Sorry, have been away from the computer. Glad you posted this; completely
agree Vincent.
Cheers
Rodge

-----Original Message-----
From: ARMATI@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ARMATI@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
AUGER Vincent
Sent: 08 January 2009 12:47
To: ARMATI@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [ARMATI] combat is movement (was Re: RV's, the State of the Nation.
Steve's comments)

Sorry guys but saying that a unit in melee is moving may look nice on paper,
however it does not, IMO, stand up to a close review of game impacts. The
issue here is not limited to bracing but impacts all game areas where being
stationnary is a requirement.
One example is terrain advantage. With your interpretation, a warband could
charge a FT unit uphill, break-off and charge again with the FT not having
the up hill bonus in this second charge (providing the warband move first)
because it was in melee, hence moved, since the movement phase previous to
contact. Another more critical example: a schiltron hit in flank would lose
its schiltron status by the end of the first turn and will be almost
automatically wiped out in the second round of melee. None of these 2
examples looks desirable to me yet both are the direct consequence of losing
the stationnary status when in melee.

Furthermore, if you consider that an Armati unit represents several real
units on the battlefield, then I do not see an issue in having part of a
Armati unit engaged in melee while other parts are steady and ready to
receive another enemy's charge.

The given example of the cavalry is misleading IMO. In the case of cavalry,
it is in danger in case of double charge because it has not impetus anymore.
The idea here is that all parts of an Armati unit engaged in melee are
slowed down sufficiently to be unable to launch effective counter charges
later on. The issue is therefore about the capacity of still being able to
move while in melee, not of being stationnary.

Making a difference between stationnary for bracing and other stationnary
effects (PH, Schiltron, terrain...) would involve much complexity and be
contradictory with the KISS principle.

I therefore stick to the current wording of the RV which says that bracing
is retained while in melee. More generally, we could clarify that being in
melee does NOT prevent keeping, or acquiring, the stationnary status.

Best regards



Vincent



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links