charge path redux

[spikemesq]

So what happens?

[hammy]

Moreover, change this part of the scenario. Same positioning of Lancers against two Cv BGs. The Lancers can hit one base from both if it charges straight ahead. This time, however, the Lancers declare a charge that will wheel to hit two bases from the Cv on the left. The Cv on the left evade. The Cv on the right are not a target of the charge because they are not in the declared path. They could intercept but choose not to or are precluded from doing so (FRAG or DISR and fail CMT). Because all targets (under the narrow definition) have evaded, the Lancers roll a VMD of 4 -- normal move.

Where do they go?

If they follow the declared path, the move is illegal because it is not directly ahead and will not result in more bases in combat during the impact phase than a full advance.

You are reading lots of things into the situation in all sorts of wrong ways.

The charge is declared as on the left BG such that it avoids the right BG. If the left BG evades then the charge will pass by the right BG and nothing will be hit. That is all perfectly legal and above board.
To suggest that such a charge is illegal leads to some very 'interesting' paradoxes and is clearly wrong.

[philqw78]

So what happens?

Due to your interpretation of the rules all charges must be directly ahead, but at the same time can also exist in any other dimension at the same time.

If I close my toolbox are my soldiers still in there? I am sure you could answer this one Spike. OH, my cat's dead, VX gas.

[spikemesq]

Hammy: You are reading lots of things into the situation in all sorts of wrong ways.

The charge is declared as on the left BG such that it avoids the right BG. If the left BG evades then the charge will pass by the right BG and nothing will be hit. That is all perfectly legal and above board.
To suggest that such a charge is illegal leads to some very 'interesting' paradoxes and is clearly wrong.

What am I reading into this?

The RAW specifically limit what a charging BG can do. See pg. 53. I am not making that up.

Other posters insist that the charge declaration must identify the path of that charge and the target, and that the charge must stay on that path. That part is not so clear in the RAW, but whatever.

If those specific limitations on page 53 affect the declared charge path, then (to answer phil's dimensional scoffing) all charge paths must be straight ahead but can include a single wheel to avoid friends or to contact the same or more enemy bases.

If the move restrictions on page 53 apply at declaration, though, then the other player will not usually need a path at declaration. Unless the charger can hit the same or more bases with a single wheel, the charge direction is straight ahead. Moreover, the rules should not identify charge targets as "can be 'legally contacted'" but should state can be legally contacted within a move defined on page 53 -- two sections later and separate from the section dedicated to "legal contact."

OTOH, if the restrictions apply AFTER all reactions occur (say, like the sequence set forth on pg. 52) then the actual charge can (and often will) deviate from the declared path to conform to the results of those reactions. Thus, the Lancers in the example should not blow past the right BG of Cv. To the contrary, according to the move restrictions, it would have to move directly ahead to contact the BG on the right because a wheel would not result in more bases in contact.

Spike

[hammy]

The RAW specifically limit what a charging BG can do. See pg. 53. I am not making that up.
Other posters insist that the charge declaration must identify the path of that charge and the target, and that the charge must stay on that path. That part is not so clear in the RAW, but whatever.

The issue that seems to be causing the problem is that you are in deed correct that the rules don't need you to declare the path of the charge until such point that it actually makes a difference. The exact path of the charge does make a difference if there are any evades or if it is possible that there could be interceptions. All initial targets of the charge must be contacted by the chargers if they move along the charge path and no BGs evade.

If those specific limitations on page 53 affect the declared charge path, then (to answer phil's dimensional scoffing) all charge paths must be straight ahead but can include a single wheel to avoid friends or to contact the same or more enemy bases.

Phil's scoffing is in response to one of your earlier posts where you seemed to indicate that a charge could actually be in more than one direction at once so that a BG declares a charge and all potential targets count as being charged even if one needs a 90 degree wheel right and another a 90 degree wheel left.

If the move restrictions on page 53 apply at declaration, though, then the other player will not usually need a path at declaration. Unless the charger can hit the same or more bases with a single wheel, the charge direction is straight ahead. Moreover, the rules should not identify charge targets as "can be 'legally contacted'" but should state can be legally contacted within a move defined on page 53 -- two sections later and separate from the section dedicated to "legal contact."

Now you are losing me.

OTOH, if the restrictions apply AFTER all reactions occur (say, like the sequence set forth on pg. 52) then the actual charge can (and often will) deviate from the declared path to conform to the results of those reactions.

That is a big if and it is not part of the rules.

Thus, the Lancers in the example should not blow past the right BG of Cv. To the contrary, according to the move restrictions, it would have to move directly ahead to contact the BG on the right because a wheel would not result in more bases in contact.

The point is not where the charge actuall ends up but where the charge would end up if there is no response or reaction to the charge. The rules do not consider things like what happens if your target breaks. How would you look at a situation where the left cavalry BG is fragmented? If the lancers charge them and they break then the lancers have to charge the other cavalry so theyr didn;t charge the left hand one so it didn't break so they could charge it etc.

[philqw78]

The point is not where the charge actually ends up but where the charge would end up if there is no response or reaction to the charge. The rules do not consider things like what happens if your target breaks. How would you look at a situation where the left cavalry BG is fragmented? If the lancers charge them and they break then the lancers have to charge the other cavalry so theyr didn;t charge the left hand one so it didn't break so they could charge it etc.

Exactly. If a LH BG has a BG of enemy pike 7 MU to its front and a BG of LH 5MU off to the left. Without a CMT it charges the LH, the LH evade and it cannot reach, therefore the LH must go straight forward and contact the pike, but it did not pass a CMT so cannot, so it did not charge, so the target BG did not evade. Is my cat still dead?
In your scenario Spike all BG within charge reach are charged, so LH must always pass a CMT to charge if any battle troops are in charge reach, unless they will be contacted in flank. All those capable of evading must then declare wether they do or not, then they roll their dice and the charger's cat is not dead because he can pick any of those targets after rolling his VMD. All targets within reach cannot intercept as they are targets and the charger can choose his route to avoid any possible interceptors outside charge range.
I'm surprised you get past your first impact phase Spike because this is amazingly confusing. What if more than 1 BG charges in the same area of the table?

[madcam2us]

Besides Spikes hippie-lettuce induced ramblings, how 'bout one of you limey's get RBS to take a break from FoGR and update the FAQ to include evades with interpenetrations as a requirement for the charger to declare there path. Or better yet that the charger declares path upon declaration.....

Instead of feeding the monkey, perhaps dedicate a little effort in that direction in order for us to move on to EoD and whether ZoD can be brought back to make rebasing my HF spear to MF....

Thanks

Madcam.

[spikemesq]

Hammy: The point is not where the charge actuall ends up but where the charge would end up if there is no response or reaction to the charge. The rules do not consider things like what happens if your target breaks. How would you look at a situation where the left cavalry BG is fragmented? If the lancers charge them and they break then the lancers have to charge the other cavalry so theyr didn;t charge the left hand one so it didn't break so they could charge it etc.

But this logic loop does not exist in the rules. Fragmented troops take their test the moment they are a charge target. If they break and rout, the charge proceeds after all other reactions are carried out. Whether or not the fragged BG breaks, the charge is carried out.

Indeed, fragmented troops must test even if an interception removes any chance of their being hit by the chargers.

But to your point, the rules (a) separate actual charge moves from declaration and reaction; and (b) strictly limit how charge moves happen. If those limitations apply to the declaration stage, why separate charge moves from the other two segments?

Spike

[hammy]

Besides Spikes hippie-lettuce induced ramblings, how 'bout one of you limey's get RBS to take a break from FoGR and update the FAQ to include evades with interpenetrations as a requirement for the charger to declare there path. Or better yet that the charger declares path upon declaration.....

If there is an evade then the path of the charge has to be know as otherwise the evader cannot choose to evade in the direction of the charge. Where is the problem?

[madcam2us]

@ hammy

Neither the turn sequence nor the rules tell us that....(But is how nearly everyone (and 2/3 of SW ohio) I play vs/with agrees it should be played)

Some rule-gits out there (you know who you are) need it spelled out. From its omission in the FaQ, one could say that one doesn't have to declare the path... It gives a small advantage of deciding where/how much wheeling to do to maximize positioning in following turns.

Doubly so since the part in the RaW tells us the charging BG can wheel to go after evaders/routers. With this being an option, some feel they have the choice of their charge path after the other decides what he is going to do....

Madcam.

[Ghaznavid]

Besides Spikes hippie-lettuce induced ramblings, how 'bout one of you limey's get RBS to take a break from FoGR and update the FAQ to include evades with interpenetrations as a requirement for the charger to declare there path. Or better yet that the charger declares path upon declaration.....

If there is an evade then the path of the charge has to be know as otherwise the evader cannot choose to evade in the direction of the charge. Where is the problem?

The problem is: It is simple applied logic, rule lawyers don't care for logic.

[spikeathome]

I am just trying to make sense of the rules as written.

There are many reasons for the charge path to be included in the declaration, even though the RAW only mention designating the charge path in the evade segment.

Before anyone evades, you need a charge path to determine whether intercepts are triggered. The text of the rule is opaque, but I certainly can live with adding a specific charge path to the declaration.

The harder part is how strictly the charger must stick with the path. The RAW confine available moves based on the number of bases that will be in combat. A lot changes between declaration and actual move. A valid path at declaration can become invalid at the time of the move. Because the specifics are laid out in defining the charge move, it seems to me that the move should be re-evaluated after all responses. A declared path should not be binding if it would violate the limits on pg. 53 after responses are carried out. So if the declared path was not dead ahead, but when it's time to move, straight ahead yields the most contacts, move straight ahead.

Spike

Now with two accounts (forgot password at work )

[hazelbark]

Quarantine.

Apparently the disease is infecting parts of Illinois and Ohio.

There is a lot of thumping here and I agree with the beer-soaked cousins on the sceptered isle. Its pretty clear to everyone but a few.

[spikeathome]

@ hammy

Neither the turn sequence nor the rules tell us that....(But is how nearly everyone (and 2/3 of SW ohio) I play vs/with agrees it should be played)

Some rule-gits out there (you know who you are) need it spelled out. From its omission in the FaQ, one could say that one doesn't have to declare the path... It gives a small advantage of deciding where/how much wheeling to do to maximize positioning in following turns.

Doubly so since the part in the RaW tells us the charging BG can wheel to go after evaders/routers. With this being an option, some feel they have the choice of their charge path after the other decides what he is going to do....

Madcam.

Stop thinking small, Jeske.

Without a path, the rule on charge targets can be read to encompass all who could be legally contacted from the starting position even if they could not be charged in a single move. This may be perverse, as Hammy diagnosed, but there it is.

A wide range of "charge targets" adds more tests for fragged BGs and blocks a lot of interceptions (because targets cannot intercept).

On the other hand, declaring a path raises the question of commitment. Not that Hammy would have me committed (he would) but committing to a declared path adds another level of charge move restrictions that are not in the rules, even when the declared path would not be valid under those restrictions after responses.

Of course everyone tells me that this is obvious, but nobody (save Hammy) has even tried to resolve some of the pretty basic puzzles I set forth above or explain why we should take their "just do it" when the rules suggest (or state outright) otherwise.


Spike

The infectious one

[hazelbark]

Without a path, the rule on charge targets can be read to encompass all who could be legally contacted from the starting position even if they could not be charged in a single move. This may be perverse, as Hammy diagnosed, but there it is.

This is an example where your case law is not up to date. I had a similar question back in the early stage. Two points came back that are sufficient in my view. 1 nothing allows a BG to make more than a single move so therefore a single move must be selected. 2. the author RBS in particular wants us to eschew overly legal convulsions that we may have inherited from the dbx world.

committing to a declared path adds another level of charge move restrictions that are not in the rules, even when the declared path would not be valid under those restrictions after responses.

Yes they are. You commit to a charge its in the rules pretty clear

[madcam2us]

@spike

You've yet to be branded a trouble-maker... But I actually understand (and partially agree with) your points on the other thread about the charge path sequence re: pursuits and evades...(I esp like that if a BG is caught in the VMD that wasn't w/in charge range at declaration is S.O.L)

But if the intent is how 99.9% of the players "in the know" play it, as long as they add it to the FaQ that charge path is at declaration then I'm satisfied.

Now, how 'bout it, has anyone contacted RBS/Si about this?????

Madcam.

[hammy]

I will raise this with the team and see if I can get the to change the FAQ wording even though I don't believe it is required.

At present the FAQ says:

i) CHARGE PATH
Do I have to declare my charge path at the time of declaring a charge?
Although this is not normally necessary, you do need to declare the path of your charge at the time of declaration if there
are potential interceptors around, in order to determine whether your chargers will cross their zone of interception.

I would suggest that the following would mean that even spike can't argue:

i) CHARGE PATH
Do I have to declare my charge path at the time of declaring a charge?
Although this is not normally necessary, you do need to declare the path of your charge at the time of declaration if any of the charges targets could evade or there are potential interceptors around, in order to determine whether your chargers will cross their zone of interception.

[nikgaukroger]

Now, how 'bout it, has anyone contacted RBS/Si about this?????

I think Richard and I sort of touched on it during a FoG:R discussion - he thinks you guys need to get out more (well that is the translation )

[madcam2us]

How much should I charge NOT to become interested in FoG:R???

Madcam.
aka RBS's muse

[petedalby]

I guess some of us having been playing FOG for nearly 3 years now?

This has never been an issue before? And the FAQs do not exist to just to get the point across to one individual....

If I had the time and inclination I'd take some photos to illustrate when / how charge paths can vary and when they can't - but I guess I don't.

Come on Scott - you must be able to resolve this locally?