Issue with Charging skirmishers

[markm]

P.46 Attempts to charge with skirmishers, last para.

"If any of the charge targets evade, skirmishers must halt .........."

I had a situation where my LH were in a position to rear charge enemy (non-skirmishers) already in combat, in my next turn. If my opponent can manage to interpose some skirmishers I must charge these instead. They evade and I must stop 1" from the 'real' target of my charge - the rear of the unit already in combat!

This seems a little odd - without the intervening unit I can charge without even a CMT. With the intervening unit I must halt 1" away!

I suggest this rule is amended so that LH can follow thru in these circumstances as per the bullet point immediately proceeding.

[markm]

OK, 44 views but no replys!

Have I got this wrong, or is that no one can think of an answer?

[lawrenceg]

P.46 Attempts to charge with skirmishers, last para.

"If any of the charge targets evade, skirmishers must halt .........."

I had a situation where my LH were in a position to rear charge enemy (non-skirmishers) already in combat, in my next turn. If my opponent can manage to interpose some skirmishers I must charge these instead. They evade and I must stop 1" from the 'real' target of my charge - the rear of the unit already in combat!

This seems a little odd - without the intervening unit I can charge without even a CMT. With the intervening unit I must halt 1" away!

I suggest this rule is amended so that LH can follow thru in these circumstances as per the bullet point immediately proceeding.

It's on page 29, not 46.

I note that even if the LH had passed a CMT to charge non-skirmishers, if another target evades, they can't contact the non-skirmishers.

So yes, it looks as though a change would be beneficial.

[markm]

Sorry Lawrence, mine has been reformatted to sort out the TOC so my page numbers are different.

[olivier]

note that even if the LH had passed a CMT to charge non-skirmishers, if another target evades, they can't contact the non-skirmishers.

So yes, it looks as though a change would be beneficial

I agree too, this situation smell cheese!

[thefrenchjester]

Hi ,

if the skirmishers are charged by your LH and choose to evade the charger then must use a measuring stick to indicate the direction of the charge (page 32 upper part )
then the enemy skirmisher must mat make a VMD
the charger now move their charge move ( page 33 half part of the page )adjusting by a VMD " IF " all their charge targets evaded
of course the enemy already in contact cannot evade so you can charge his rear
in all the cases the pursuers have the possibility to choose the direction of the charge , so choose the right direction before the beginning of the charge ;
perhaps a confirmation of my point of view by Simon or Richard ? or contradict ?

thefrenchjester " perhaps in englishversion ?"

[thefrenchjester]

Hi ,

sorry mat has nothing to do in my message it comes from my varnish and must return to it , read " IF ALL " not " IF " all
sorry

thefrenchjester " not in english , now we are sure of that "

[markm]

The point is that the LH could legally charge the rear of the engaged unit if nothing was in the way.

If an intervening unit successfully evades the LH MUST now halt 1" from the engaged unit. Feels totally wrong. They should be able to charge home.

[lawrenceg]

The point is that the LH could legally charge the rear of the engaged unit if nothing was in the way.

If an intervening unit successfully evades the LH MUST now halt 1" from the engaged unit. Feels totally wrong. They should be able to charge home.

In fact the evading unit does not even need to intervene between the skirmishers and the other target. They could be side by side and both targets of the charge from the outset.

IIRC originally the charging light horse had no option to halt, so were forced to charge (usually suicidally) into the front of non-skirmishers if an intervening BG evaded.

This was changed, but the wording used now prevents some legitimate charges.

I think what is needed is:

LF must halt if they would contact unbroken non-skirmishers in the open.
LH must halt if they would contact the front of unbroken non-skirmishers that they have not declared a charge on.

If this is adopted it might be worth clarifying that you can declare a charge on enemy that could not be contacted unless intervening troops evade. The current wording does allow this, but I suspect a lot of people wouldn't think of it. (Or maybe include it as an FAQ on the web site)

[rogerg]

Would it better to include this in the restrictions on skirmishers charging? Something like "LH cannot charge.....and if the enemy evade, halt 1 MU from any such in their path."

[markm]

I was thinking along the lines of the current rules with the addition (where the bit is about halting 1" away) that they may charge home if qualified by the bullet points above. ie. flank/rear etc.

Sorry but I don't profess to be able to word these things very well, even if I know what I mean

[rbodleyscott]

How about this:

“If any of their charge targets evade, skirmishers must halt their charge 1 MU away from enemy to their front whom they would not normally be allowed to charge without a CMT.”

Thus LF will have to halt if they would hit unbroken non-skirmishers in open terrain. LH can carry on into the flank or rear of non-skirmishers.

Note that, unlike the 6.0 version, this allows them to go into side to side contact with enemy - We avoided this before, but we don’t think it now creates any problems because the side to side rules allow them to evade if the enemy subsequently turn to face them.

[rogerg]

That's exactly what I had in mind.

[lawrenceg]

How about this:

“If any of their charge targets evade, skirmishers must halt their charge 1 MU away from enemy to their front whom they would not normally be allowed to charge without a CMT.”

Thus LF will have to halt if they would hit unbroken non-skirmishers in open terrain. LH can carry on into the flank or rear of non-skirmishers.

Note that, unlike the 6.0 version, this allows them to go into side to side contact with enemy - We avoided this before, but we don’t think it now creates any problems because the side to side rules allow them to evade if the enemy subsequently turn to face them.

Close, but I don't think it gives the desired result if:


XXXYYY

AAAAAA

A and X are LH, Y is non-skirmishers.

A passes its CMT to charge non skirmishers and declares charges on X and Y .

X evades.

With your wording, A must halt 1 MU from Y.

[rbodleyscott]

How about this:

“If any of their charge targets evade, skirmishers must halt their charge 1 MU away from enemy to their front whom they would not normally be allowed to charge without a CMT.”

Thus LF will have to halt if they would hit unbroken non-skirmishers in open terrain. LH can carry on into the flank or rear of non-skirmishers.

Note that, unlike the 6.0 version, this allows them to go into side to side contact with enemy - We avoided this before, but we don’t think it now creates any problems because the side to side rules allow them to evade if the enemy subsequently turn to face them.

Close, but I don't think it gives the desired result if:


XXXYYY

AAAAAA

A and X are LH, Y is non-skirmishers.

A passes its CMT to charge non skirmishers and declares charges on X and Y .

X evades.

With your wording, A must halt 1 MU from Y.

Please suggest wording that works.

The obvious wording

“If any of their charge targets evade, skirmishers must halt their charge 1 MU away from enemy to their front whom they would not normally be allowed to charge without a CMT, unless they have already passed a CMT to charge them this phase.”

is somewhat inelegant.

(I am beginning to wonder whether the original anomaly is worth all this hassle to correct).

[rbodleyscott]

---

[rogerg]

If any of their charge targets evade, skirmishers who did not pass a CMT to charge non-skirmishers prior to charging, must halt their charge 1 MU away from enemy to their front whom they would not normally be allowed to charge.

Almost as inelegant, but no less comprehensible. I don't think your version is that bad anyway.

[rbodleyscott]

How about:

“If any of their charge targets evade, skirmishers must halt their charge 1 MU away from enemy to their front whom they would not normally be allowed to charge without a CMT (unless they passed a CMT to charge them prior to charging).”

[shall]

Easy change?

“If any of their charge targets evade, skirmishers must halt their charge 1 MU away from enemy to their front whom they would not normally be allowed to charge without a further CMT.”

Thus in lawrences example the skimisher must ahve charged the non-skimishers and apssed their CMT to do that all all, They therefore hit them.

However if a unit was not charged originally - it is revelaed by and evade - they stop to ponder the new puzzle that is before them

Si

[rbodleyscott]

“If any of their charge targets evade, skirmishers must halt their charge 1 MU away from enemy to their front whom they would not normally be allowed to charge without a further CMT.”

I am not sure that the concept of "a further CMT" is very clear.