Testing not to charge.

Geoff2 · Post by **Geoff2** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 7:19 am

When testing not to charge do you have to include the +'s for generals?

Geoff.

Robert241167 · Post by **Robert241167** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:09 am

Yes which is why some people move their general out of command radius if they are trying to fail the test.

Rob

Geoff2 · Post by **Geoff2** » Sat Dec 12, 2009 11:53 am

Thanks. Geoff

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Sat Dec 12, 2009 1:34 pm

Robert241167 wrote:Yes which is why some people move their general out of command radius if they are trying to fail the test.

But then, of course, he cannot fight in the front rank in the impact phase, so the loonies are on their own.

titanu · Post by **titanu** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 3:16 pm

Geoff2 wrote:When testing not to charge do you have to include the +'s for generals?

Geoff.

The anomoly occurs when the general is with the testers and he WANTS them NOT to pass and charge through light troops but his factor stops them charging!!!

pease1 · Post by **pease1** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:48 pm

Which is why I like rules that allow rash generals to be +1, and exceptional or quality generals to be +1/-1 at the player's choice.

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 5:56 pm

titanu wrote:
Geoff2 wrote:When testing not to charge do you have to include the +'s for generals?

Geoff.
The anomoly occurs when the general is with the testers and he WANTS them NOT to pass and charge through light troops but his factor stops them charging!!!

He doesn't want them not to pass, you do.

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 8:00 pm

pease1 wrote:Which is why I like rules that allow rash generals to be +1, and exceptional or quality generals to be +1/-1 at the player's choice.

Which makes the exceptional general the one more likely to WANT to ride down/through his own troops. Not sure I'd want to be in his army.

marioslaz · Post by **marioslaz** » Tue Dec 15, 2009 8:10 am

pease1 wrote:Which is why I like rules that allow rash generals to be +1, and exceptional or quality generals to be +1/-1 at the player's choice.

Rash generals should have +1/-1 (perhaps in specific scenario with a strict rule about by which cases he must use +1 and where he must use -1). Exceptional leaders, like Hannibal for example, never would have treated their troops so badly.

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Tue Dec 15, 2009 9:04 am

We did not want this to be a viable intentional tactic. It is only reported as occurring in a few historical battles, and certainly not when the C-in-C (the player) wanted it to happen.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Tue Dec 15, 2009 10:16 am

The changing of the modifier could work in scenario rules, but would otherwise introduce another way of getting around being shot too often before contact. But then those shooting may also have devious ways.

david53 · Post by **david53** » Tue Dec 15, 2009 5:46 pm

philqw78 wrote:devious ways.

Wargamers with these surely not!

Testing not to charge.

Testing not to charge.

Re: Testing not to charge.

Re: Testing not to charge.