impact

[bahdahbum]

the rule states for impact : impact foot => + => against any mounted, unless charging shock mounted

if the impact foot "receives" the charge as it is the opponents turn and the opponent charges with , let's say some lancers , is it considered charging also ? I suppose yes as it is so usually with other units .

[SirGarnet]

No. The foot counts as not charging and gets to count that POA against the Lancers.

[hammy]

When a BG receives a charge it is considered to act in the appropriate manner, i.e. countercharge if that is the right thing to do or receive at the halt if that is best.

[rbodleyscott]

When a BG receives a charge it is considered to act in the appropriate manner, i.e. countercharge if that is the right thing to do or receive at the halt if that is best.

This is correct, but just to clarify:

In no case does a BG receiving a charge count as "charging" for POA purposes, because the normal (or "non-charging") Impact POAs already take into account the effect of the appropriate response as above.

i.e. we have done the work for you, you don't need to second-guess it.

The only troops that count as "charging" for POA purposes are troops that make a normal declared charge or an intercept charge.

Thus if Impact Foot declare a charge (or make an intercept charge) on shock mounted, they lose their impact phase POA. However, if they receive a charge by shock mounted, they get it.

[shall]

I noticed a few times that the line in the table reading

"+ vs any mounted, unless charging shock mounted"

was read as unless the MOUNTED were charging shock mounted, thus no + vs shock mounted who are charging the Impt Ft

I think we will need to FAQ that as it is quite an understandable reading of it, although I would argue what they were reading it as was rather

"+ vs any mounted, except charging charging shock mounted"

Caused a few Romans to get ridden down a bit esaily - they must have been green ones!

Si

[meledward23]

I think the table in the book, not at the book is much more clear about this. (page ____ as I dont have the book here). The wording back in the impact phase poa section of the book (Combat mechanism I believe is the section) used a different word choice. (EDIT - having the same end result as the back of the book chart.)

[MarkSieber]

Do I understand correctly, "+ vs any mounted, unless charging shock mounted" means "+ vs any mounted, except charging vs. shock mounted" ?

[WhiteKnight]

It means impact foot get +1 POA in impact against mounted troops. Impact foot lose that POA if they themselves charge mounted shock troops. The table on p96 puts it the most clearly IMO.

Martin

[Yorick]

The problem here is to clarify who is said to be "charging" in that sentense : the impact foot or the mounted shock ?

is it "unless the impact foot are charging mounted shock troops" or "unless the impact foot are in impact combat against mounted shock troops that are charging"...

The second proposition makes more sense, but it's good to be sure.

[WhiteKnight]

The impact foot get the +1 POA against any mounted, whether or not they themselves are charging. The only time they don't is if they charge mounted shock troops. See p 96.

[rbodleyscott]

Do I understand correctly, "+ vs any mounted, unless charging shock mounted" means "+ vs any mounted, except charging vs. shock mounted" ?

Yes

The problem comes from assuming that the QRS at the end of the rules (yes, there is a QRS) is the rules rather than merely a reminder of the rules.

The wording in the chart in the main body of the rules is:

"Impact foot + against any mounted, unless the foot are charging mounted shock troops"

[Yorick]

OK, thanks al lot.