Art De La Guerre

[vexillia]

[vexillia]

[madaxeman]

[vexillia]

[Hazelbark]

[Mark G Fry]

[Hazelbark]

[Mark G Fry]

[Hazelbark]

Mark G Fry i am having a lot of trouble sorting out what you are saying.

If furious charge does not apply, there is no loss of an additional cohesion.

[Neep]

Mark,
You are correct that a unit which loses its Impact almost always loses its Furious Charge. But there is no formal connection between them. It's just the two sets of loss causes match up. Two exceptions though are the spears/pikes and the swordsmen - they cancel Impact (in certain circumstances) but do not cancel Furious Charge. Missile Support cancels Furious Charge but not Impact.

There are a number of Special Abilities that both manipulate the melee outcome and cancel other abilities: Stakes, Missile Support, Impact, and Furious Charge. Page 63 is explicit about flank/rear attacks suppressing the melee outcome effects, but not the cancellation effects of Missile Support, Impact, and Furious Charge.

There remains the question of whether Missile Support cancels Furious Charge completely, or only the melee outcome effect. It's possible, but it cannot in any persuasive way be extracted from the rules without first assuming you know the answer already.

[Mark G Fry]

[SteveR]

Hi Mark,

example A

"The 'widely held view' appears to be that No, Armour doesn't count as the attacker still has Furious charge (P17 Armour & heavy armour, 4th para, 1st bullet point)" - this is correct

" Yes - the attacker inflicts an extra CP." - this is incorrect. Furious charge effect is cancelled because of the missile support

example B


"2nd bullet - the defending HF swd unit's 'swd' ability (P18 Impetuous, 2nd bullet) is cancelled, and the attacking Impetuous unit retains its +1 (Impact ability) as the defending unit is hit in the flank (even if attacked by light troops). "

This is incorrect. Sword is not an ability, it is a unit type. It is not cancelled even if contacted in the flank. The defending sword unit still cancels the impact bonus per page 18.

There is no contradiction.

[Mark G Fry]

[SteveR]

Well Mark, it's like this.

"I concur that that is the "widely held view" but my challenge is "why"? "

And the response to this challenge is "because that is how it is played"

It is unfortunate that the English term "cancelled" can be taken as null, void, never existent. Because that perfectly reasonable reading leads one down a mistaken path. If you look for an earlier thread titled "does a cancelled ability still cancel abilities" you can see me asking the same question and getting the same answer.

It boils down to this - "cancelled" means that the effect is cancelled but the characteristic of the unit remains. It's just how it is.

If you look earlier into this thread you can see Kevin Donovan's reply and he captures it succinctly "Cancelled abilities can still cancel opponents’ other abilities. This is the difference between canceled abilities and “does not apply”."

Take a look at the errata for page 18. Under impact the term "is cancelled" is deleted and the term "does not apply" substituted. This is very specific and deliberate and was done to ensure consistency with this understanding.

As for stakes - I don't know the answer for sure. My opinion would be that if the main unit (as defined on page 60) is fighting across the stakes it takes the malus. But if I were you I would not hang my hat on stakes being a "special ability" and trying to reason by analogy here. The rules are pretty clearly understood but you cannot use nuances of meaning (particularly in the English translation) to infer intent. Herve is very satisfied to address specific situations as they arise.

[Mark G Fry]