When you charge artillery they get a KAB per artillery base on you. I had a Ming unit with one base equipped with integral light artillery. My opponent charged so that he only contacted one base - not the one with artillery. His argument, which I conceded at the time, was that the wording ("charging them") meant charging that base with the art, so no KAB if that base was not contacted. What do people think - is it charging the file or charging the TUG (irrespective of whether you contact the art file) that qualifies for a KAB
I think he has a good point as firing is by file.
Yeah, like I said, I accepted it at the time as logical. Just thought I'd check what the consensus was.
It is the base that gets the KAB if IT is charged
Specifically it is ...
Guns and cannons claim a KaB test per model firing vs. enemy charging them.
So them is the guns and cannons ... not a TuG containing them. So has to be a base with the artillery classification for them.
Si
The fact that it says 'per model firing' and an overlap base does get to fire suggests it does get the KAB.
Martin
I think the key word is not "firing" but"them". If "them" means the TuG you get one interpretation and if it means the file then the other ... and now it has been clarified. Just goes to show how hard it is to write rules - interpretations can end up hanging on a single word.
PS By the way when Ming attached light artillery to units they were many smallish guns spread all across the front of the unit which would give a historical reason to make "them" mean the whole TUG. But I understand that is a specific case and there has to be a general interpretation.
I can concur that it sure ain't easy!!
This interp is still current? Asking as it came up this evening and is no longer in the clarifications.
Rules (PDF) say bases firing at an UG charging them.
It is why in the tournament changes for 2026, we have switched other shooting to be at <= 1BW. Avoids this sort of issue. I would suggest we should change this as well.
Richard
Fair call.
Quote from: nikgaukroger on September 05, 2025, 07:06:08 AMRules (PDF) say bases firing at an UG charging them.
and we read that and still were not sure as at least one gun was in <=1 but wouldn't be physically contacted due to step forward angles. Yet it was being 'charged' and could potentially have been contacted if a base from the chargers had died on the way in
Assessment for the KaB does not take into account "what if"
The rule would become KAB on UG shot at by artillery <= 1BW. Wouldn't have to be charging, just be shot at <= 1BW.
Richard