charging from behind PO's

[dave_r]

Do shock infantry have to test not to charge other infantry if they are defending portable obstacles?

Just to clarify further - the shock infantry are defending the PO's

[petedalby]

Having re-read pages 121 and 58 & 59 I believe so - yes.

The PO's only 'count as' fortifications against mounted - they are not in themselves fortifications.

But I don't kow if this was the authors' intent.

[ravenflight]

Do shock infantry have to test not to charge other infantry if they are defending portable obstacles?

Just to clarify further - the shock infantry are defending the PO's

This is a superbly interesting question, because it would make the 'Qin' crossbow behind impact foot that much more useful. Costly tho.

[ravenflight]

Having re-read pages 121 and 58 & 59 I believe so - yes.

The PO's only 'count as' fortifications against mounted - they are not in themselves fortifications.

But I don't kow if this was the authors' intent.

Hmm, I'm unsure. I see it able to be read multiple ways.

I believe they ARE fortifications... just fortifications that are effective only against a narrow troop type. But this is true of Field Fortifications. For example Field Fortifications give a -POA against 'any except artillery', and so the fortification isn't effective against artillery. WOULD shock foot have to charge artillery that moved within charge range of Field Fortification? They probably would, but would they HAVE to?

I'd rule that they were fortifications.

[grahambriggs]

Yes, they would have to test. Portable Defences are not Fortifications. They are treated as such under some circumstances: "PD are treated as field fortifications when their defenders are in close combat against mounted opponents other than elephants, but give no advantage against foot, elephants or shooting."

So if you are in close combat against, say, cavalry you wouldn't have to test (but if you're in combat you can't declare a charge anyway). But they give no advantage against foot. So you would have to test, unless one of the general reasons for them not to test was present (e.g. mounted capable of intercepting).

All of which seems reasonable: they're inclined to a screaming charge against foot, but if mounted are threatening they have caltrops, etc that can be used as a defence. Of course you might make a screaming charge against light foot and then wish you'd spent time to place your defences instead.

[philqw78]

This is a superbly interesting question, because it would make the 'Qin' crossbow behind impact foot that much more useful. Costly tho.

The reason the question arose was exactly that army. Double plus and support shooting v mounted at impact

[petedalby]

Good to see that Graham agrees - thanks.

I'd rule that they were fortifications.

Fair enough.

But on Page 58 - a CMT is not required if the charge will contact a fortification. And Mounted treat POs as fortifications. Yet in the FAQs we're told that Mounted must CMT not to test foot behind PO's. So a clear example which hopefully, on reflection, would cause you to change your view?

[ravenflight]

But on Page 58 - a CMT is not required if the charge will contact a fortification. And Mounted treat POs as fortifications. Yet in the FAQs we're told that Mounted must CMT not to test foot behind PO's. So a clear example which hopefully, on reflection, would cause you to change your view?

Yes, I suppose it does in the example you've given, but it seems a little silly to have troops (any troops) that have established a defensive posture to leave that posture behind and charge headlong...

[dave_r]

This is a superbly interesting question, because it would make the 'Qin' crossbow behind impact foot that much more useful. Costly tho.

The reason the question arose was exactly that army. Double plus and support shooting v mounted at impact

Did i mention i've just bought a qin army

[philqw78]

Did i mention i've just bought a qin army

Can I have mine back then?

[dave_r]

Did i mention i've just bought a qin army

Can I have mine back then?

Yes

[ShrubMiK]

>it seems a little silly to have troops (any troops) that have established a defensive posture to leave that posture behind and charge headlong...

True. But isn't that the point of shock troops in FoG - they are assumed to be prone to letting their enthusiasm temporarily overrule their reason, and hence do silly things!

As a sort of analogous situation, MF will impetuously charge out of terrain against infantry, then a couple of turns later when the enemy cavalry appear on the scene they might find themselves wishing they had exercised a bit more restraint.

Moral of the tale: in FoG, shock troops of any sort are not suited for being used in a defensive fashion, except behind serious fortifications (which you might argueimpede movement and make it hard for them to charge out at enemy without taking time to think about it).

[dave_r]

>it seems a little silly to have troops (any troops) that have established a defensive posture to leave that posture behind and charge headlong...

True. But isn't that the point of shock troops in FoG - they are assumed to be prone to letting their enthusiasm temporarily overrule their reason, and hence do silly things!

As a sort of analogous situation, MF will impetuously charge out of terrain against infantry, then a couple of turns later when the enemy cavalry appear on the scene they might find themselves wishing they had exercised a bit more restraint.

Moral of the tale: in FoG, shock troops of any sort are not suited for being used in a defensive fashion, except behind serious fortifications (which you might argueimpede movement and make it hard for them to charge out at enemy without taking time to think about it).

Except mf don't have to charge out of terrain

[philqw78]

Except mf don't have to charge out of terrain

Something that needs to be changed.

[ravenflight]

>it seems a little silly to have troops (any troops) that have established a defensive posture to leave that posture behind and charge headlong...

True. But isn't that the point of shock troops in FoG - they are assumed to be prone to letting their enthusiasm temporarily overrule their reason, and hence do silly things!

I can't see Romans who have set up a defensive formation with caltrops in front charging out of that formation. Sorry, I just can't see it.

As a sort of analogous situation, MF will impetuously charge out of terrain against infantry, then a couple of turns later when the enemy cavalry appear on the scene they might find themselves wishing they had exercised a bit more restraint.

Wrong. They can charge out, but they don't have to.

[philqw78]

I can't see Romans who have set up a defensive formation with caltrops in front charging out of that formation. Sorry, I just can't see it.

But they will only charge out when their charge cannot be contacted by or contact mounted, so why should they hide behind their spikey tetrahedrons if there is a juicy target to front?

Though I don't think Romans get PO anyway. I believe the only shock that do get PO are the Q'in regraded MF.

[ravenflight]

I can't see Romans who have set up a defensive formation with caltrops in front charging out of that formation. Sorry, I just can't see it.

But they will only charge out when their charge cannot be contacted by or contact mounted, so why should they hide behind their spikey tetrahedrons if there is a juicy target to front?

The rules don't make Portable Obstacles affect foot for game purposes. They would most definitely affect foot, and would be put down because you want to be defensive for tactical reasons.

Troops with years of training wouldn't go charging headlong out of it. End of story.

[shadowdragon]

I can't see Romans who have set up a defensive formation with caltrops in front charging out of that formation. Sorry, I just can't see it.

But they will only charge out when their charge cannot be contacted by or contact mounted, so why should they hide behind their spikey tetrahedrons if there is a juicy target to front?

The rules don't make Portable Obstacles affect foot for game purposes. They would most definitely affect foot, and would be put down because you want to be defensive for tactical reasons.

Troops with years of training wouldn't go charging headlong out of it. End of story.

Then you are arguing that Roman Impact Foot (as shock troops) should never have to take a CMT to avoid charging. The same logic applies..."troops with years of training wouldn't go charging headlong..." If we exclude the Romans from a CMT why not exclude all drilled shock troops which makes undrilled shock troops far riskier compared to their "drilled" equivalents and that means at least revisiting points cost.

Seems like a "can of worms" for a minor issue.

But...on the other hand, even "undrilled" knights had years of training which didn't seem to stop them charging headlong.

[ravenflight]

But they will only charge out when their charge cannot be contacted by or contact mounted, so why should they hide behind their spikey tetrahedrons if there is a juicy target to front?

The rules don't make Portable Obstacles affect foot for game purposes. They would most definitely affect foot, and would be put down because you want to be defensive for tactical reasons.

Troops with years of training wouldn't go charging headlong out of it. End of story.

Then you are arguing that Roman Impact Foot (as shock troops) should never have to take a CMT to avoid charging. The same logic applies..."troops with years of training wouldn't go charging headlong..." If we exclude the Romans from a CMT why not exclude all drilled shock troops which makes undrilled shock troops far riskier compared to their "drilled" equivalents and that means at least revisiting points cost.

Seems like a "can of worms" for a minor issue.

But...on the other hand, even "undrilled" knights had years of training which didn't seem to stop them charging headlong.

I'm not asking for the rules to be changed... I'm saying that it doesn't seem to make sense, but I'll happily play it that way. Gives me something to complain about anyway (other than the dice)

[petedalby]

Yes, I suppose it does in the example you've given, but it seems a little silly to have troops (any troops) that have established a defensive posture to leave that posture behind and charge headlong...

Maybe - but them's the rules.

In a similar way - shock troops on a hill can be tempted to charge down off of it. You as the supreme commander may not want them too - and they are far better off with that POA - but history is full of examples where troops, even well trained ones, don't always follow their orders to theirs and others detriment.