Art De La Guerre

[Neep]

Can you roll a rally test for a unit that has no cohesion losses?
In particular, can you rally impetuous units > 4UD from enemy for 0 CP, to prevent potential uncontrolled charges against evading enemy?

[KevinD]

I would think not but am not sure.

[Mark G Fry]

You can only Rally something that is there, surely?

But I am not really sure why you'd want to do that anyway.
As the unit is outside of 4 UDs from any enemy, it cannot make a charge (impetuous or not) anyway.

Also - page 55 states that: "A unit that attempts to rally cannot voluntarily move or conform ..." so a rallying attempt would not exempt the unit from an uncontrolled charge, if it had a target within range, but as it has no targets to charge - it's all a bit pointless

Cheers
Mark
_________________
'He could have lived a risk-free, moneyed life, but he preferred to whittle away his fortune on warfare.' Xenophon, The Anabasis

[Neep]

Mark, an impetuous unit that receives orders does not make an uncontrolled charge.

[Ramses II]

This is a ‘non question’ on so many levels

• no unit/group can declare a charge against an evading enemy - they are evading an existing charge of a different unit
  
• there are no impetuous LC (the only units that move >4 UD)
  
• it costs 3CP to order impetuous troops to halt when in charge range of the relevant enemy, but this already includes a free rally. If the unit is not disorganized the rally is ignored. 
  
• other orders that avoid impetuous troops charging cost 2CP - but these exclude rallying. 
  
  
  
  
  

[Mark G Fry]

[Ramses II]

[Mark G Fry]

[Mike Bennett]

Whilst tenuous, and an extreme edge case, I imagine that it is a theoretically possible that this could happen;
T

he impetuous unit is >4UD
You rally for free (but only if you have a hit surely)
A friend in the same command charges an enemy which evades
The directions are strange and the enemy evades towards the impetuous unit and arrives within its charge range

[Mark G Fry]

[Neep]

I'm bemused by the responses. The situation might be rare, but hardly obscure. The sixth bullet on page 45 notes: "After friendly units have charged and enemy units have evaded an Impetuous unit may become subject to an uncontrolled charge even though it was not subject to one at the start of the phase."

As this is the forum of record, let me briefly note: you can repeatedly charge successful evaders who enter your charge range; any move or rally will prevent an uncontrolled charge.

Can you rally impetuous units > 4UD from enemy for 0 CP, to prevent potential uncontrolled charges against an enemy that evades into charge range?

It's a small question, but since the cost is zero, it's something one can do freely if it's legal. I'd be pleasantly surprised by a good answer, but I'd much prefer a formal answer on the "penalizing terrain as obstacle" question, if we are going to waste time arguing questions.

[Hazelbark]

NO.

You cannot rally a unit that has no need to rally.

[Ramses II]

The real question here is about orders not their cost as follows :-

Q1. An impetuous unit that has no valid target is given no orders. Later in the turn a valid enemy target evades into charge range. What happens?
A1. The impetuous unit must make an uncontrolled charge.

Q2. If the impetuous unit is >4UD from enemy units and rallies for 0CP, and later in the turn a valid enemy target evades into charge range, what happens??
A2. Nothing because the impetuous unit has rallied, which takes the place of movement (see p55)

Q3. Can an undamaged impetuous unit rally for 0CP if it is >4 UD from enemy units ??
A3. NO. (To be fair this is a « cheesy » attempt to avoid the impetuous unit from being forced to make an uncontrolled charge).

Q4. When do uncontrolled charges take place??
A4. After the movement phase (see p23). Technically this is after the units of all three corps have been ‘ordered’, though many / most people tend to apply the rule after ordering the units of each corps. 

I hope the above will close this thread

[Ramses II]

And please accept my apology for the earlier incorrect reply, which I have edited. 

[KevinD]