question about charging lancer’s claim in flank charge

[philfigo]

during my last game, we had a different point of view, my partner gave me a clear and completely understandable explanation, but when I read the QRS quietly at home, I was lost.

QRS: "** standing to receive = not charged, countercharged or intercepted"
The definition of standing to receive just talks about not moving, but on the flank are you standing to receive? probably not.

QRS: Preferred Claims "only be made when fighting to a files front"
Does the lancer's claim depend on whether or not the file charged on the flank has a claim?

Clearly, what are the claims of charging lancer who charge the flank:
of not moving (standing to receive?) Long Spear
A= 4 (for flanking) + 0 against long spear stand to received
B= 4 (for flanking) + 2 charging lancer (claim LSp not applicable in flank combat)
of elephant
C= 4 (for flanking) + 0 against elephant
D= 4 (for flanking) + 2 (claim Elephant not applicable in flank combat)

[LawrenceG]

This is something I was also wondering about.

CL gets a claim of 0 against certain things.

Is this a claim of 0 by the CL, or is it a claim cancellation by the all the opponents it applies against?


The wording is different for other characterisics:  + N vs X except Y.  This is clearly a claim cancellation by Y IMO.

[lionheartrjc]

I might be missing something (I often am), but what difference would it make if it is a claim cancellation?

It could have said "+2 vs any except El, BWg, or standing to receive foot LSp, foot PA or Pk".

The foot LSp are standing to receive if they didn't charge, counter-charge or intercept.

CL charging standing to receive LSp in the flank have no preferred claim but get the +4 general claim for charging in the flank.
The foot LSp has no preferred claim because they are hit in the flank.

Richard

[LawrenceG]

I might be missing something (I often am), but what difference would it make if it is a claim cancellation?

It could have said "+2 vs any except El, BWg, or standing to receive foot LSp, foot PA or Pk".

The foot LSp are standing to receive if they didn't charge, counter-charge or intercept.

CL charging standing to receive LSp in the flank have no preferred claim but get the +4 general claim for charging in the flank.
The foot LSp has no preferred claim because they are hit in the flank.

Richard

The claims table says:  All below claims and cancellation effects can only be made when fighting to a files front.

If foot LSp etc cancels the Lancer's +2 claim, then that cancellation does not apply if the LSp etc is not fighting to its front.

Orhave I totally misunderstood this table?

[lionheartrjc]

The claims table says:  All below claims and cancellation effects can only be made when fighting to a files front.
If foot LSp etc cancels the Lancer's +2 claim, then that cancellation does not apply if the LSp etc is not fighting to its front.
Or have I totally misunderstood this table?

So whether it is a cancellation effect or not matters.  My view is that it should be treated as a cancellation effect (for consistency with everything else), but I will seek confirmation.
Clearly it needs clarifying....

Richard

[tarnowski1]

from the last clarifications document before teh digital compendium

'QRS Add "and cancellation effects" after All below claims... in the heading to both Preferred Claims table. As written you cannot claim SSp, CL, etc. claims when making a flank/rear charge against pike, etc. who have stood to receive as it does not specify that it only prevents them if making a frontal contact However, diagram on page 151 has a flank charging unit claiming the SSp. The diagram is correct and the "cancellation effects" only apply to contacts to the front of the file; a flank/rear charge attracts the full claim. This also applies to the Melee Combat claim for mounted/chariot Melee Expert.'

[lionheartrjc]

Indeed, I have confirmed that it is regarded as a claim cancellation effect and so the flank/rear charge attracts the full claim.
Sorry for any confusion I may have caused.

Richard

[philfigo]

So
VS standing to receive LSp
4 (for flank) + 2 charging lancer (no claim cancellation for LSp)

VS elephant
4 (for flank) + 2 (no claim cancellation for Elephant)

[tarnowski1]

So
VS standing to receive LSp
4 (for flank) + 2 charging lancer (no claim cancellation for LSp)

VS elephant
4 (for flank) + 2 (no claim cancellation for Elephant)

V Elephant is 4 for flank + 0 for fighting el or bwg.

The factor for fighting an elephant is 0, its not a cancellation.
As it's not

'VS standing to receive LSp
4 (for flank) + 2 charging lancer (no claim cancellation for LSp)'

It's

VS standing to receive LSp in flank/rear
4 (for flank) + 2 charging lancer against others.

If you see what I mean? 'standing to recieve' is applicable only to fighting them frontally so it falls into the 'other' category.

Elephants are still elephants so it's still +0 factor.

[philfigo]

V Elephant is 4 for flank + 0 for fighting el or bwg.

The factor for fighting an elephant is 0, its not a cancellation.
As it's not

'VS standing to receive LSp
4 (for flank) + 2 charging lancer (no claim cancellation for LSp)'

It's

VS standing to receive LSp in flank/rear
4 (for flank) + 2 charging lancer against others.

If you see what I mean? 'standing to recieve' is applicable only to fighting them frontally so it falls into the 'other' category.

Elephants are still elephants so it's still +0 factor.

ok, so
for elephant we don't apply any cancellation as it is write in the QRS "All below claims and cancellation effects can only be made when fighting to a files front"
We apply only to "standing to receive** foot LSp, foot PA, or Pk" on the flank
Elephants are still elephants but foot LSp don't still LSp because on the flank
vs elephant +4 +0
vs LSp standing to receive or not (it is the same) +4 +2
is that right?

[nikgaukroger]

IMO if the "0" is a cancellation effect, then it applies to El, BWg and the various foot. I think Matt is reading too much into the wording.

And I do believe the "0" is intended to be a cancellation effect from author discussion some time ago.

Which is a shame as I like the idea that CL always get a claim of 0 against nellies and wagons 

[LawrenceG]

IMO if the "0" is a cancellation effect, then it applies to El, BWg and the various foot. I think Matt is reading too much into the wording.

And I do believe the "0" is intended to be a cancellation effect from author discussion some time ago.

Which is a shame as I like the idea that CL always get a claim of 0 against nellies and wagons 

For wagons, at least, pdf 13.B.7  Enemy cannot claim combat advantages for flank or rear against battlewagons whether in
column or line.

could be construed as negating the negation of the cancellation, if you consider that a "combat advantage for flank or rear".

[philfigo]

so I resume

CL vs WWG = 0 (no claim or cancelation)

CL vs all other = 6 (4 flank + 2 CL)

am I right?

[lionheartrjc]

so I resume

CL vs WWG = 0 (no claim or cancelation)

CL vs all other = 6 (4 flank + 2 CL)

am I right?

What a tangled web we weave when we try to write wargames rules!
Personally, I agree with Nik in that I don't think CL should get the +2 vs Elephants hit in flank or rear.

This would be best expressed by re-phrasing the QRS to say "0 vs BWg, El; +2 vs others cancelled by Foot LSp, Foot PA or Pk".
Using "cancelled" instead of "except" throughout the QRS would be clearer.

Would anyone object if that was the ruling....

[philfigo]

ok
this would give

CL vs WWG = 0
CL vs elephant = 4 (claim: flank nothing more)
Cl vs all other = 6 (claim: flank + CL)

same for Foot or Mounted Devastating charger vs Elephant

in fact the type of troop wwg or elephant could cancel the attacker's claims in all directions
but all others type of troop could cancel the attacker's claims only on their front

it's clear to me