Art De La Guerre

[Mark G Fry]

[vexillia]

[Andy Fyfe]

[vexillia]

[Mark G Fry]

Hi Andy - my thoughts below (in bold - I am not shouting)

[madaxeman]

[vexillia]

Despite Tim's ice cream related diversions, perhaps fuelled by something stronger, there is some logic here and now it has (finally?) been uncovered it is really quite straightforward. Combat is effectively in two phases, and has been since V3. Each phase treats furious charge differently:

Melee phase:

• Furious charge applies until the melee is over just like any other special ability.
  
• Restrictions on p18 do not apply.

Post-melee phase:

• Furious charge may apply if the unit has won the melee.
  
• +1 cohesion bonus added unless restrictions on p18 apply.

This means the unit with furious charge first cancels armour (win or lose) and isn't subject to terrain or flanking units, stakes, etc. Then, once the melee is over, the +1CP (super?) bonus comes into play but it is now restricted by terrain etc etc.

This is not explicit in the text so it is all post hoc rationalisation, but it has the benefit of being simple, and both easy to remember and to apply.

Of course this presupposes the interpretation is correct and that Herve did indeed intend it to be this way. If so it would be a simple matter to clarify this in the FAQs.
_________________
Martin Stephenson

Subscribe via email or rss.

[Neep]

Guys, you do realize that:

Assume A.
blah blah blah blah blah
A -> A
Therefore A Q.E.D.

is not actually a proof? mmm?

[Neep]

On a more serious note, I imagine Hervé wishes to model an all-out charge that shatters the shield wall and scatters the defenders when it works, and quickly recoils if it does not. Therefore there is little time for hand to hand fencing where better armor might make a difference. Now this wouldn't work quickly in woods or swamps or across pits or palisades and armor would count. On the other hand, a back row of archers might discourage the initial charge, but it's hard to see how they would extend the fight if they failed. So it is perfectly plausible that Missile Suppiort would not prevent Furious Charge from suppressing Armor, while bad ground would.

Problem remains though that the rules (rule book and accessible errata) say that Missile Support "cancels" and prevents "application" of Furious Charge. And it's common sense that if it's canceled and you cannot apply it, you do not "have" it. There is no indication that this interaction is a special case.

This question has been kicked around 2-3 years, and this latest rehash hasn't discovered page 20 yet. If the goal is to have rules (rule book and errata) that mean what they say and say what they mean, so anyone can pick them up, read them, and come to a common understanding, then it's obvious. The question is moot and needs a ruling.

[AlanCutner]

I think we need to accept that the rules are played in a particular way. The written rules may clearly explain or not, but accepted practice allows us to happily (in the main) play other people worldwide. Over the years I have raised several issues where the written rules appeared to say one thing, but practice was otherwise. In the interests of playability we just need to accept this. Ofcourse nothing stops anyone from playing according to alternative local interpretation and rules.

[Mark G Fry]

I'm as 'guilty' as any other rules writer of putting things into my own rules sets - with the caveat of "because it creates game balance" or "because it replicates a historical outcome" with a benign comment at the end that says (sort of) "just live with it folks".

I suppose the challenge for me is less about the Furious charge and Armour question - as that's the way that I've always played it myself BTW - but its the implications of the second part of the bullet point on P63. This appears to state that even though a Special Characteristic is negated by a situation, in reality it isn't.

That is what is now taxing my tiny brain

I think Martin's point about the 2 stages of a combat is interesting - so the Impact aspect of a Furious charge is negated (in phase 1) but the outcome of a unit having a Furious charge and winning a melee (phase 2) is not, seems a sensible way to think about. Although a unit of HF swd impetuous charging in a marsh is (IMHO) unlikely to produce quite an as effective 'shield splintering' charge as they might have done on flat solid ground.
But it's a set of rules after all.
_________________
'He could have lived a risk-free, moneyed life, but he preferred to whittle away his fortune on warfare.' Xenophon, The Anabasis

[MarkK]

[vexillia]

To test the "two phase" interpretation, what's the accepted way to play this:

• Spear with missile support contacted by unit with furious charge to front and on a flank by another unit.

So spear don't get missilie support (p63) in melee phase but what about in post-melee?
_________________
Martin Stephenson

Subscribe via email or rss.

[Mark G Fry]

[Mark G Fry]