Armour in impact

[marshalney2000]

I am interested in why armour has no effect whatsoever in impact. When first reading the rules I pretty much accepted this in that this phase represented the initial sudden clash and armour then came into play in melee. Now however, I just wonder if it should at least have some impact particualry where it represents for example romans throwing pila or where really heavily armoured troopsa re involved.
I am sure this was discussed at length in the early development of the rules and would just like some clarification.

As an added question - if a shock bg rolls successfully not to charge but the next unit fails can the first unit change its mind and charge in. I am assuming not as these would be done in order selected by the active player.
John

[list_lurker]

As an added question - if a shock bg rolls successfully not to charge but the next unit fails can the first unit change its mind and charge in. I am assuming not as these would be done in order selected by the active player.

I think this is covered by the sequence of play

1.declare all charges
2.CmT for skirmishers charging...
3.CmT for shock not to charge...

you are already at point 3 when testing 'not' to charge. You couldn't then go back to point 1 to declare a charge with a unit that has diced in point 3 already.

Well, thats at least how we play it!

Simon

[rbodleyscott]

As an added question - if a shock bg rolls successfully not to charge but the next unit fails can the first unit change its mind and charge in. I am assuming not as these would be done in order selected by the active player.

I think this is covered by the sequence of play

1.declare all charges
2.CmT for skirmishers charging...
3.CmT for shock not to charge...

you are already at point 3 when testing 'not' to charge. You couldn't then go back to point 1 to declare a charge with a unit that has diced in point 3 already.

Well, thats at least how we play it!

Simon

And that is the intention. Charge them all in, or risk some charging unsupported.

[shall]

The Impact and Melee split is fundamental to the rule concept and allows us to model several effects. The Impact represents the initial crunch and armour is far less important in thsi thqan other factors. The Pila/Charge combination of Romans gives them Impact Foot.

We could give a + in Impact for a 2 difference in armour - so Arm, vs Prot or H Arm vs Prot and Unprot. But in practice this has seemed unnecessary as :

a) it would be rare anyway
b) such troop gaps generally are on a winner for other reasons

Basically therefore armour is most valuable in an extended slog and against missile fire. Not so much use at impact. It seems an unecessary complication to consider at a lower effect for impact but its on the reserve list if people felt strongly about it.

Si

[marshalney2000]

Simon, thanks for explaining your thinking. I am not going to die in a ditch over this but just seemd that an impact involving two bodies of horse with one heavily armoured and the other say protected should manifest itself even in impact. I agree that the melee would be the place where the longer term effects would come over but an unlucky heavilly armpoured unit could be fragmented by then.
John

[rbodleyscott]

I agree that the melee would be the place where the longer term effects would come over but an unlucky heavilly armpoured unit could be fragmented by then.

Indeed, but without that possibility Protected lancers would be pretty useless.