Whoa Nellie!!!

[JamesB]

Please help clear up some confusion on my part.

I do not have a rulebook handy today, but as I recall the second to the last bullet defining what shock troops won't charge on their own states:

* If their move could end in contact with a fortification, elephants or a riverbank (emphasis added by me).

By reading this one only has to put elephants with his shock foot (especially pike due to their depth) and those BG's adjacent and already in contact with the elephants never have to test?!?!?!

Shouldn't the word "enemy" be added before "elephants" in the errata for this to make sense?

[kevinj]

It does actually say that, but I've never seen it interpreted that potentially ending in contact with friendly elephants is a reason not to charge without orders.

[spikemesq]

Except at very close distances, how can troops starting in contact with friendly Elephants have a charge move that will "end in contact with . . . elephants"?

Spike

[kevinj]

Except at very close distances, how can troops starting in contact with friendly Elephants have a charge move that will "end in contact with . . . elephants"?

A 2 deep HF BG (e.g. of Impact Foot) which is adjacent to a BG of Elephants could roll a 1 on its VMD and still be in contact...

Should it be exempt from having to test not to charge without orders? That would seem a perverse interpretation.

[petedalby]

It's a nice spot James but I don't think you'd win too many friends by arguing that point.

Check out Page 52 - this starts by describing the impact phase and then ends with a definition of charge contact.

Hopefully that should reassure you that the elephants do have to be enemy ones?

[Blathergut]

Common sense, if nothing else, but probably language too, implies all of that is talking about charge targets.