mounted charging without order and terrain

[marco]

we have this situation yesterday :

a bg of chariot was at charge distance of a part of a bg of mf in a terrain (enclosed field)
the bg mf had a part of a base outside, so the chariot can charge without entering in the terrain and becomming severly disorder

but ( the great BUT)

a second base of the chariot can step forward and touch a second base of mf (not a third too far)
doing this the base enter in the terrain
with this movement the bg would be severely disorder

i think they have to test to prevent a charge
my usual opponent say no

well we don't find anything in the rule explaining this case....


thanks for an answer...
marco

[ShrubMiK]

p58

"Shock troops will not charge without orders...if their move could end even partly in terrain that would disorder or severely disorder them."

[marco]

we saw this
but i disagree on the fact that stepping forward wasn't part of the move
or it would mean that the chariot became "clever" while being schock troop

anyway they don't go in the terrain

[ShrubMiK]

Well, if stepping forward isn't part of the move, what is it?

It's not like the situation where opponents evade, you can determine at the point of charge declaration exactly where the chargers will end up. And notice there is a special case in the rules to handle the case of evaders - you assume the VMD would be +2 for the purposes of determinng whether the chargers would end up in terrain etc.

The possible difficult point in the rules here is that the chariots could choose to charge at slightly different angles, therefore they can choose whether or not to contact the enemy in a way which would require them to step forward, therefore they can choose whether or not any chariouts end up in the terrain. The question is: should troops who might charge without orders be allowed to choose the "illegal" charge direction that would end up in terrain, and argue that doing so prevents them having to test to charge; or should they be forced to test to charge if there is any "legal" charge direction.

(By "illegal" and "legal" here I mean only in the context of whether the charge direction would be valid for an involuntary charge)

My view is that the first approach creates a logical paradox - the direction of charge is meaningless unless you are charging; if you use the direction of charge to prevent the charge from happening, there can be no defined direction of charge; therefore the charge cannot be cancelled.

I would also take the view that I think you may be alluding to in last comment - troops who charge without orders are doing do in hot-blooded fashion. They are not looking for an excuse not to charge, they are looking for a way to make the charge possible. They are not going to "cleverly" find a loophole in the rules that allows them not to charge

There was a discussion about this a while back, and I don't think there was any clear consensus reached.

[marco]

thanks for your answer

[gozerius]

In the case provided the Chariots cannot be required to test because their charge would enter disordering terrain. They do not have the option to wheel so as to contact fewer bases than would be contacted if charging straight ahead

[lawrenceg]

Well, if stepping forward isn't part of the move, what is it?

It's not like the situation where opponents evade, you can determine at the point of charge declaration exactly where the chargers will end up. And notice there is a special case in the rules to handle the case of evaders - you assume the VMD would be +2 for the purposes of determinng whether the chargers would end up in terrain etc.

I think it is exactly like this situation: you can determine precisely where the chargers will step forward to.

The possible difficult point in the rules here is that the chariots could choose to charge at slightly different angles, therefore they can choose whether or not to contact the enemy in a way which would require them to step forward, therefore they can choose whether or not any chariouts end up in the terrain. The question is: should troops who might charge without orders be allowed to choose the "illegal" charge direction that would end up in terrain, and argue that doing so prevents them having to test to charge; or should they be forced to test to charge if there is any "legal" charge direction.

(By "illegal" and "legal" here I mean only in the context of whether the charge direction would be valid for an involuntary charge)

My view is that the first approach creates a logical paradox - the direction of charge is meaningless unless you are charging; if you use the direction of charge to prevent the charge from happening, there can be no defined direction of charge; therefore the charge cannot be cancelled.

I would also take the view that I think you may be alluding to in last comment - troops who charge without orders are doing do in hot-blooded fashion. They are not looking for an excuse not to charge, they are looking for a way to make the charge possible. They are not going to "cleverly" find a loophole in the rules that allows them not to charge

There was a discussion about this a while back, and I don't think there was any clear consensus reached.

IIRC Simon Hall said his intention was that if there is any legal charge that could end in the terrain then there was no need to test. This reflects shock trops becoming wary close to bad terrain etc. , not their looking for an excuse not to charge. Also IIRC not all the authors agreed, but with any luck this will be clarified in v 2.0.

[mceochaidh]

Does anyone know the logic behind disordered or disrupted troops receiving a -1 in the CMT? Unless I misunderstand, this makes them more likely to fail the test and charge without orders. It would seem that disordered or disrupted troops would be LESS likely to charge without orders.

[ShrubMiK]

That's certainly true for non-shock troop - they have to pass a test if they want to charge when they are disrupted.

For shock troops I think you can argue it differently. They are after all bloodthirsty fearless types who believe (despite any evidence there may be to the contrary) that they are superior in hand to hand combat to whoever is in front of them.

If they have been taking damage from shooting they are likely to want to get stuck in rather than hangiong around likely taking more damage without being able to reply.

If they are instead disrupted as a result of a previous hand-to-hand combat, well they obviously won it and their blood is now up even further.

Plus with their formation a bit out of joint (either due to confusion incombat, or having loads of large trees getting in the way) perhaps their officers are less well placed to exert effective control over all members of the unit?...and it only takes one or two at the far end to charge without orders to set everybody else off.

[IanB3406]

I asked a similar question......it might seem cheese to wheel during the charge and enter the terrain canceling the charge.....however it's also cheese to stick your tonail out of the terrain to force a charge. Probably something for the FAQ....or a simple clarification such as if the charging battlegroup would be counted as in the terrain after conforming during the movement phase there is not requirement to test not to charge.