Assault outcomes

[Forst22]

Just checking, but the text on assault outcomes is different on the Summary Sheet and in the main rules.

On the Summary sheet, if the target wins, in clause 4 says attacker has the choice to fall back one square OR remain still.

In the rules (p78), the same clause says attacker remains stationary. BUT in brackets has "his choice"

Are the rules right, in which case the "his choice" should be removed, or is the Summary sheet right and text about the fall back option omitted from p78?

Equally the Summary sheet makes no mention of the need for attackers to occupy the target square if the target fallsback, but the rules do. Not a major issue!

[John Watson]

I thought a failed assaulter had to fall back; no choice. Also a successful assaulter had to take the ground of the target; again no choice. Am I right or am I right?
John

[Forst22]

Up to now I have always played it as if the target wins, the attackers stays in the adjacent / start square, as I had been working from the rules text. It was only when I read the Summary sheet more closely and saw the option to fall back and create a gap that I had second thoughts.

This fall back to create a gap has obvious benefits as it buys a square time to recover morale problems unless faced by target cavalry which are still in range!

But the different texts made me wonder if the option was something play tested o
And abandoned in the final draft, or was an omission in the rukes.

[martin goddard]

Hello Graham

Good spotting.

Assaulters lose =they either remain in the zone they assaulted from or fall back.
I have not seen many use the fall back option. maybe it should go?As you say Graham it gives an assaulter the chance to reform at distance.

If assaulter wins,  the units must all move into the target square.
The rules will give much more detail than the quick sheet.
The quick sheet is quite busy enough.



Hope the games are still enjoyable despite the minor niggles.



martin

[Forst22]

Thanks for clarification.

The fall back option seems useful if Cavalry vs an infantry army, as it makes little difference to the cavalry who can recharge if survive morale test, but leaves the infantry with the dilemma of moving forward and potentially breaking the wall of close order infantry.

Hastings comes to mind!