Art De La Guerre

[SteveR]

Thanks - I've talked with Dan directly in the past about the signal to noise ratio on the forum being a bit of an issue.

Personally, I don't mind the "noise" part - I can filter that out although it does seem to bother some people. What is missing is the "signal" part - the wise cognoscenti who know the answer to all issues not responding to correct my misapprehensions regarding the rules. It's almost like they don't owe me an immediate answer.


back to being serious

In this particular case I appreciate your comments. The wording is different although that may or may not be significant.

Za's point about Armored foot fighting impetuous cavalry in rough going was also very helpful, I had not considered that analogy. I had thought about the cancelled impact of impetuous foot fighting swordsman case but could not figure out which way that precedent would end up cutting. And anyway you just cant use analogy in these rules to deduce things.

I bring up things on the forum I don't understand. Sometimes it is just me being dense, then I get a quick definitive answer. Sometimes the rules or FAQ change some time later to show what the answer is and I appreciate the deliberative work of the Technical Board. Sometimes the silence means that the answer someone throws out there is correct (silence implies consent) and sometimes it just means that they are thinking it over. And sometimes they just think it is not that big or a deal or common of an issue to require formal resolution.

So in the meantime the answer is one way or the other so we just throw a 50-50 die to settle it and get on with the game. I'm using armored missile support foot again on Sunday and their role is to get in the face of impact mounted (like they did last week) so we'll see what happens.

[Hazelbark]

[lionelrus]

[lionelrus]

[daveallen]

[Za Otlichiye]

This has always been a very simple question. Does "has Furious charge" mean having the Special Ability Furious charge? or does it mean having and applying it?
Everyone who considers it seems to conclude it's the latter. I assume Lionelrus just misspoke and will correct it sooner or later.
I don't understand the angst. I suspect Vexillia read far more into it than is actually there.

[SteveR]

Two people are, or should be, frightened here.

Me, because I apparently think in French (thank you Lionelrus)

and Daveallen because I agree with the conclusion in your latest posting. Seems right to me. Which should worry you.

[Za Otlichiye]

Oh dear you have changed your mind back again, SteveR? Didn't mean to speak for you.

Actually, the more I look at Dave's analysis* the more reasonable it seems. At least now the page 63 bit has some use: Flank and Rear attacks cancel the benefits of (some) Special Abilities, but do not cancel the cancellation effects of those canceled Special Abilities.
Must sound better in French...

(* the idea originates with lionelrus, of course, who is generous with his time and quick to help.)
---

I'd like to add another question to the stinking pile. I have a feeling it was discussed before, but I can't seem to dig it up.

Ct attacks Kn head-to-head, while LH hits the Kn in the flank. The flank attack cancels the Impact +1 of the Kn. Does this mean the Ct now has Impact +1 because the Kn are not exercising their Impact, or do the Ct not have Impact because the Kn are Impact rated?

(Well, if Dave has it sussed, then no, the Kn loses its +1, but still cancels the Ct Impact.)

---

This makes for a rather subtle difference where the limitations of a Special Abllity are listed. Elephants don't have Impact against Javelinmen in their Troop Description. So the Javelin +1 counts because it is not canceled. But if an Impetuous unit is attacked by Javelinmen in front and LH from the side, then the Impact is canceled but the canceled Impact still cancels the Javelin benefit.

---

I feel for Vexillia...

[AlanCutner]

I thought I understood this part of the rules. Now I'm thoroughly confused.

[vexillia]

See https://youtu.be/G_Sy6oiJbEk and do wait for the punch line if you don't know the sketch.
_________________
Martin Stephenson

[Hazelbark]

[daveallen]

[Hazelbark]

[Za Otlichiye]

I still think it's viable. Missile Support has a benefit (+1 when determining losses) and a cancellation effect. Lose the bonus, stay for the cancellation would work.

Sigh, didn't realize it was intended as a reductio ad absurdum argument...

The DT is probably still trying to figure out if Elephants have Impact against Elephants.

[daveallen]

The original issue was could a unit that had the Furious charge ability get the benefit of that ability cancelling it's opponent's Armour ability in situations where the Furious charge ability did not apply. The answer to that was "obviously not."

Then it was asked if the phrase "is cancelled" in the French version of the rules had been mistranslated as "does not apply" in the English. We haven't had a response on that point. Though we have been told that "philosophically" it doesn't matter as "It's not properly the capacity, but only the effect which is cancelled." Along with an explanation that says one of the effects of the ability which is cancelled (or doesn't apply) does apply. I am genuinely mystified as to what that means [mystery resolved, I suspect Lionel was bamboozled by the question being about cancelation of an ability that does not apply, see my next post]


So there are several linked questions here:

1) Does the cancelation of a unit's Special ability mean the unit does not have that ability? [no, see my next post]

2) If the unit still "has" the cancelled Special ability should some of its effects still apply? For instance if a unit's Furious charge ability has been cancelled by a flank attack should the unit still get the benefit of cancelling its frontal opponent's Armour ability?[yes, see my next post]

3) Is there any difference between a Special ability not applying in some circumstances and it being cancelled in other circumstances. In particular the case of Furious charge not applying against Missile supported foot and being cancelled by a flank attack.[there does seem to be a difference, see my next post]

(Note) It's interesting that there are only two cases of an Ability being cancelled where one of the benefits of that ability (Furious charge arising from Impacts) is specifically mentioned as still applying. (See the rule on page 22 below) Which suggests that logically (if not philosophically ) other cancelations are complete.[wrong , see my next post]

The rules in question here are:

Page 17, Armour and heavy armour, para 4:


Citation:

In combat, Armour and Heavy armour abilities are cancelled in the following cases: During the first round of a melee if the enemy has Furious charge (even if losing the melee), ...


Page 18, Furious charge, para 3, bp 4:


Citation:

Furious charge does not apply in the following cases: ... Against foot with Missile support ability when charged by mounted units. ...


Page 22, Unit Characteristics Table, notes re the effects of MSp, HSp, Pike and Swordsmen:


Citation:

* Cancels the Impact of mounted (except Elephant) if receiving the charge on the front. Furious charge is still applicable. ** Cancels the Impact of Impetuous swordsmen if receiving the charge on the front. Furious charge is still applicable.


Page 63, Flank or rear attack, bp2:


Citation:

2HW, Impact, Javelin, Polearm, Furious charge and Misslie support abilities are cancelled even if attacked [on the flank] by light troops or if the attacker is not fully conformed.

[see my next post for further rules that clarify this, somewhat]

I hope that helps.

Dave
_________________
Putting the ink into incompetence