Charging 2 targets?

[fatismo]

1. A unit of MF is in charge range of 2 LH bgs, however due to the required wheels can not hit both in a single charge, it is either one or the other.

When the MF declares its charge does it have to declare its direction, and therefore which LH it plans to charge, meaning the other LH will not need to evade? or do both LH chose to evade or stand before MF choses charge direction.


2. Again, a unit of MF is in charge range of a LH bg and a MF bg, however due to the required wheels can not hit both in a single charge, it is either one or the other.

Does it have to declare charge direction before evades ,meaning that if it charges LH and they evade it cant hit the MF.

I assume yes in both cases but you know what they say about assumption.....

[zoltan]

1. A unit of MF is in charge range of 2 LH bgs, however due to the required wheels can not hit both in a single charge, it is either one or the other.

When the MF declares its charge does it have to declare its direction, and therefore which LH it plans to charge, meaning the other LH will not need to evade? or do both LH chose to evade or stand before MF choses charge direction.

To be a valid charge declaration, the charging BG has to be able to contact each charged BG using permitted moves, as if the charged BGs remained in place (i.e. did not elect to evade). From your description this is not possible and so the MF must choose to charge one or the other LH.

Whichever LH the MF declares their charge against, must decide whether to stand or evade. The MF then choose:
1. to advance straight ahead, or
2. advance with a single wheel

In both cases the MF roll a VMD. The rules appear to be silent on whether the chargers must declare their choice to move straight ahead or wheel before or after rolling the VMD die. However, convention appears to be that the chargers declare their direction after the LH declare whether they will hold/evade but before both evader and charger roll their VMD dice.

2. Again, a unit of MF is in charge range of a LH bg and a MF bg, however due to the required wheels can not hit both in a single charge, it is either one or the other.

Does it have to declare charge direction before evades ,meaning that if it charges LH and they evade it cant hit the MF.

I assume yes in both cases but you know what they say about assumption.....

Same answer as above. The charger's choice between moving straight ahead (chasing the LH) and wheeling may be influenced by the likelihood of, and their desire to, contact the enemy MF.

[hazelbark]

The process is.

player declares what is charging and its charge targets. Not its actual angle.

In your case once it declared on one target it could not change to the other. Because it has to select an angle as if that unit stayed.

Then the other player annouces who is evading.

Then the player declares the angle of the charge.

I beleive this is in the extended sequence of play.

(most players think the angle should be declared at time of charge declaration, but the rules say otherwise I beleive)

[fatismo]

cool thats how we play it

[bbotus]

hazelbark Posted: 11 Jan 2011 03:19 The process is.

player declares what is charging and its charge targets. Not its actual angle.
In your case once it declared on one target it could not change to the other. Because it has to select an angle as if that unit stayed.
Then the other player annouces who is evading.
Then the player declares the angle of the charge.
I beleive this is in the extended sequence of play.
(most players think the angle should be declared at time of charge declaration, but the rules say otherwise I beleive)

Yep, the reference is page 66 1st bullet.

[berthier]

The process is.

player declares what is charging and its charge targets. Not its actual angle.

In your case once it declared on one target it could not change to the other. Because it has to select an angle as if that unit stayed.

Then the other player annouces who is evading.

Then the player declares the angle of the charge.

I beleive this is in the extended sequence of play.

(most players think the angle should be declared at time of charge declaration, but the rules say otherwise I beleive)

The only time the angle of charge/direction of charge has to be declared at the time of charge declaration is if there is a potential intercept.

[expendablecinc]

The process is.

player declares what is charging and its charge targets. Not its actual angle.

In your case once it declared on one target it could not change to the other. Because it has to select an angle as if that unit stayed.

Then the other player annouces who is evading.

Then the player declares the angle of the charge.

I beleive this is in the extended sequence of play.

(most players think the angle should be declared at time of charge declaration, but the rules say otherwise I believe)

The only time the angle of charge/direction of charge has to be declared at the time of charge declaration is if there is a potential intercept.

Isn't potential intercepts just an example of why you have to declare your charge path before evaders decide whether to stand, evade to thier rear or to evade away from the charge. How can an evader decide to evade away from the charge (rather than to thier rear) if they dont know the charge path.

what if there are other BGS within charge range but possible able to be contacted as well depending on the charge path

If C declares A as the charge target, by the above sequence you could then slightly angle your charge path after A has decided to evade so you contact B (incidentally). BGs can become a charge target regardless of whether declared as such in the charge initiation phase.


AAAABBBB


CCCC

(most players think the angle should be declared at time of charge declaration, but the rules say otherwise I believe)

The rules dont say otherwise, they are silent on the timing of the path declaration. Other than the FAQ - which mentions that you may need to declare your path when you declare your charge (paraphrasing)

[berthier]

There was a lengthy discussion about when charge path had to be declared a while back and the final outcome was charge path had to be declared when a charge was declared IF there where potential intercepts.


If no potential intercepts, charge path is declared after the defender declared if he was evading of standing.

Once the charger declares direction, the defender decides on the direction of his evade. The defender does not have to declare if he is evading to his rear or the direction of the charge until the charger declares direction.

[zoltan]

Well I think the only time the angle of the charge "has to be" declared is as pointed out: page 66 bullet 1; if any targets elect to evade.

There is no explicit requirement to declare the angle of a charge prior to exercising an intercept charge option, and this is probably another of those logic loops. Unless I know the explict angle of the charger, I can't tell if they are crossing my path. Unless they cross my path, I can't opt for an intercept charge. Until they make their charge move I can't be sure of whether or not they are crossing my path. Once they make their charge move, we have moved past intercept charges in the strict sequence of play. Bugger!

[hammy]

There was a lengthy discussion about when charge path had to be declared a while back and the final outcome was charge path had to be declared when a charge was declared IF there where potential intercepts.


If no potential intercepts, charge path is declared after the defender declared if he was evading of standing.

Once the charger declares direction, the defender decides on the direction of his evade. The defender does not have to declare if he is evading to his rear or the direction of the charge until the charger declares direction.

Err, it was??

I think you may be misrembering.

I believe that a charge path is declared when it beomes relevant. As the direction of an evade could be dictated by the direction of a charge the direction is relevant if there is a potential evade.

[berthier]

There was a lengthy discussion about when charge path had to be declared a while back and the final outcome was charge path had to be declared when a charge was declared IF there where potential intercepts.


If no potential intercepts, charge path is declared after the defender declared if he was evading of standing.

Once the charger declares direction, the defender decides on the direction of his evade. The defender does not have to declare if he is evading to his rear or the direction of the charge until the charger declares direction.

Err, it was??

I think you may be misrembering.

I believe that a charge path is declared when it beomes relevant. As the direction of an evade could be dictated by the direction of a charge the direction is relevant if there is a potential evade.

Read the FAQ. #4 I).

[hazelbark]

Technically you both are correct.

Chris is correct for when you must declare.

But eventually the unit will need to move and at that poitn you will need to make the direction clear in order to move the unit.

But Chris you are correct I was short handing in my post and yours is right. Hammy is wrong, but maybe that will move us a stp closer to an updated FAQ.

[expendablecinc]

Technically you both are correct.

Chris is correct for when you must declare.

But eventually the unit will need to move and at that poitn you will need to make the direction clear in order to move the unit.

But Chris you are correct I was short handing in my post and yours is right. Hammy is wrong, but maybe that will move us a stp closer to an updated FAQ.

locally its played when relevant. particualry matters againt LH armies where there are often many potential targets


AAAABBBB

CCCC


what if A are light foot and B are poor Mob
and C are charging Light horse lancers.

going by the aforementioned sequece

C declares a charge and declares it on BG A (no test to charge necessary)
B
elects to evade
C then gets to decide its charge path and declares a a slight wheel so that B will be contacted
A then decides whether it will evade to its rear or away from the charge
C wheels and charges and contacts B without needing to test (the test is only at charge declaration)

Its doesnt make sence splitting the charge declaration from the charge path declaration

[hazelbark]

Its doesnt make sence splitting the charge declaration from the charge path declaration

Well actually you can't do it the way you described. Because then they both would have been targets at declaration.

But you can engineer an example where what you are saying does matter.

However I agree it would be best to declare earlier it reduces issues. But the authors have to fix that one.

[hammy]

The evade rules say:

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.
The evading troops then have two choices:
* They can evade in the direction of the charge. If charged by two or more enemy battle groups, they can choose which one to evade from.
* Unless charged in flank or rear they can evade directly to their own rear.

It is pretty difficult to evade in the direction of a charge before the direction of a charge is revealed.........

If I am umpiring and anyone tries to pull what is IMO a totally stupid concept such as evaders not knowing which way the chargers are going I know which way I will rule.

Also checking the direction of a charge after the evaders have moved away makes life pretty difficult. As chargers cannot wheel so they would contact with fewer bases and cannot wheel through the BG that would have evaded not having the target/obstruction present when working out what can and cannot be done is a touch difficult.

[berthier]

Hammy,

I think you have missed the point. No one said that the evaders move before the direction of the charge is declared. What I said and what the FAQ says and what was discussed in thread #6312 and #9098 (in which YOU participated) was that the attacker delares a charge and names his target. If there are no intercepts, the defender declares his response (stand or evade). At that point, the direction of the charge is stated. Then applicable VMDs and moves are made.

If there are possible intercepts, then the charger declares direction of charge when charge targets are declared, defender declares responses, interceptors move, evaders move and then charge moves. (And yes I know that is not the complete sequence of play but it is the relevant part.)

[gozerius]

Actually, the rules state that if a BG capable of evading is charged, it must decide whether to evade or stand, making a CMT if necessary. If evading, the charger must indicate the direction of charge. Then if there are BGs potentially capable of intercepting, the charger must indicate the actual path of the charge. The rub is, BGs in close proximity to the charged BG have no way of knowing that they are potential targets, or interceptors until the path is defined. Since this is the case, as a practical matter, the path should be defined at the time of declaration when there are several BGs in close proximity. Unless you want to waste precious minutes arguing about whether BG X should or should not be allowed to evade now that the charger is moving and will indeed contact it, even though it was not the declared target.

[hazelbark]

The rub is, BGs in close proximity to the charged BG have no way of knowing that they are potential targets, or interceptors until the path is defined.

No such thing as a potential target. You either are or you are not. The FAQ i believe specifically makes it clear that you need to decalre path if the potential for intercepts is around.

[expendablecinc]

Actually, the rules state that if a BG capable of evading is charged, it must decide whether to evade or stand, making a CMT if necessary. If evading, the charger must indicate the direction of charge. Then if there are BGs potentially capable of intercepting, the charger must indicate the actual path of the charge. The rub is, BGs in close proximity to the charged BG have no way of knowing that they are potential targets, or interceptors until the path is defined. Since this is the case, as a practical matter, the path should be defined at the time of declaration when there are several BGs in close proximity. Unless you want to waste precious minutes arguing about whether BG X should or should not be allowed to evade now that the charger is moving and will indeed contact it, even though it was not the declared target.

Completely agree (even though it makes LH armies harder to shepherd).

[expendablecinc]

Its doesnt make sence splitting the charge declaration from the charge path declaration

Well actually you can't do it the way you described. Because then they both would have been targets at declaration. ...

Yes you can. A BG can become a target by simply being in the charge path regardless of whether they were one of the BGs witha charge explicitly declared upon it. They are an implicit target.


AABB

CCCC

C can declare a charge on A and when they charge, go straight ahead hitting B as a consequence.