Wheeling in charge

[philqw78]

I would think it is reasonable that they obscure and distract from better targets

The only problem is at the moment they can do it from a distance by off setting bases, forcing chargers to go straight ahead.

[dave_r]

Of course getting right up ckose and personal means there is a much higher chance of getting caught.

Although as my MF found out on monday, hitting a bg of lh in the rear is no guarantee of winning...

[peterrjohnston]

IMHO this is an unhelpful FAQ. I can't see why a few skirmishers would prevent proper troops charging at any angle they liked - except by standing and fighting.

It arose from this http://slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6312 , if you have half an hour to follow the logic (I tried to argue your viewpoint! ). But basically see Terry's post:

Sorry Guys, but the afformentioned attempt to wheel though the evading LF is illegal.

The following paragraph prevents it:

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.

In order to make a legal contact 'had the evaders remain stationary' the wheel cannot cross their base.
Once the evaders have moved, the chargers may choose to wheel in an attempt to catch them. This would obviously not take it in the direction of the MF

Interesting he also states later:

But what if the origional order was "charge the medium foot". What about the annoying skirmishers? Kill them if they get in the way.

That is an illegal order. You can't declare a charge on a BG that couldn't be contacted if the evaders remain in place.

[philqw78]

Although as my MF found out on monday, hitting a bg of lh in the rear is no guarantee of winning...

What happened the time before that when you tried taking my LH from the rear Dave? Obviously you were more prepared this time and only sacrificed a BG of MF instead of the 3 LH you lost last time you tried it.

[hazelbark]

Cheesy or not in gaming terms, the use of skirmishers to prevent enemy charging more valuable targets might be historically correct.

yep. Its also hard to see through other guys, even though the player can.

[wildone]

A 4 base wide BG of knights has two enemy LH immediately to it's front. One LH is a nat's todger away, the other LH just under 4 MU away. The angle of the knight BG is such that it has one base completely behind a line extending the front of an enemy BG of elephants close to the LH at just under 4 MU.

The knights declare a charge including a wheel such that if both LH evade the knights will contact the flank of the elephant BG.

From your wording the Kn BG can see all 3 enemy BGs and can charge all 3. If It declares a charge on the LH BGs only then it cannot hit the elephants because it did not declare a charge on them.

[zoltan]

A 4 base wide BG of knights has two enemy LH immediately to it's front. One LH is a nat's todger away, the other LH just under 4 MU away. The angle of the knight BG is such that it has one base completely behind a line extending the front of an enemy BG of elephants close to the LH at just under 4 MU.

The knights declare a charge including a wheel such that if both LH evade the knights will contact the flank of the elephant BG.

From your wording the Kn BG can see all 3 enemy BGs and can charge all 3. If It declares a charge on the LH BGs only then it cannot hit the elephants because it did not declare a charge on them.

My understanding is that under the RAW, charging BGs simply declare that they are going to charge. They do not per se declare upon which enemy BG(s) they are declaring a charge. Their charge is (automatically) declared upon each and every enemy BG in their path (although I guess this is constrained by the requirement that the chargers must be able to legally contact each target BG). Their path is influenced (constrained) by the wheeling rules.

[wildone]

Was your charge declaration specifically against the light horse or was it wheel and charge that way?
If it was against the LH only could you make contact with the back BG if the 1st BG evaded AND you contacted the Elephant BG?
If you could not then the contacting the Elephants would not be permitted.
If your charge dec was wheel and go that way, then the Elephant would be a legal target assuming the 1st BG of LH evaded. However if contacting the Elephant BG meant that you could not contact the back LH BG then it would not need to evade.
So assuming it was wheel and go that way then I think the sequence would br:

1) Declare charge direction
2) Front LH BG evades
3) contact Elephant BG and see if you contact back LH
4) If you can it evades

[zoltan]

Was your charge declaration specifically against the light horse or was it wheel and charge that way?
If it was against the LH only could you make contact with the back BG if the 1st BG evaded AND you contacted the Elephant BG?
If you could not then the contacting the Elephants would not be permitted.
If your charge dec was wheel and go that way, then the Elephant would be a legal target assuming the 1st BG of LH evaded. However if contacting the Elephant BG meant that you could not contact the back LH BG then it would not need to evade.
So assuming it was wheel and go that way then I think the sequence would br:

1) Declare charge direction
2) Front LH BG evades
3) contact Elephant BG and see if you contact back LH
4) If you can it evades

My declaration included a wheel (for the purpose of contacting the elephants if all the LH evaded). However, my opponent advised that the closeness of the LH prevented me following through with my declared wheel. Instead, he said I was obliged to chase after the evading LH (in effect ignoring my declared wheel). Two prominent UK players have endorsed my opponent's approach in this discussion thread; a number of my local playing colleagues have expressed surprise at this approach and noted that "we've been playing this wrong, then".

[philqw78]

The FAQ is the decider on this and does prevent, but also cause IMO lesser*, cheese

*sort of Dairylea

[wildone]

So if you get up close and personal you restrict your opponents ability to manouvre but with the added risk of being caught will evading.
I'm playing Kerry on sunday so i'll have to remember this

[rogerg]

The rule is not unreasoanable. In reality, both chargers and evaders would be moving simultaneously. If the evaders are immediately in front, the only realistic choice is to go straight ahead.

[ShrubMiK]

>a number of my local playing colleagues have expressed surprise at this approach and noted that "we've been playing this wrong, then".

That sort of thing happens to most of us quite a lot