Art De La Guerre

[Longtooth]

The top of page 46 states that an impetuous foot unit is 'not required' to make an uncontrolled charge against the front of enemy mounted. Although I have always interpreted this text to say that uncontrolled charge rules do not apply in this instance, a friend has suggested that the term 'not required' means that an uncontrolled charge is 'optional'. Is he correct? Can an impetuous foot unit make an uncontrolled charge against the front edge of an enemy cavalry if he so wishes?

Jesse

[AlanCutner]

This came up in a recent game, specifically whether an impetuous unit could do an uncontrolled charge into bad going to provide support to an existing melee. We took 'not required' as making it optional.

[KevinD]

Good question.

I’d really like to see the French original to see if this (optionality) is an unintentional translation issue or something that was intended.

[lionelrus]

Impetuous troops are submited to uncontroled charge, except if the situation is covered by an exception.

Exceptions mean impetuous troops are not subjet to uncontroled charge, but must follow all the others "charging rules"

So if these troops want charging, they can do so following usual charging rules, and pay one point.

In the exposed case, infantry have to pay for charging on mounted troops.
_________________
"Quand on a pas de technique, faut y aller à la zob"
Perceval à Yvain et Gauvain.

[AlanCutner]

[Longtooth]

[lionelrus]

[Mike Bennett]

[Za Otlichiye]

It's the same problem that causes people to think the 3CP cost applies every time the Impetuous unit is within charge range. The whole uncontrolled charge process is explained from start to finish and then the exceptions show up.
Easy solution is to either place the exceptions in the second spot, or add something like "is within charge range of the enemy and none of the exceptions apply".
*****
A small note because I don't think it will confuse anyone, but " is within charge range of an enemy (ignoring intervening friends)," is incorrect and should read "is within charge range of an enemy (ignoring friends which can be interpenetrated or burst through)". Not every intervening friend can be burst through.

[lionelrus]

[Zoltan]

Lionelrus is correct.

The P 46 Exceptions to uncontrolled charges must be read in the context of the P 45 Uncontrolled charge rules.

P.45 (left column, first para, second sentence) includes the author's clear statement of intent:"All Impetuous troops have the potential to make uncontrolled charges against the enemy in certain circumstances (see exceptions p 46)". The uncontrolled charge circumstances are then listed.

In the exceptions, the phrase "not required" is a simple, insignificant, idiomatic choice by the rule writer and could, instead, have been something like "the Uncontrolled charge rules DO NOT APPLY in the following cases."

You can not "choose" to ignore the P 46 exceptions to the P 45 rules.

[lionelrus]

I must admit: zlotan's english is better than mine!
_________________
"Quand on a pas de technique, faut y aller à la zob"
Perceval à Yvain et Gauvain.

[Jhykronos]

Besides, by "choosing" to charge uncontrolled, you make nonsense of the term "uncontrolled".
_________________
- Let the Die be Cast

[AlanCutner]

I accept all the arguments made on this. But the fact is 'not required' can and is read as making the charge optional by many english speaking players. It is a poor translation. Lets agree to put this in the FAQ/errata and then we can all move on.

[lionelrus]