Shock troops charging

[aventine]

While playing a game we came accross this situation,

A shock mounted had two enemy BGs in charge range, one being elephants the other catafracts.. The rule allows them to aviod charging the elephants but do they then have to charge the other. If they had charged the second BG it not have involved contacting elephants. He argued that because the elephants were in charge range he did not have to test, was he right?

The second issue we were not clear on was "is a BG a legal target to missile fire while looting?" I would have thought that they were in the camp and therefore not a legal target.

The last point was - BG behind target BG but not facing, in other words it needed a wheel to make contact but was within 1MU. We ruled that it could charge but the target did not take the drop to disrupted, we also ruled that the target BG have a threatened flank, were we right.

http://www.aventineminiatures.co.uk/gal ... b_FOG1.jpg

[babyshark]

While playing a game we came accross this situation,

A shock mounted had two enemy BGs in charge range, one being elephants the other catafracts.. The rule allows them to aviod charging the elephants but do they then have to charge the other. If they had charged the second BG it not have involved contacting elephants. He argued that because the elephants were in charge range he did not have to test, was he right?

I don't have the book with me to give you a page cite, but troops do not need to test not to charge if their charge would contact El. So your opponent was correct.

The second issue we were not clear on was "is a BG a legal target to missile fire while looting?" I would have thought that they were in the camp and therefore not a legal target.

Not as sure about this one, although I believe that they are a shooting target. The looters are not in close combat.

The last point was - BG behind target BG but not facing, in other words it needed a wheel to make contact but was within 1MU. We ruled that it could charge but the target did not take the drop to disrupted, we also ruled that the target BG have a threatened flank, were we right.

Once again I can't provide a cite, but only a flank charge must deal with the 1MU wheel limitation. It sounds like you were dealing with a rear charge, so a cohesion drop should have occurred.

Marc

[GHGAustin]

While playing a game we came accross this situation,

A shock mounted had two enemy BGs in charge range, one being elephants the other catafracts.. The rule allows them to aviod charging the elephants but do they then have to charge the other. If they had charged the second BG it not have involved contacting elephants. He argued that because the elephants were in charge range he did not have to test, was he right?

I don't have the book with me to give you a page cite, but troops do not need to test not to charge if their charge would contact El. So your opponent was correct.

I do not believe this is correct. Since he could make the charge WITHOUT contacting the elephants, then he should have tested.

[hazelbark]

Not charging Elephants page 58

"If their move could end in contact with a...Elephant."

So the details of the position matter. Later on page 59. paraphrase...if you fail you must charge the one straight ahead unless you can charge them all.

Globally IIRC the authors said don't get picky. The intent is "see Elephante, no chargee". SO I may rule no charge.

But if you are a literalist the position matters:
1) If the EL was straight ahead then no test based on the page 59 bit as a without order charge can't veer away from straight ahead.
2) Also a step forward counts as contact in a lot of places and here too as that is contact.
3) So if the non-EL was directly ahead and the EL was at a separate angle then perhaps you would have to roll the test.

Now what is interesting and perhaps an editing error, Foot don't charge if they could be intercepted by mounted. But the Elephant line is different and leaves out the intercepting caveat. So if the Elephant was only able to get in the way via intercept then the charge is tested for.

[aventine]

The Bg was not facing either unit in range and was approx 45degrees from each. He could have charged the non elephant Bg without being intercepted or having to contact elephants. As it it would have needed a ruling I think as to which was straighest ahead or closer but we did not go that far. I thank you for you advice, most useful as always.

[sagji]

While playing a game we came accross this situation,

A shock mounted had two enemy BGs in charge range, one being elephants the other catafracts.. The rule allows them to aviod charging the elephants but do they then have to charge the other. If they had charged the second BG it not have involved contacting elephants. He argued that because the elephants were in charge range he did not have to test, was he right?

No
What is in charge range is not important - what is important is what they could contact. In a charge without orders you get little choice on the charge target.
If you can hit all targets then you charge all targets, if not you charge the one closest to straight ahead.
So in this situation if he could charge both targets then he would do so - however because it would contact elephants they don't make the charge move, and thus there is no point in making the charge test.
The same would apply if the preferred target was the elephants.
If he can't hit both, and the preferred target is the cataphracts, and the elephants can't intercept the charge then he must test and will charge the cataphracts.
If the elephants can intercept the charge on the cataphracts then they don't make the charge move, and thus there is no point in making the charge test.
If the two BGs are equal priority then he gets to choose one as the target and that is treated as the priority target.

The second issue we were not clear on was "is a BG a legal target to missile fire while looting?" I would have thought that they were in the camp and therefore not a legal target.

None of the exceptions apply so they are a valid target - not enough of them are in the camp to be protected.

The last point was - BG behind target BG but not facing, in other words it needed a wheel to make contact but was within 1MU. We ruled that it could charge but the target did not take the drop to disrupted, we also ruled that the target BG have a threatened flank, were we right.

http://www.aventineminiatures.co.uk/gal ... b_FOG1.jpg

The 1 MU limit only applies to flank charges, and as this would be a rear charge then it is a valid rear charge - so threatend flank applies.
Also the 1MU restriction on a flank charge doesn't stop the charge, it simply means it is resolved as a frontal charge - but I don't think it counts for a threatened flank.