2nd impact

Jilu · Post by **Jilu** » Tue Nov 09, 2010 4:59 pm

I always find it strange that a BG already in melee keeps its impact bonus against a new enemy charging it.

deadtorius · Post by **deadtorius** » Wed Nov 10, 2010 12:32 am

Unless you are referring to FOG PC, the only way you can charge a unit already in melee is on the flank or rear, or charge a unit that is currently an overlap.
The overlapped base is not in frontal melee so getting its impact factors is not that odd. They can sortie forward slightly to meet your charge if impact foot or shock mounted, yet would still remain in contact with their parent unit.
If you charge a flank or rear you get an auto ++ the target drops a cohesion level and gets an auto --, they lose any other inmpact factors aside from uphill they would have gotten.

Fog PC you get full impact POA's no matter if you are charged while fighting another unit, FOG PC is a different forum.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Wed Nov 10, 2010 8:16 am

You can charge them in the front. Charge an overlap. But as stated in the rules a BG is not a single unit but an autonimous collective*, so the overlaps can counter charge, brace, whatever.

*Taking it in turns to elect a leader. Executive power being derived from a mandate from the masses.

grahambriggs · Post by **grahambriggs** » Wed Nov 10, 2010 9:30 am

An alternative would be to count that combat as a melee, in the same way that a battlegroup soley moving to an overlap position just fights in the melee phase.

However, one issue that the authors are trying to fix is that the impact pahse is not important enough, so this would run against that.

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Wed Nov 10, 2010 9:37 am

grahambriggs wrote: However, one issue that the authors are trying to fix is that the impact pahse is not important enough,

Although why, for the vast majority of cases, this is thought to be an issue I don't really know.

grahambriggs · Post by **grahambriggs** » Wed Nov 10, 2010 12:29 pm

nikgaukroger wrote:
grahambriggs wrote: However, one issue that the authors are trying to fix is that the impact pahse is not important enough,

Although why, for the vast majority of cases, this is thought to be an issue I don't really know.

I think it's a cost effectiveness of capabilities thing. Lance, impact foot are not as good value as armour. It might be that the mechanisms give the correct historical results, of course.

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Wed Nov 10, 2010 1:01 pm

grahambriggs wrote:
nikgaukroger wrote:
grahambriggs wrote: However, one issue that the authors are trying to fix is that the impact pahse is not important enough,

Although why, for the vast majority of cases, this is thought to be an issue I don't really know.
I think it's a cost effectiveness of capabilities thing. Lance, impact foot are not as good value as armour. It might be that the mechanisms give the correct historical results, of course.

If its value then that is a points issue - otherwise we have the tail wagging the dog again