CMTs with LH

[madcam2us]

a BG of LH is charging two BGs of enemy LF with a BG of enemy CV within normal 7 inch charge distance for the LH as below:

>>>>>>>>LHLH>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>LHLH>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>LFLF>LFLF>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>CVCVCVCV>>>>>

per page 52
- the Cv _ARE_ a legal target of the LH since..."if a BG is revealed and can now be contacted due to friends evading or breaking or routing, it becomes a targe of the charge...etc..."
- the LH do NOT have to take a CMT to charge because of the last sentence..."it need not and cannot be taken for those that can only be contacted if another BG evades or routs.

per page 60
- "if any of their charge targets evade, skirmisher must halt their charge 1 MU away from enemy to their front whom they would not normally be allowed to charge without a CMT...etc..."

Must the LH continue to carry out the charge to hit the CV since the distance between the two was less than 7 inches, no VMD was required as not all targets evaded?
or
Does the LH have the ability to stop 1 inch short of the CV per page 60


Madcam.

[rogerg]

The normal reading of this is that the LH stop 1 MU from the cavalry. Because they cannot contact the cavalry prior to an evade by the LF, the LH are not allowed to take the test that would allow them to charge the cavalry. The cavalry never become a charge target because The LH do not get to take the test to allow them to charge the cavalry.

[grahambriggs]

I suppose this only works if you say that the cavalry are a charge target but the LH stop at 1MU as they'd "normally" need a CMT to charge. Hence could charge home if the cav are fragged but not otherwise.

[nikgaukroger]

I suppose this only works if you say that the cavalry are a charge target but the LH stop at 1MU as they'd "normally" need a CMT to charge. Hence could charge home if the cav are fragged but not otherwise.

I have a feeling they need to CMT to charge the front of even a fragged Cv BG - the CMT requirement only doesn't apply to "unbroken" enemy IIRC (and flanks/rear, of course), and fragged are still unbroken.

[madcam2us]

This issue being *it need not and cannot be taken* - (a CMT) from page 52 and how it relates to page 60.

page 60 says stop 1 MU away from BGs they would not *NORMALLY* be allowed to charge without a CMT

is the situation whereby a skirmish doesn't have to CMT (and indeed cannot even if they wanted) to charge normal or not?

Page 52 indicates a BG is a target of a charge if they only become one due to another BG "uncovering" it by evading/routing. Since the skirmisher didn't need to CMT to charge in the first place and now has another target to hit, we get back to the issue.....

So far everyone says yes. But I am having troubles getting my head around this.

madcam

[babyshark]

Madcam:

Your problem comes, I believe, from running the two sentences you quote from p52 together. The Cav are not a charge target when the charge is declared, as they could not be contacted under the then-existing circumstances. Thus, the LH do not need a CMT to start the charge.

Assuming that the LF successfully evade behind the Cav, thus revealing the Cav, the Cav then become a charge target. The LH would stop at 1MU, because they did not need a CMT to initiate the charge.

Marc

[madcam2us]

Hi Marc,

I would ask you to re-read page 52 because the CAV ARE a legal target at charge declaration. I should and proved that earlier in the post and will re-post for you here.

per page 52
- the Cv _ARE_ a legal target of the LH since..."if a BG is revealed and can now be contacted due to friends evading or breaking or routing, it becomes a targe of the charge...etc..."
- the LH do NOT have to take a CMT to charge because of the last sentence..."it need not and cannot be taken for those that can only be contacted if another BG evades or routs.

we are not talking about a VMD to contact. This situation is the same as a BG being contacted by a step-forward. Its still a target. For brevity sake I didn't post all of page 52, but its there...

Madcam.

[babyshark]

Hi Marc,

I would ask you to re-read page 52 because the CAV ARE a legal target at charge declaration. I should and proved that earlier in the post and will re-post for you here.

per page 52
- the Cv _ARE_ a legal target of the LH since..."if a BG is revealed and can now be contacted due to friends evading or breaking or routing, it becomes a targe of the charge...etc..."
- the LH do NOT have to take a CMT to charge because of the last sentence..."it need not and cannot be taken for those that can only be contacted if another BG evades or routs.

we are not talking about a VMD to contact. This situation is the same as a BG being contacted by a step-forward. Its still a target. For brevity sake I didn't post all of page 52, but its there...

Madcam.

Do you assert that the Cav are a charge target when the LH declare their charge? If the LF choose not to evade the Cav will not be contacted (unless ASCII diagram isn't accurate).

Marc

[kevinj]

Here's how I read it. At the time the charge is declared, the cavalry are NOT a target because they cannot legally be contacted by being moved into or stepping forward, as described in the second para on page 52, due to the intervening friends. If the friends evade and clear them, they then BECOME a target of the charge when they are revealed. Now, because the chargers did not require a CMT to charge their original targets, i.e. those that could legally be contacted, they halt 1 MU from the cavalry as described on P60.

[spikemesq]

There are not multiple stages of charge target. The Cv are a charge target when the LF evade under the specific exception on page 52.

The LH cannot charge the Cv, though, because:

(A) they must pass a CMT to do so;

(B) they need not and (more importantly) CANNOT test to charge the Cv per p. 52;

(C) they stop 1 MU because they need to pass a CMT and did not.

The trickier version of this came up in another thread where the LH pass a CMT to charge Cv that evade and reveal another Cv target. The 1 MU rule on pg 60 (IIRC) says they stop if the enemy are of a type for which the charger must pass a CMT if the charger did not pass a CMT for that target. IOW, the 1MU rule suggests that skirmishers testing to charge do not extend a successful CMT result to charge new/exposed targets. The forum CW is that one test works, but I am not entirely convinced (shocker).

Spike

[TERRYFROMSPOKANE]

Here is my take on the rule on page 52 about Declaration of Charges:

Since the LH can not contact the Cv unless the LI evade, the LH can not declare the Cv to be a charge target. The text says, such a BG "counts as being charged if it can be 'legally contacted' even if it was not one of the originally decared charge targets. I think there is a distinction here between an initial charge target and a charger carrying on into a revealed BG, IF it can legally do so. Let's say the Cv was fragmented and the LH would like to take a CMT to charge it as well. They can not do so because they can not declare a charge on it at declaration time AND, "it need not and cannot be taken for those that can only be contacted if another BG evades or routs." If the LI evade, the LH must stop 1 MU away from the Cv because:

1. The Cv was not a legal charge target at charge declaration time so the LH couldn't take a CMT to try to charge it then.

2. The LH "need not and cannot" take a CMT to charge the Cv when the CV could be contacted because "another BG evades".

Terry G.

[petedalby]

HI Scott - I agree with the others who've answered the post.

The LH must stop 1 MU short - they cannot contact the Cav.

[spikemesq]

Here is my take on the rule on page 52 about Declaration of Charges:

Since the LH can not contact the Cv unless the LI evade, the LH can not declare the Cv to be a charge target. The text says, such a BG "counts as being charged if it can be 'legally contacted' even if it was not one of the originally decared charge targets. I think there is a distinction here between an initial charge target and a charger carrying on into a revealed BG, IF it can legally do so. Let's say the Cv was fragmented and the LH would like to take a CMT to charge it as well. They can not do so because they can not declare a charge on it at declaration time AND, "it need not and cannot be taken for those that can only be contacted if another BG evades or routs." If the LI evade, the LH must stop 1 MU away from the Cv because:

1. The Cv was not a legal charge target at charge declaration time so the LH couldn't take a CMT to try to charge it then.

2. The LH "need not and cannot" take a CMT to charge the Cv when the CV could be contacted because "another BG evades".

Terry G.

No charger can "declare" a target that can only be revealed by evades/routs. Those revealed, however, are a target of the charge. So if the Cv were in a single rank, they could evade the LH, for instance.

IIRC fragged non-skirmisher troops do not take a cohesion test when charged by skirmishers (maybe only LF v0v). If they do test when charged by LH, then I submit that the Cv in this scenario would have to test even if the LH had to stop at 1 MU because they are a charge target.

Spike

[nikgaukroger]

HI Scott - I agree with the others who've answered the post.

The LH must stop 1 MU short - they cannot contact the Cav.

I concur.

[hammy]

HI Scott - I agree with the others who've answered the post.

The LH must stop 1 MU short - they cannot contact the Cav.

I concur.

and me

[madcam2us]

Well now Pete, since you said so then I was almost ready to concur...

then Hammy nearly toppled your logic but I was able to hold steady.

But then Nik chimed in.

sorry, the only way this can remedy itself is if Dave R sounds off!



Madcam,

(and I agree with you all)

[mhohio]

thank you all....

[philqw78]

And the law is an Ass. Perhaps there was a reason the rule was written the way it was. But IMO the revealed target, if fragmented, should have to take a CT for being charged. If it passes then the LH could stop. But that isn't the way it is written.

[petedalby]

thank you all....

Is it me or does Mike seem to be winning most of these queries?

[madcam2us]

Just you

Madcam