Exception to shock troops charging

[tamerlan]

Shock troops do not have to charge if "their move could end up in contact with elephants ...", ¿does that include the case where contact could only take place if the elephants make an interception charge? (it seems not, as the previous paragrapf, related to shock foot troops, states that they do not have to charge if their move could contact or be intercepted by mounted, but I am not sure)

Thanks in advance,

[petedalby]

The wording appears to be unchanged from V1.

does that include the case where contact could only take place if the elephants make an interception charge?

I believe so - so if the elephants can intercept you, you don't charge without orders.

[zoltan]

The wording appears to be unchanged from V1.

does that include the case where contact could only take place if the elephants make an interception charge?

I believe so - so if the elephants can intercept you, you don't charge without orders.

I a wonder if there is a potential inconsistency lurking here?

Pete's reply is based on a contingent option being taken. In this case the elephants must exercise an option to intercept in order to trigger the condition that the chargers would contact them (the elephants). Intercepting is optional and in that sense may/may not happen. It is a theoretical possibility.

This seems analogous to the previous debates we've had about whether a variable move distance should be added to a charge distance when calculating whether certain things are within range of the charger. Again the variable nature of the VMD means it may/may not become relevant. It is only a theoretical possibility.

In the latter case RBS has stated (eventually via a rule amendment) that you do not take a VMD into account. To be consistent I feel you would not take into account the elephant's option to intercept. Similarly, if the chargers would contact the elephants only if they threw a plus VMD, I guess you would not take that into account.

I think whether or not the chargers must dice not to charge should be considered on the 'plain facts' that exist at that point in time, not the theoretical possibilities and and contingent options that may/may not occur.

[ravenflight]

The wording appears to be unchanged from V1.

does that include the case where contact could only take place if the elephants make an interception charge?

I believe so - so if the elephants can intercept you, you don't charge without orders.

I a wonder if there is a potential inconsistency lurking here?

Pete's reply is based on a contingent option being taken. In this case the elephants must exercise an option to intercept in order to trigger the condition that the chargers would contact them (the elephants). Intercepting is optional and in that sense may/may not happen. It is a theoretical possibility.

This seems analogous to the previous debates we've had about whether a variable move distance should be added to a charge distance when calculating whether certain things are within range of the charger. Again the variable nature of the VMD means it may/may not become relevant. It is only a theoretical possibility.

In the latter case RBS has stated (eventually via a rule amendment) that you do not take a VMD into account. To be consistent I feel you would not take into account the elephant's option to intercept. Similarly, if the chargers would contact the elephants only if they threw a plus VMD, I guess you would not take that into account.

I think whether or not the chargers must dice not to charge should be considered on the 'plain facts' that exist at that point in time, not the theoretical possibilities and and contingent options that may/may not occur.

I tend to agree with this, as it also compicates things in other ways. Let's say there was a unit that COULD be intercepted by elephants, but could wheel in such a way that would avoid the intercept zone, but by doing so would reduce the number of bases that would contact the target. Do they charge in THAT instance?

[timmy1]

I think the interception by elephants does not count here. On P63 (or 9-9/10), the prior bullet in the exceptions states 'If they are foot whose move could contact or be intercepted by mounted.' Given that the elephant exception does not include the intercepted part I think that potential interception by elephants does not allow shock troops not to charge.

[philqw78]

We argued about this in V1.

Another thing they forgot to re-write.

[petedalby]

I think the interception by elephants does not count here. On P63 (or 9-9/10), the prior bullet in the exceptions states 'If they are foot whose move could contact or be intercepted by mounted

Good point Tim - on reflection I am inclined to agree.

So if your shock troops charge would not contact Elephants - but could be intercepted by them - then the shock troops must test not to charge.

Another feather in the elephants' cap it seems.

[dave_r]

I think the interception by elephants does not count here. On P63 (or 9-9/10), the prior bullet in the exceptions states 'If they are foot whose move could contact or be intercepted by mounted

Good point Tim - on reflection I am inclined to agree.

So if your shock troops charge would not contact Elephants - but could be intercepted by them - then the shock troops must test not to charge.

Another feather in the elephants' cap it seems.

Yes - but their move could still end in contact with elephants therefore it would be superflous?

[davidandlynda]

I 'm going to have to have tomorrow off,I agree with Dave ,the word used is could,therefore implying all sorts of possible happenings,ie they could end in contact with the elephants if they intercepted,this is how I always played it in v1.
David

[philqw78]

I have had a stiff drink. So, I agree with Dave.................... Fairhurst.

How one rule is written should not affect the interpretation of another.

[tamerlan]

I am still in doubt, both interpretations are reasonable, we may need a clarification in thte FAQ

[dave_r]

I am still in doubt, both interpretations are reasonable, we may need a clarification in thte FAQ

No we don't.

It's quite simple - could your move end in contact with elephants. If the elephants intercept then yes I would hit them, therefore I don't have to charge?

Seems fairly straight forward to me?

[petedalby]

No we don't.

It's quite simple - could your move end in contact with elephants. If the elephants intercept then yes I would hit them, therefore I don't have to charge?

Seems fairly straight forward to me?

Sorry Dave - I disagree.

Page 63 - "if they are foot whose move could contact or be intercepted by mounted." "If their move could end in contact with elephants, a riverbank or fortifications other than portable obstacles."

The 1st bullet specifically includes a reference to being intercepted.

The 2nd bullet makes no reference to an intercept charge and lists 3 targets, 2 of which cannot make an intercept.

Surely the correct interprertation must be that only a move into contact with elephants avoids the need to test not to charge for shock troops.

RBS - please confirm.

[dave_r]

No we don't.

It's quite simple - could your move end in contact with elephants. If the elephants intercept then yes I would hit them, therefore I don't have to charge?

Seems fairly straight forward to me?

Sorry Dave - I disagree.

Surely the correct interprertation must be that only a move into contact with elephants avoids the need to test not to charge for shock troops.

But that's not what the rule says though is it? It states "If their move could end in contact with elephants, a riverbank or fortifications other than portable defences".

Since it is possible for the move to end in contact with elephants then you don't have to test to charge. This has actually changed slightly from v1 in that it now specifically mentions portable obstacles.

Looking at it the other way - if your move couldn't end in contact with elephants then it would not be possible for the elephants to intercept as to take the test it must not be possible to end in contact with elephants.

[zoltan]

So it's pointless putting a LF screen out in front of elephants to try and break up a line of lancer cav, if the line is within 7 MUs of the elephants. The cav don't have to test to avoid charging the pesky LF as they (the cav) could contact the elephants.

[petedalby]

Using Dave's logic, a BG of lancers with enemy Elephants to their rear do not have to test not to charge enemy to their front thus avoiding the risk of an intercept charge.

I think this is wrong but I'm happy to wait for a view for Richard.

[dave_r]

So it's pointless putting a LF screen out in front of elephants to try and break up a line of lancer cav, if the line is within 7 MUs of the elephants. The cav don't have to test to avoid charging the pesky LF as they (the cav) could contact the elephants.

Under v2 you no longer take that into account - i.e. on page 62 (9-8)

Shock troops will not charge without orders ... in the following circumstances (Do not take into account possible additional or reduced move distance from any VMD that may be required):

Therefore - as long as the jumbo's are outside of 5 MU's they will have to test not to charge the LF. If the elephants are at 5 MU's or closer they don't have to test.

[kevinj]

How one rule is written should not affect the interpretation of another

I disagree. If two rules are written differently, it's a reasonable clue that the authors intended them to have different meanings.

[dave_r]

Using Dave's logic, a BG of lancers with enemy Elephants to their rear do not have to test not to charge enemy to their front thus avoiding the risk of an intercept charge.

I think this is wrong but I'm happy to wait for a view for Richard.

As the Challenge proved, that is a disaster for the elephants though.

[hazelbark]

How one rule is written should not affect the interpretation of another

I disagree. If two rules are written differently, it's a reasonable clue that the authors intended them to have different meanings.

Sadly not. The rules...as well as other rules have not been written as tightly as they could in this regard. Now it "could" be true.

I think the right course of action is to read the rule and see if the answer is present.