Charging 2 targets?

[hammy]

Well, I always declare the direction of charge when I declare the charge and I am really looking forwards to Version 2 which I am sure will force direction to be defined at declaration. Not having to have silly pedantic arguments like these where people try to read something into the rules that isn't there is IMO a very good thing

[spikemesq]

Well, I always declare the direction of charge when I declare the charge and I am really looking forwards to Version 2 which I am sure will force direction to be defined at declaration. Not having to have silly pedantic arguments like these where people try to read something into the rules that isn't there is IMO a very good thing

The impact phase drama derives not from reading new things into the rules, but from trying to account for things that are plainly written in them. The charge path/direction conundrum exists because the RAW put make declaring charge direction contingent on evades, but then have earlier reactions (intercepts) that are contingent on the charge path. The solution to this puzzle - declare charge direction at the outset - is sensible, but is out of step with the RAW. Even I don't subscribe to a pedantic claim that charge direction should be withheld until evades. OTOH, I do struggle to accept some of the additional problems that the "declaration includes path/direction" rule brings with it - namely, locking the charger into that path even after the field changes dramatically and allowing some skirmishers to call an audible when no other troops can.

Hopefully, 2.0 will overhaul the impact phase and clarify the event sequence that brings the RAW into line with how we actually play.

[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. ...

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.

Nope sorry that is WRONG
Page 52 2nd paragraph of the declaration of charges explicitly adddresses this.

[hazelbark]

Well, I always declare the direction of charge when I declare the charge and I am really looking forwards to Version 2 which I am sure will force direction to be defined at declaration. Not having to have silly pedantic arguments like these where people try to read something into the rules that isn't there is IMO a very good thing

Here. Here.

[spikemesq]

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.

Nope sorry that is WRONG
Page 52 2nd paragraph of the declaration of charges explicitly adddresses this.

I don't think he is wrong, except that CCCC cannot declare a charge on AA to the exclusion of BB. So the charge here is straight ahead. Basically, you cannot "veto" enemy BGs in a declared charge path to exclude them from targets.

Now if CCCC could declare a path that would hit A and not B that was also legal (because it contacts => bases) then he could do so, but he would be committed to that path.

This suggests to me that charge declarations could use some limits (or could clarify existing limits) to make charge paths less fiddly.

[gozerius]

Right.
But in your example its clear that B is a target, since the charger cannot wheel if that would cause fewer bases to be contacted by the charge. Chargers wheeling is what causes the fuss. Until I know where your charge is going, I can't tell which BGs are targets and which BGs are potential interceptors. It matters a great deal because the charged player cannot respond to the charge until he knows where the charge is headed.
I hope the charge sequence will be tidied up in V2.0. Declaring the path at the time of declaration makes everything so simple. Remember, the authors' explicit pronouncement that there are no "gotcha" elements in FoG.