| Auteur |
Message |
Za Otlichiye
Signifer
Inscrit le: 07 Sep 2021
Messages: 341
Localisation: Lovecraft country (and you Dan?)
|
 Posté le: Lun Sep 20, 2021 11:58 pm Sujet du message: Is Stakes canceled by flank or rear attack? |
 |
Okay one more question before I call it a night 
Per page 63:
| Citation: | | o A unit cannot cancel the abilities of enemies that are in melee against its flanks or its rear (e.g. troops with Impact cancelling the Javelin ability or spearmen cancelling the Impact ability of mounted units). The unit still cancels the abilities of any enemy unit attacking it from the front, even if the unit has other enemies in melee support against its flank or rear. |
The first problem is that both example cancellation effects already explicitly apply only through the front edge, so would not cancel anything anyway.
However, there is one ability, which is not mentioned in the section anywhere, and which apparently does apply - Stakes.
| Citation: | o Stakes cancel the Impact ability and Furious charge of all mounted troops including elephants.
o Mounted troops, except elephants, suffer a -2 penalty in combat. |
There is no indication that Stakes only affect contact through the front edge (except, perhaps, their modeling).
It appears that mounted attacking the flank or rear of a unit with Stakes deployed, keep their Impact or Javelin bonus, but do suffer the -2 penalty.
This all goes away if Stakes is one of the abilities cancelled by flank or rear attack, but given its passive nature, it looks more like an ability that still applies.
It looks wonky enough that a review or confirmation would be welcome. |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Mike Bennett
Centurion
Inscrit le: 11 Nov 2017
Messages: 489
Localisation: Carnforth, Lancashire, UK
|
| Posté le: Mar Sep 21, 2021 8:27 am Sujet du message: |
|
I imagine that first round is not explicitly written as it is considered obvious, they are only relevant to frontal attack, ie fighting across them. They are explicitly removed for the second round, when you confirm to the flank or rear attack in any case. Also see page 67 for fortifications and obstacles, which are similar. BP6 talks about fighting across them ie when they are inbetween the 2 combatants.
I would therefore expect that on a flank or rear only attack they cannot count
On a frontal attack with melee support to flank or rear it is a bit more debatable, but I would anticipate that they probably do still count? |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Za Otlichiye
Signifer
Inscrit le: 07 Sep 2021
Messages: 341
Localisation: Lovecraft country (and you Dan?)
|
| Posté le: Mar Sep 21, 2021 1:49 pm Sujet du message: |
|
It would certainly make sense. And it would justify not mentioning them in the Flank and Rear Attack section, as they would have no effect to flank or rear to begin with.
But the text is missing at least in the English translation. |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
madaxeman
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 01 Nov 2014
Messages: 1468
Localisation: Londres Centraal.
|
| Posté le: Mer Sep 22, 2021 8:32 am Sujet du message: |
|
Stakes are unique amongst abilities in that they are represented by a separate base of, erm, "stakes", which is positioned in front of the unit deploying them.
OK, it's not explicitly stated that the stakes ability doesn't then apply to the unit in all directions (or indeed to other randomly selected units in the army, or even to units in other players armies in different games played on adjacent tables...), but the existence of the base of stakes on the front of the unit is surely a sufficiently big hint as to how and when their benefit and effects apply that it's pretty reasonable to assume it only applies to frontal attackers?
_________________
www.madaxeman.com |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Za Otlichiye
Signifer
Inscrit le: 07 Sep 2021
Messages: 341
Localisation: Lovecraft country (and you Dan?)
|
| Posté le: Mer Sep 22, 2021 3:15 pm Sujet du message: |
|
Madaxe please read my posts with as much charity as you offer the rules. I did note "their modeling".
Yes it's a big hint. Rules should not rest on big hint, although there will always be ambiguities that require good will or a good referee to resolve.
This one just requires a small addition "when fighting through the front edge" and adding it to the list of special abilities not canceled by flank or rear attacks.
(Which brings up another question - should the -2 penalty just be a first round effect - like spears - or is it as written like rough terrain?)
I'm new here. I don't know the polite process of offering errata. I don't know if pointing out that it's Loser not Looser on page 62 is helpful for a second printing or as welcome as a spelling flame.
I do appreciate your responses.[/b] |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
KevinD
Légat
Inscrit le: 23 Aoû 2021
Messages: 500
Localisation: Texas
|
| Posté le: Mer Sep 22, 2021 6:05 pm Sujet du message: |
|
| Za Otlichiye a écrit: | Madaxe please read my posts with as much charity as you offer the rules. I did note "their modeling".
Yes it's a big hint. Rules should not rest on big hint, although there will always be ambiguities that require good will or a good referee to resolve.
This one just requires a small addition "when fighting through the front edge" and adding it to the list of special abilities not canceled by flank or rear attacks.
(Which brings up another question - should the -2 penalty just be a first round effect - like spears - or is it as written like rough terrain?)
I'm new here. I don't know the polite process of offering errata. I don't know if pointing out that it's Loser not Looser on page 62 is helpful for a second printing or as welcome as a spelling flame.
I do appreciate your responses.[/b] |
The rules do say they are placed “in front of the unit†but does not explicitly say they have no effect on flank attacks (until they are removed when the unit conforms). From common sense, I assume they do not count but this is ambiguous IMO.
I think the -2 VS all mounted except elephants applies every round (like fortifications), though this seems excessive to me.
One weird situation is what happens if Impact Cavalry (frontally) charge LMI or MI Swordsmen behind stakes. Clearly the Cavalry loose their impact (“Stakes cancel the Impact ability†p20), but does this mean the Cavalry do not “have Impact or is penalized by the terrain†(p15)? I sort of assume a canceled ability like Impact means they can take advantage of things allowed only to those who do not have the ability, but it’s unclear if this is how it’s supposed to be read. I generally assume that when your opponent cancels an ability for that round of combat you proceed as if you never had it at all for that round and do not just remove the +1. |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
madaxeman
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 01 Nov 2014
Messages: 1468
Localisation: Londres Centraal.
|
| Posté le: Mer Sep 22, 2021 6:07 pm Sujet du message: |
|
Previous “2nd†(and subsequent) printings of ADLG v3 have always been identical to the first printing.
This maintained 100% consistency between print runs, does not place any players under any undue pressure (imagined or otherwise) to “upgrade†to a “vX.1†(...ad Infinitum) and also - uniquely and vitally for ADLG amongst almost all other ancients rulesets - allows what IMO is a frankly astonishing degree of consistency in page, sentence and paragraph layout between the French, English, Spanish and Italian versions of the rules.Â
 In parallel to the multiple reprints of the hard copy book, under v3 the errata produced by the DT was revised every few months until all material issues were addressed to their satisfaction. It did not at any point include spelling corrections where the meaning was considered clear, or minor clarifications requested by only one or two people to sections that were regarded as clear by everyone else.
On that basis I would be surprised if Hervé were to change this approach with v4, so unfortunately perhaps, I suspect that most spelling corrections that are spotted and flagged up will go unfixed, and that other requests for additional wording to further clarify rules points where there is overwhelming international consensus as to the meaning may well also go unaddressed by the DT in the errata too.Â
The forum remains a useful place to sanity check such points - sometimes the answer will be “we all are clear it means this†rather than “Hervé or the DT will add it to the errata for the benefit of one or two individualsâ€Â
_________________
www.madaxeman.com |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Ramses II
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 17 Juil 2015
Messages: 1160
Localisation: London
|
| Posté le: Lun Sep 27, 2021 12:59 am Sujet du message: |
|
| KevinD a écrit: | I think the -2 VS all mounted except elephants applies every round (like fortifications), though this seems excessive to me.
One weird situation is what happens if Impact Cavalry (frontally) charge LMI or MI Swordsmen behind stakes. Clearly the Cavalry loose their impact (“Stakes cancel the Impact ability†p20), but does this mean the Cavalry do not “have Impact or is penalized by the terrain†(p15)? I sort of assume a cancelled ability like Impact means they can take advantage of things allowed only to those who do not have the ability, but it’s unclear if this is how it’s supposed to be read. I generally assume that when your opponent cancels an ability for that round of combat you proceed as if you never had it at all for that round and do not just remove the +1. |
Yes, the -2 factor applies to every round of melee, not just the first. The mounts are trying not to be impaled on the stakes and are thus not responding well to their riders . . . .
The same rules appear under Fortifications and Obstacles on P67
And no, losing their impact ability does not mean they gain the +1 bonus of other mounted - Indeed, Common sense dictates that other mounted also lose this bonus if fighting across stakes although this is not explicitly stated. Fighting across obstacles or fortifications is not mentioned either at this point in the rules - all are considered to be covered by the term "terrain".
Note, the term "fighting across stakes" was raised much earlier in V3 as a 'translation issue'. Unfortunately this was not picked up during the process to create V4. |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Zoltan
Centurion
Inscrit le: 18 Jan 2015
Messages: 443
Localisation: Wellington, New Zealand
|
| Posté le: Lun Sep 27, 2021 6:10 am Sujet du message: |
|
Apropos Tim’s points about typos and tightening up on wording unlikely to be addressed in official rulings or errata. I suspect the phrase “lose the impact ability†really means “does not add +1 for impact in this specific situationâ€.
Impact cavalry are still impact cavalry. You paid for them as impact cavalry. But when fighting across stakes they do not add +1 for impact.
And so on and so forth…. |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
|
FAQ
Rechercher
Liste des Membres
Groupes d'utilisateurs
S'enregistrer
Profil
Se connecter pour vérifier ses messages privés
Connexion
