Art De La Guerre

[Korik]

Page 66, 'Shooting limitations', fourth and fifth bullets state that a unit providing overlap support cannot shoot or be shot at, and also separates units into those 'engaged in melee' and those providing support to friends

However, if a unit providing corner to corner support can't be shot at, how come it can be charged?

I could accept the argument that the overlap unit is mixing it with the enemy and therefore is a difficult target for ranged combat but if that's the case why can they be charged? Wouldn't an enemy unit moving into contact with them simply be extending the existing melee?

Alternatively, you could argue that the supporting unit isn't actually engaging the enemy but is merely bolstering their friends whilst providing the enemy with a potential threat, in which case they should be a viable target for ranged combat

It might be worth exploring allowing corner to corner overlaps to be valid shooting target, even with a -1 factor; just a thought

Support does tend to get generalised in most rules where units operate by individual bases; throw impact heavy cavalry into the flank of HI spears already engaged frontally and, yes, you knock the down a cohesion level, reduce their base factor to zero and add plus 1 to their opponents factor, but throw them into the flank of unengaged HI spears and the spears fight at a factor of zero against the cavalry's +1 v HI flank, +1 impact, +1 flank attack, giving them a fair chance of winning AND taking the target down an additional cohesion level because of furious charge
_________________
Korik

[madaxeman]

There are any number of design decisions like this in any ruleset, all of which could easily be argued either way from an 'is this realistic?" standpoint. Arguing "is this realistic" is usually a waste of time though, as both points of view are valid.

Like all design choices however, each also has all have an overall impact on game balance

Allowing shooting at overlaps, or disallowing "first round charge" factors against overlaps (which I think you're also questioning here) could both be changed, which would have the effect of making shooting more important in the game, and getting-stuck-right-in combat less important.

My guess is that El Kreator prefers to see a game where players are encouraged to fight and charge in rather than shoot and scoot, and these choices are part and parcel of that philosophy
_________________
www.madaxeman.com

[Korik]

It was only a discussion point and I readily accept that the game mechanics of any set of rules are, initially at least, influenced by the preconceptions of the author (although this doesn't mean they aren't open to debate and discussion).

I also accept that looking for a 'realistic' set of rules is as profitable as searching for hen's teeth, and the best you can hope for is something which approximates the 'feel' of the period, although this is, again, subjective

It was just that, in this particular case, a unit is considered to be, effectively, in melee, and therefore cannot be shot at, but at the same time not to be in melee and so open to an aggressive move to contact (a charge)

Still, you pay your money and you play your rules
_________________
Korik

[Janos Hunyadi]