Art De La Guerre

[Hazelbark]

[madaxeman]

[Mark G Fry]

Sorry to hear about the food poisoning Dan - never very pleasant!

I feel that I'm still really none the wiser with all this, (especially the Furious charge v Armour bit) but will simply continue to play along with it all, as I have been for the last few years, in the same manner that everybody else does.

The fact that it is now established that we have 'things that units do' and 'things that Special abilities do' and that both are treated separately and differently from each other within the rules, is the one small crumb of knowledge I can take forwards from all this.


Cheers
Mark
_________________
'He could have lived a risk-free, moneyed life, but he preferred to whittle away his fortune on warfare.' Xenophon, The Anabasis

[Neep]

Steve, always enjoy your posts, but don't always agree with them. Silence is agreement. And if an opinion is expressed often enough on these fora, without opposition, then it takes on a life of its own. So I will disagree with your analysis.

First, Missile Support causes Furious Charge "not to apply" on page 18 and "canceled" on page 20. That still requires amendment.

Assuming it should read "canceled", you posit that "does not apply" means the innate Special Ability has been canceled, and "canceled" means the effects do not apply, but the innate Special Ability remains. And the problem is not that they got it backwards. The problem is that it's much too subtle even if it were written right. The partial suppression of Special Abilities by flank/rear attack on page 63 is clear once you realize it, but it seems to have taken all the participants in the previous discussion of this issue by surprise. This still requires amendment.

None of this matters unless "has Furious Charge" on page 17 means possessing the innate Special Ability rather than applying its effects. And there is nothing in the text to suggest this.

Oddly, Furious Charge is the only Special Ability that is not bought and paid for in the Army lists. Rather Impetuous foot and all mounted have it. But it does not apply in a lot of match ups. And then there are ground effects, which no one seems to argue are partially suppressive. That, I believe, leaves the Missile Support/Furious Charge/Armor interaction the only possible "canceled effects cancelling" situation. Thus a special case and all the more reason for a clarifying amendment.

***

Flank/rear attack suppresses Impact, Furious Charge, and Missile Support, but explicitly allows them to still suppress other Special Abilities.

Stakes suppress Impact and Furious Charge - however I do not believe Stakes can be defended by mounted, javelin armed, impact, or armored units and therefore pose no quandary.

Impact suppresses Javelin.

Mounted Impact suppresses foot Impact.
Kn Impact suppresses HCh and Ct Impact.
It is tempting to see these latter as an intrinsic property of the match-ups, like the combat factor of Cv vs HI, but Impact is a Special Ability not a combat factor, and it does apply to mounted troops lacking Impact, so if the Knights or mounted have lost their Impact why shouldn't they suffer.

Penalizing terrain suppresses Impact, and per the errata, Javelin will not then be suppressed.
Obstacles and Fortifications suppress Impact and it seems quite reasonable that Javelin remains effective.

Likewise when the Impact of mounted or Kn is suppressed by penalizing terrain then the Impact of foot or HCh/Ct respectively would not be. (These situations would be rare anyway).

Presumably penalizing terrain, obstacles, and fortifications suppress Furious Charge, and none seems to argue that Furious Charge would remain capable of suppressing Armor.

Which leaves only Missile Support suppressing Furious Charge. Does Furious Charge still suppress Armor???

***

Missile Support seems pretty powerful - up to a 4 point bonus when losing (taking Furious Charges automatic hit as equivalent of a plus two) - and possibly another point when winning. If someone (like yourself;-) experienced with Late Romans says it needs to be nerfed, I would find that a much better argument.

[hcaille]

Hello

I was contacted for this topic.

P63 indicated when abilities are cancelled.
If it is cancelled, it is not applied during the melee


[2] An armoured unit with missile support faces a furious charge from cavalry
— The armoured unit does not benefit from its armour during the melee (p17).
— The missile support provides a bonus in the melee (p20).
— The furious charge does not apply after the melee because it faces missile support (p18).

This is correct

[3] A unit with missile support faces both a furious charge to its front by a cavalry
and an enemy unit on its flank.

— The missile support is cancelled during the melee (p63).
— The furious charge is applied after the melee because missile support was cancelled.


Hope its clear

[vexillia]

Something useful from Hervé



Hope this helps?

PS Just realised I missed Herve's response. At least you get to see the original questions etc.
_________________
Martin Stephenson

Subscribe via email or rss.

[Mark G Fry]

[MarkK]

Well that's clear as mud, ok so all I need to know is the Furious Charge cancels the Armour and then the missile support cancels the additional cohesion hit. I struggle as it is trying to work combat out as it is