sillypoint | 05 Nov 2015 12:19 a.m. PST |
We accept a variety of game conventions, as a natural consequence of miniature table top gaming. One that puzzels me, is the rule that does not allow a unit to be a target of a infantry and a cavalry charge in the same turn. Can you explain the concept that underlies this convention? Is there a better way to replicate whatever notion that drives this principle? Thanks. |
Marshal Mark | 05 Nov 2015 12:50 a.m. PST |
What rules does that happen in? I've not heard of it in any ancients rules. |
MajorB | 05 Nov 2015 2:50 a.m. PST |
One that puzzels me, is the rule that does not allow a unit to be a target of a infantry and a cavalry charge in the same turn. I've not come across that restriction in any rules that I play. On the contrary, attacks on an opposing unit by multiple friendly units is a common feature of many games and has considerable basis in fact. |
langobard | 05 Nov 2015 2:58 a.m. PST |
How a set of rules handles multi unit melees is something that either makes or breaks a rule set for me, but like the other respondents so far, I haven't come across this particular prohibition before… |
GarrisonMiniatures | 05 Nov 2015 5:22 a.m. PST |
I just use DBX, certainly no rule there about it. |
williamb | 05 Nov 2015 5:53 a.m. PST |
I have read multiple rule sets and never seen a rule that does not allow infantry and cavalry to charge the same unit. Some rule sets such as DBX encourage the use of light infantry supporting a mounted charge. |
Martin Rapier | 05 Nov 2015 6:55 a.m. PST |
Perhaps an example of rules where this occurs would be useful. I've certainly never come across any such restrictions for Ancients. Occasionally practical considerations of frontage matchups intervene, but that is what flanks are for… We could no doubt have a fruitful discussion about firing into melees (or not) though. |
Ashurman | 05 Nov 2015 6:55 a.m. PST |
Might just be a reference to the Warrior rules, which do generally prohibit charging a unit in the same turn with both unless the foot and mounted are sub-units of the other (say with early Germans, LI as a sub-unit of cavalry). Memory fails me as to whether or not this was also the case with WRG 7th Edition, but the WRG series, at least from 5th Edition on, disordered foot contacted by mounted while moving including charging. |
Lee Brilleaux | 05 Nov 2015 7:54 a.m. PST |
"I wanted to charge, but some blokes on horses got their first and I had to wait my turn." |
Winston Smith | 05 Nov 2015 10:14 a.m. PST |
I don't think Warrior allows it. I don't know why. |
GurKhan | 05 Nov 2015 12:36 p.m. PST |
Under certain WRG editions, it was a neat trick to pin a large enemy foot unit by charging one corner with cavalry, and engaging the rest with foot: the enemy would be disordered by the cavalry if they counter-charged – even if only one figure was engaged – and if they stood they'd be at a disadvantage against the charging foot. Perhaps the Warrior rule was intended to outlaw that tactic? |
sillypoint | 05 Nov 2015 1:39 p.m. PST |
I must admit, it is one of the first "house rule" I adopt- toss that rule out, especially as sometimes the charges are on different "frontages". Thanks GurKhan/Ashurman, that was probably the best explaination I have read for that rule. Nice to know the majority of other rule sets don't apply this concept. |
USAFpilot | 06 Nov 2015 6:17 p.m. PST |
This restriction is present in a very well written set of rules named "Might of Arms". The author says the restriction is to hinder the unrealistic close coordination of foot and mounted troops. |