Charging FAQ Discussion

[Redpossum]

Has anyone ever seen an intercept hit the flank or rear of the charger, thereby canceling the charge that wasn't a result of an oversight made by the charger?

Oh yes. Good maneuvering by one player to set up on the flank of shock troops, who then fail their CMT not to charge enemy to their front.

Marc

Whoa, so in this case the interceptors overtook the intercepted changing unit from behind?

[babyshark]

Oh yes. Good maneuvering by one player to set up on the flank of shock troops, who then fail their CMT not to charge enemy to their front.

Marc

Whoa, so in this case the interceptors overtook the intercepted changing unit from behind?

More like the some of chargers decide to charge, some tap their officer on the shoulder to say, "Um, sir, like, what about those guys over there?" Confusion ensues (represented by the BG's charge being canceled), followed by dismay.

Marc

[Ghaznavid]

Except by a legal flank or rear charge, a BG can’t declare a charge if it would hit the flank or rear of a BG that is already (i.e., at the time of declaration) in position to fight in Impact or Melee combat.

This seems to be at least partially contradicted by the FAQ (4, III), which does allow such charges on the ranks beyond the 2nd.

[SirGarnet]

Thanks. A dilemma with this FAQ entry is that the FAQ presents 2 ranks as a blanket rule, while the rules themselves say you can hit a base if it is not "in melee." So the FAQ does not let you hit a second rank even if not in melee - like a second ranker Knight. Odd in some ways, but with the virtue of simplicity. I would be happier if the FAQ squared the circle by defining "in melee" as being in the first two ranks, but will change it to match the FAQ.


So I think it would read "Except by a legal flank or rear charge, a BG can’t declare a charge if it would hit the flank or rear of a base in the first two ranks of a file already (i.e., at the time of declaration) in position to fight in Impact or Melee combat."

(Note: Impact Phase is included because the enemy at charge declaration may already have bases in position to fight in Impact as a result of the preceding turn.)

[spikemesq]

Of course nobody enjoys discussing the Impact Phase more than I do. However, this entry presents some oddities IMO.

CHARGE FAQ DRAFT [REVISED NOV 9 after comments - areas changed other than typo/format are italicized; asterisked line changed Nov 2 09]

ABOUT LEGAL CHARGE TARGETS: In one of many charge threads in the forums, the design team agreed that to declare a charge target you must be able to contact the target assuming no other BG moves. If when BGs do move, the intended target is no longer reachable (e.g., chargers block other chargers), then the charge is cancelled (p54). See extensive design team discussion of multiple charger issues in thread viewtopic.php?t=7273, July 2008.

The thread you linked indicates that a charge may not be legally declared against a target that the charger could not hit unless another BG cleared the path (i.e., a charge contingent on another charge). Your statement here is broader than that. Your rule would cancel charges where (a) routers escaped charge range; and (b) where an intercept (other than a flank) blocked the declared charge path. Both situations make the intended target no longer reachable. Do you really mean that such charges would be canceled?

ABOUT CHARGE DIRECTION AND CHARGE PATH: Charge Direction is the intended direction of the charger after its intended wheel. Charge Path is the area of the path that will be covered by the BG as it makes its intended charge move based on the charge direction, so defining the intended charge path also automatically defines the charge direction and the place where the charger will wheel to the charge direction. Other events can later change the charge direction and path.

Wow. In the earlier threads, everyone told me that you could not deviate from the declared charge path except to pursue evaders, even when the declared charge path not longer met the "Base Hit Rule."

As I read the rules, technically charge direction needs to be declared for Evaders after they decide to Evade but before they decide on direction of evasion, and charge path needs to be declared for potential Interceptors to determine if they can successfully Intercept, which need not occur until Interceptions occur in the sequence of play. However, for simplicity and clarity, the Official FAQ states “you do need to declare the path of your charge at the time of [charge] declaration if there are potential interceptors around, in order to determine whether your chargers will cross their zone of interception.”

Charge Path and Charge Direction are both indicated physically by placing a measuring stick (or similar marker) at the outer corner of the completed intended wheel and laid along the edge of the continued path of the BG. Your wheel will be somewhere in the course of your charge move and there is no requirement it provide the shortest total path to your target. The specific rule is on page 66: “When troops who can evade are charged, their player must decide whether or not they will evade. If they are to evade, the charger then uses a measuring stick or tape to indicate the direction of the charge, which must be achievable by wheeling and which would 'legally' contact the evaders had they remained stationary.” This rule means you can’t specify a path/direction that relies on their evading out of the way, such as “wheeling through skirmishers,” and enemy skirmishers very close to your troops can limit their ability to wheel in a charge. Of course, if all targets do in fact evade out of the charge path, you can change your wheel to follow evaders (p68) or you may charge fresh targets revealed by the evade. For more on charge direction see the thread at viewtopic.php?t=6312.

In addition, the initially intended wheel must comply with what I call the “Base Hit Rule” on p53, which prohibits a wheel in the charge that would result in fewer bases being eligible to fight in Impact than moving directly ahead. Since it refers to Impact Phase eligibility, it is calculated after stepping forward and any enemy bases turning. Note that you don’t need to pick the wheel that hits the most enemy bases, just one that doesn’t reduce the bases hit below what you would get moving straight ahead.

Is the Base Hit Rule tested only at declaration? Must it be satisfied when executing the charge move?

DETAILED IMPACT PHASE SEQUENCE OF PLAY FOR CHARGES

1. Charge Declarations: For each declaration,
 Designate BG that will charge and at least one legal target.
 Declare on as many enemy as can be legally contacted within the charge distance, but an enemy BG is a target even if not declared if it can be legally contacted by the charge (including stepping forward), but not if friends intervene unless it later becomes a target because revealed by friends evading or routing.
 There must exist some possible Charge Path that hits all declared targets assuming they stand.

2. If an interception is possible for a charge declaration, Declare the Charge Path by marking it. It must comply with the Base Hit Rule. (FAQ practice)

3. Charger rolls any necessary CMTs for charges based on any legal targets (not counting ones that might be revealed by evaders later).

4. Charger rolls CMTs to charge without orders for any shock troops who have not declared a charge.
 NOTE: If they can’t contact ALL potential legal targets in charge range, then they charge all those straight ahead, or if that is not possible, the ones requiring the least wheel (p59). This may involve burst-throughs (pp48, 58-59).

OK, I am with you so far.

5. Potential evaders now in turn declare any EVADE, and roll any required CMT to not Evade.

6. If any targets declare anEvade, Declare the Charge Direction if not already done (p66).

7. Resolve CTs for Fragmented troops being charged, then any tests triggered if they break, then any initial routs.

8. Non-charging player declares eligible INTERCEPTIONS based on declared Charge Paths.

9. Make INTERCEPTION MOVES (it is possible after charging is done that Interceptors don’t contact any Chargers). An interception that counts as a flank or rear charge cancels the target's charge (p63).

10. Make EVADE MOVES directly to “rear” or parallel to Charge Direction (p66). Evaders roll VMD (Variable Move Dice).

11. FRAGMENTED BGS which become a target because revealed by evasions now cohesion test and make an initial rout move if they fail.

This looks very wrong to me.

CTs for Fragged troops being charged happen first along with any resulting routs. These can reveal new targets, so the sequence is important.

Evades are declared and made AFTER interceptions. From the other threads, an interception that blocks the path to skirmishers renders them no longer a target. Thus, they need not (and cannot) evade.

For each charging BG, do steps 12 through 14 before continuing to the next charging BG::

12. IF, after Evades and after any other BG in the Charge Path becomes a target, is charged and responds as in (6)(7)(10), ALL targets have Evaded out of the Charge Path (note this means no Interceptors or revealed targets may remain are in the Charge Path),

This is unclear. Are interceptors considered a "target"? If not, then their presence does not factor into the VMD rule (which would be pretty odd, but RAW is RAW). Also, an evade that does not escape the charge path is still an evade. So the charger would still roll a VMD and risk coming up short. Your rule suggests that all targets must both evade and escape the charge path, which gives the charger more reach in those circumstances.

ONLY THEN

First, Charger rolls a charge VMD, and then

Second, Charger may choose to Declare new Charge Direction/Path by changing the timing and/or degree of the wheel in an attempt to catch a selected evader (p68) unless the Base Hit Rule prevents this because the change would mean fewer base contacts than by continuing the initial charge path. The changed wheel must bring the BG closer to the final position of the evader rather than farther away compared with continuing on the original charge path. Because the BG must attempt to catch evaders, it must select an evader the BG can catch in preference to one it can't and the changed charge path must be one that contacts an evader in preference to one that does not contact an evader or that contacts a new target.

Most of this makes sense, but your reference to the Base Hit Rule seems off. That rule compares a wheel to a straight ahead move and requires >/= hits. I don't recall it making the same comparison of new wheels vs. original wheels. What if the evades make the declared wheel no longer valid under the Base Hit Rule? In the other threads, the collective wisdom was stick to the declared path.

13. Make all charge moves including contractions to avoid friends and stepping forward, but charges unable to make legal charge contact are cancelled.

This cannot be right. If your targets evade beyond reach (including VMD) the charge is cancelled? That would be pretty sweet in many cases as LH would be even more resilient and easy to get out of range. OTOH, there are lots of times when I want my Lancers to roll a low VMD to give them room to turn their attention to something other than skirmishers. Is this really the rule?

Spike

Making an impact.

[philqw78]

Why was this very old thread re-born????

[nikgaukroger]

Gets

[nikgaukroger]

your

[nikgaukroger]

posting

[nikgaukroger]

count

[nikgaukroger]

up

[spikemesq]

Never stop posting.

[gozerius]

Unless the FAQ matches the rules, I go with what the rulebook says on the subject. Battlewagons are completely rewritten in the FAQ. Not Good.

[SirGarnet]

This is a very old thread yet not dead; indeed I fear it is an incorruptible set of issues as they keep coming back afresh to create confusion regarding a key part of the game, e.g., the Charge redux thread viewtopic.php?t=12478.

There is the question of what the rules say, the question of what the rules mean, and the question of what they ought to be. In the absence of direct authorial writ, we humble Impact Phaseologists must sift and dig through the rules and shifting forum sands and try to put the shards and fragments together in a way that makes sense and is internally consistent.

(P.S. I make every effort to keep my own post count down by making each one as LONG as possible to conserve space for others rankings; in that spirit I'll put my response to Spike's contribution below)

Of course nobody enjoys discussing the Impact Phase more than I do.

If so, maybe you want to carry the flag and update this?

The thread you linked indicates that a charge may not be legally declared against a target that the charger could not hit unless another BG cleared the path (i.e., a charge contingent on another charge). Your statement here is broader than that. Your rule would cancel charges where (a) routers escaped charge range; and (b) where an intercept (other than a flank) blocked the declared charge path. Both situations make the intended target no longer reachable. Do you really mean that such charges would be canceled?

In the thread cited, the design team was concurring with Lawrenceq's

"If you cannot do your charge, it is cancelled." which was raised earlier in this thread

Lawrenceq had also commented:

"It seems to me that if you can't do your charge move for any reason not otherwise covered, then your charge must be cancelled. This would be the simplest way to handle it and is consistent with the last sentence in the section on "Formation changes when charging" on p54.

(By the way, I can't find anything to say what happens when your fragmented target breaks and routs out of your reach.)"

The rout point was not followed up specifically, but under the general cancellation view I think the answer is that if your only charge target rolls its VMD (p100) and routs out of your charge range then it is cancelled. You don't roll a VMD for a rout - you only roll a VMD yourself if all targets evade out of range (see p68 and forum thread 9606). Since the charge is cancelled you can move to follow in the manoeuvre phase or, having seen the villains off, do something else. This also makes more sense to me than chasing after it into the blue. If uncontroversial, this should probably be mentioned in a note to the FAQ sequence above.

Agreed that it's not cancelled if the interception rules take over. The first paragraph on p64 is specific and says it may or many not contact the original target. A citation to this can be added to the sequence if helpful to avoid uncertainty.

Wow. In the earlier threads, everyone told me that you could not deviate from the declared charge path except to pursue evaders, even when the declared charge path not longer met the "Base Hit Rule."

I don't think I was saying anything inconsistent with that in noting that events can change the direction and path. As noted later, it can change due to evaders or new targets. The key backdrop to this and the adjoining paragraphs is that in many cases there is no need to define the charge path until before the charge move is actually made, while with potential interceptors it is done at declaration.

Is the Base Hit Rule tested only at declaration? Must it be satisfied when executing the charge move?

Sort of - since the permitted wheel choices are calculated assuming no evade, you might have to declare a charge that would contact 3 bases if no one evades but due to evasion only hits one non-evading base from another BG even though if you wheeled further you could have hit two of those non-evading bases. Does this answer your question?

11. FRAGMENTED BGS which become a target because revealed by evasions now cohesion test and make an initial rout move if they fail.

This looks very wrong to me.

CTs for Fragged troops being charged happen first along with any resulting routs. These can reveal new targets, so the sequence is important.

Indeed. Declaration fragtests and rout happen at step 7. Step 11 fragtests and routs are for new revealed targets.

From the other threads, an interception that blocks the path to skirmishers renders them no longer a target. Thus, they need not (and cannot) evade.

You hit on another knotty issue simplified in the draft FAQ above. The question is when are interceptions declared, and what difference does it make? This is something which would be nice to clarify. Looking at the sequence atop p52, on p168, and the second bullet on page 62, etc., it seems clear to me that it can't possibly be required until after the last charge is declared in STEP 4 (charging without orders) and must be before Interceptors move at STEP 9. Since, as you highlighted above, charges may be cancelled if the only target routs out of range at STEP 7, you don't know until then what charges are actually going to happen, therefore you can't REQUIRE someone to declare an interception until STEP 8.

The subtler question is how early someone may VOLUNTARILY declare an interception charge.

If the intercept counts as a flank or rear charge that will cancel the active player's charge and is declared at the last moment at STEP 8, can it retroactively undo undesired evade and fragtest results? I don't think so - s no basis for it in the rules and too cheesy - the old arguments about not getting a free peek at something supposed to be simultaneous and leaving things as they lie lrather than retroactively changing prior actions if a player delays apply.

An interceptor who can cancel a charge completely should be able to declare interception before those tests occur. How early? Doing so before the active player has finishing declaring charges and testing for skirmisher and uncontrolled charges is unnecessary and I think unfairly distracting. I think the earliest eligible point is right before the inactive player decides upon his evasions and does his evasion tests and then fragtests (i.e., between STEP 4 and STEP 5), and he can make the decision at any time up to STEP 8. However, if he delays to a later step, he is stuck with the results of the steps he waited - fragtesters may rout and evaders may evade if the player delays.

Other than possibly distracting people as to the sequence of play, I don't see anything preventing declaration of interceptions that do not cancel a charge at any time that the cancelling interceptor can do so, as it makes no difference on the table. I don't see anything to indicate that it cancels, prevents or retroactively reverses any evade tests, fragtests, or resulting evades or routs. P64 specifically states that the charger charges and may or may not hit its original target. So the inactive player may decide to test to receive the charge based on his knowledge that the charge will be intercepted, but the charge on the target is not cancelled and it has its normal effects whether or not it contacts the target.

Spike, please let me know if you can relate to this and how you understand the rules and forum comments? As a fellow Impact Phaseologist, can you provide your conclusions and if possible references to the most recent thinking and design team conclusions on this?

This is unclear. Are interceptors considered a "target"?

I don't think it matters since you must follow the path to hit them so the all-evade exception becomes irrelevant. This is trying to say that if there are no interceptors in your path, and no revealed targets in your path, and all your charge targets that were in the path have evaded out (my opinion is routers don't count for the reasons in the router discussion above), THEN you can think about changing your direction/path. Assuming this is uncontroversial, what wording would make this crystal-clear?

but your reference to the Base Hit Rule seems off. That rule compares a wheel to a straight ahead move and requires >/= hits. I don't recall it making the same comparison of new wheels vs. original wheels. What if the evades make the declared wheel no longer valid under the Base Hit Rule? In the other threads, the collective wisdom was stick to the declared path.

You can always stick to the declared path if you wish. The Step 12 conclusions are pieced together from the FAQ and a number of forum threads giving meat to when and how you can use the "wheel in an attempt to catch them" option, which can be a cheesemaker in the wrong hands.

13. Make all charge moves including contractions to avoid friends and stepping forward, but charges unable to make legal charge contact are cancelled.

Thanks, it should say the last part on charge contact applies unless Step 12 applies.

Making an impact.

Shouldn't it be Spike => punching holes in things

[spikemesq]

I struggle with multi-quoting, so I will inflate my post count (never stop posting) with separate replies:

The rout point was not followed up specifically, but under the general cancellation view I think the answer is that if your only charge target rolls its VMD (p100) and routs out of your charge range then it is cancelled. You don't roll a VMD for a rout - you only roll a VMD yourself if all targets evade out of range (see p68 and forum thread 9606). Since the charge is cancelled you can move to follow in the manoeuvre phase or, having seen the villains off, do something else. This also makes more sense to me than chasing after it into the blue. If uncontroversial, this should probably be mentioned in a note to the FAQ sequence above.

You seem to mix two concepts in this cancellation issue.

Unable to charge can result from (a) obstacles (another friendly unit blocks the charge path); or (b) lack of range (your move no longer makes contact.

That obstacles prevent and/or cancel a charge should not be controversial. Pre-existing obstacles make the charge invalid ab initio. That is clear from the RAW. If the sequence of charging BGs create an obstruction, it makes sense to cancel the later charge.

The lack of range is not at all clear. If the evades/routs/VMD ultimately deny the charger's ability to contact, canceling his charge (without undoing those routs and evades) strikes me a gimmicky. Basically, the charger says "boo" gets all the positives (CTs on fragged troops, provokes evades, etc.) and then gets to shoot/move in the next phases. That is quite a windfall.

That also makes a low VMD a big cherry for the charger, and even a win/win. I scatter the skirmishers and get a VMD. If I roll high, I hit them in the bollocks. If I roll low, I do nothing and get to maneuver and shoot in the same turn. How can that be right?

Spike

Prince of Posts

[rbodleyscott]

It certainly is not the intention of the rules that charge targets moving out of range would cancel a charge. (That should be pretty obvious from the charge/evade rules).

I don't believe that the RAW imply any such thing, but I don't have the energy for a long (interminable?) correspondence with anyone who believes they do. Expect me to rule against it if I am umpiring.

If this means I am in agreement with Spike on this point, I can only apologise.

[spikemesq]

It certainly is not the intention of the rules that charge targets moving out of range would cancel a charge. (That should be pretty obvious from the charge/evade rules).

I don't believe that the RAW imply any such thing, but I don't have the energy for a long (interminable?) correspondence with anyone who believes they do. Expect me to rule against it if I am umpiring.

If this means I am in agreement with Spike on this point, I can only apologise.

Apology accepted.



Spike

Winning hearts and minds.

[nikgaukroger]

I don't believe that the RAW imply any such thing, but I don't have the energy for a long (interminable?) correspondence with anyone who believes they do. Expect me to rule against it if I am umpiring.

No doubt in your usual robust terms with the word "[expletive deleted]" used liberally

Agreeing with Spike is, however, unforgivable