability (an emergent property of the Furious Charge ability) remains when Furious Charge is cancelled. Just as there isn't anything that says the additional cohesion loss doesn't apply. Unless, of course, you're inserting some nuance into the phrase "if the enemy has Furious Charge" in the Armour rule (page 17). Which I don't think is a sensible reading of the rules.
By all means get it checked, but in the meantime let's assume the rules are consistent and mean what they say.
Dave
[edit] PS another way of looking at this - HCv Impetuous win the initial melee against Cataphracts. The HCv have the Furious Charge ability, but it does not apply against mounted so the Cataphracts get the benefit of their better armour. _________________ Putting the ink into incompetence |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
|