charge path redux

madcam2us · Post by **madcam2us** » Thu Sep 24, 2009 10:48 pm

When following the FAQ and the full turn sequence on page 168 a repeated problem continues to be a point of contention.... Namely - when does a charging BG need to declare its path....

The FAQ tells us a BG MUST when there are possible interceptors about. What about when a possible target is able to evade?

Given no flank/rear charges a BG is able to evade either to its own rear or the direction of the charge.....

The turn sequences tells us to first declare charges... make interception moves then make evade moves....

page 53 tells us the restrictions on BGs that are charging - either straight ahead or combined with a wheel so that no less the number of bases fights in impact if charging straight ahead....

Restricted Areas do NOT apply during charge movements....

Evaders have the option of either going to their own rear OR in the direction of the charge....

My worthy opponent feels that since the neither the FAQ nor the rules tell us when to actually declare the path concerning BGs that can evade, the charging BG may move off in a separate direction as long as it follows pages 53 AND 68.

His crux is the following from page 68: since the first time the actual phrase "charge path" is mentioned is here, the evade has actually already occured and the charging BG is free to move off in a different manner than original proposed...

...."If all target BGs evade out of the original path of the charge, the charges can wheel in an attempt to catch them..."

My counter point is that until I know his path, I can't decided whether to stand, evade to my rear, or evade in the direction of the charge....

Thoughts?

It was played that the BG had to declare the charge when all targets of the charge were capable of evading and was only able to deviate to follow said evaders....

Madcam.

[/u]

ottomanmjm · Post by **ottomanmjm** » Fri Sep 25, 2009 2:03 am

I think that the direction of charge needs to be stated as part of the charge declaration. A BG evading a charge need to know the direction of the charge before announcing where its evade direction.

Chargers must charge in the direction indicated unless all evaders move out of the charge arc when they are then able to wheel in an attempt to follow the evaders.

I can't give you page numbers or specific rule references as I do not have my rules with me.

I always declare the direction of my charges as I declere the charge and I always ask my opponent what direction they are charging when they declare a charge.

david53 · Post by **david53** » Fri Sep 25, 2009 5:59 am

ottomanmjm wrote:I think that the direction of charge needs to be stated as part of the charge declaration. A BG evading a charge need to know the direction of the charge before announcing where its evade direction.

Chargers must charge in the direction indicated unless all evaders move out of the charge arc when they are then able to wheel in an attempt to follow the evaders.

I can't give you page numbers or specific rule references as I do not have my rules with me.

I always declare the direction of my charges as I declere the charge and I always ask my opponent what direction they are charging when they declare a charge.

I thought it was declare all charges first then opponent declares if evading or not and then directions of charges are made?

marioslaz · Post by **marioslaz** » Fri Sep 25, 2009 6:11 am

ottomanmjm wrote:I think that the direction of charge needs to be stated as part of the charge declaration. A BG evading a charge need to know the direction of the charge before announcing where its evade direction.

Chargers must charge in the direction indicated unless all evaders move out of the charge arc when they are then able to wheel in an attempt to follow the evaders.

I can't give you page numbers or specific rule references as I do not have my rules with me.

I always declare the direction of my charges as I declere the charge and I always ask my opponent what direction they are charging when they declare a charge.

I think the above is right, but this leave Madcam in his doubts. You could do so. You declare charge direction in the same moment you declare the charge. If all your opponents evade, you follow your charge path up to the starting position of the evader you want to pursue, than you can wheel to follow him if needed.

danikine74 · Post by **danikine74** » Fri Sep 25, 2009 6:48 am

We declare the path at the same time as the charge declaration, it simplifies evasio/interception.

But i am in the opnion than, first declaration of charges, then all possible targets declare to evade or not, interceptions are made and then evasion and the charges. But that creates more confusion, ie, a unit declares a charge, he has three possible targets, poistioned in a manner that if charger goea to the let one, the far right, now out of path can intercept, bu he was a possible target, does he intercept or not??

Declaring the direction before clearly sigals the targets/ possible inerceptors, but it is not written like this in the rules

prb4 · Post by **prb4** » Fri Sep 25, 2009 6:53 am

I often encounter a problem with this.

If a charger has more than one possible target and can choose to hit only one or the other or both then I MUST know the direction of charge before I declare evades. Otherwise I may evade a unit that is not charged, which is illegal.

If the charge direction is not declared before evades I can't see how evades can be declared.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Fri Sep 25, 2009 7:16 am

danikine74 wrote: But i am in the opnion than, first declaration of charges, then all possible targets declare to evade or not,

Only actual targets evade, not possible targets. See below.

interceptions are made and then evasion and the charges. But that creates more confusion, ie, a unit declares a charge, he has three possible targets, poistioned in a manner that if charger goea to the let one, the far right, now out of path can intercept, bu he was a possible target, does he intercept or not??

You are only a target of the charge if the charge will contact you in the direction declared. This stops an intercept. If you are a possible target but the charger goes in a different direction that will not contact you, you are not a target so can intercept.

Declaring the direction before clearly sigals the targets/ possible inerceptors, but it is not written like this in the rules

I am sure it does signal the target very well, but I think you would know if you were being charged or your mates 4MU away, twice as far as you can throw a javelin. The rules are a bit vague on declaring direction. If it will affect any reactions to charges it must be declared, otherwise we do not know which enemy to move. (Even the FAQ only mentions intercepts, so this IMO should be added.)

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:18 am

I have always played that when the target can evade that the direction of the charge is declared before the choice to evade.

I really can;t remember why the charge rules are not such that you have to declare the direction when you declare the charge, it makes life soooo much simpler and would have saved a lot of electrons.

danikine74 · Post by **danikine74** » Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:39 am

I ussualy see in the battles fought, that the charge s direction are declared without any "clear" target, ie, a unit or BG, but are declared on " a direction, that would create a path where evaders will evade, i mean a charge made to clear an space, we are seing then a unit that is not charging at any unit but a indefinited point in between some BGs in order to evade some or getting an VMD extra or getting in a some new tactical suprior position
I think this is not the "spirit" of a charge where you charge your enemy...

I found here one weak point in this rules

danikine74 · Post by **danikine74** » Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:43 am

It allows to chose a point of the tabletop to be the"target" it enables not to declare a charge over a unit ( more sense) but a charge path where enemy units will react.

Now you must not choose a target but a direction... quite unfair

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Fri Sep 25, 2009 9:08 am

danikine74 wrote:It allows to chose a point of the tabletop to be the"target" it enables not to declare a charge over a unit ( more sense) but a charge path where enemy units will react.

Now you must not choose a target but a direction... quite unfair

Regardless of how you define direction you still have to have a target. In addition you cannot wheel such that if the enemy stay where they are you will end up with less bases being eligible to fight than you would have if you charged directly forwards. This does put a fair amount of limitation on charging into open space and if you are a bit clever with your skirmishers lets you limit your opponents charge options.

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Fri Sep 25, 2009 9:32 am

david53 wrote:
I thought it was declare all charges first then opponent declares if evading or not and then directions of charges are made?

IIRC this is correct as written.

However, my experience is that in the vast majority of cases people give the direction when they declare as it smooths the game play and keeps things nice and friendly. I know that recently when I was going down the "as written route" it became clear that it was just going to cause tension and I was being a jerk

- so I gave the direction with the declaration.

As Hammys aid it would have been better to say it is done at declaration to avoid this sort of problem.

prb4 · Post by **prb4** » Fri Sep 25, 2009 11:41 am

I thought it was declare all charges first then opponent declares if evading or not and then directions of charges are made?

IIRC this is correct as written.

If this is correct then there is a problem with the rules.
As I commented above, if the charge direction is not declared before evades it is not possible to know which units need to decide if to evade.
I find this problem happens a lot with light horse. They have a very large area and range of directions that they could charge in.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Fri Sep 25, 2009 11:52 am

The charge must have a target when it is declared. Direction comes later. The target BG(s), will tell you who initially needs to evade, direction will tell you any others and any possible intercepts.

madcam2us · Post by **madcam2us** » Fri Sep 25, 2009 12:47 pm

All of this is great, and we are all in agreement that RAW doesn't require you to state direction of charge....

The FAQ however DOES give directions that the "path" must be declared when possible interceptions are about...

Evades GET to choose their evade path under all non-flank/rear charges - either to their own rear or the direction of the charge....

I propose that the FAQ is updated to show both intercepters and evades must know the path of the charge upon declaring the charge....

Madcam.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Fri Sep 25, 2009 12:50 pm

No you don't normally need to state direction.

I believe it should be added to FAQ that if anybody may evade or could intercept it must be.

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Fri Sep 25, 2009 1:22 pm

I'd just change the FAQ to say you state the direction of a charge when the charge is declared - no need to make it dependant on anything.

spikemesq · Post by **spikemesq** » Fri Sep 25, 2009 1:44 pm

I submit that the charge direction declared is not a commitment to the ultimate charge direction.

Indeed, ALL enemy within move range of the charger are targets of the charge, meaning that they can evade (if skirmishers, etc.) and CANNOT intercept. Thus, no BG faces a choice of evade or intercept.

Charge declaration is more of a status than an announced move. The phasing player designates that a unit is charging. Any enemy that could be legally contacted (i.e., within move distance and unobstructed path) is a target. This is true even if the ultimate charge could not possibly contact all of those BGs.

Consider a unit of Lancers facing 2 BGs of skirmishers that are 5 MU away at 45 degree angles from the Lancer BG midpoint. (no ascii art for me, but it is a straight forward scene).

The lancers have the range and path to legally contact either BG but not both. Lancer declares charge.

Both BGs are targets because they are in range and could be contacted. Both elect to evade. The lancers should designate a charge direction for each to clarify their evade options. The charge direction should not remove the BG's status as charge targets, so different charge direction declarations are appropriate. Once the evades are resolved, the Lancers charge.

Otherwise, the charge direction becomes too gamey and doesn't work in sequence. If the direction affects the charge target status, then the skirmisher player would dictate the charger's move by picking which skirmisher to evade first, forcing a charge direction choice that eliminates the charge target status of the other BG.

Spike

Charging ahead, once he figures out where.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Fri Sep 25, 2009 1:53 pm

spikemesq wrote:Indeed, ALL enemy within move range of the charger are targets of the charge, meaning that they can evade (if skirmishers, etc.) and CANNOT intercept. Thus, no BG faces a choice of evade or intercept.

No the charger must declare a target that he can contact with a single charge, though this could be more than 1 BG, not targets that would need 2 or more separate charges to contact.

Though that would be great because then you could wait for the VMD to decide which way to go.
(edit)
Now I have a rule book.

rules wrote:A battle group can declare charges on as many enemy battle groups as can "legally" be contacted within this move distance

In your example Spike the charge could be declared on either but not both as you cannot contact both within your move distance. And would have to wheel twice to do so as well.

beausant · Post by **beausant** » Fri Sep 25, 2009 4:54 pm

What direction must the charger move when the target evades...does the charger follow the evading target or may the charger move straight ahead and contact a unit that was not the charge target? May the unit being contacted be contacted in the flank, even if a flank charge was not legal?