ZOI behind other BG

[dave_r]

So Dave,
You are saying that if a BG of Knights has Light foot to the front with Elephants at a total of 5 mu's away that they have to roll not to charge the LF and if they fail and roll up on the VMD that they MUST hit the Elephants?

Gino
SMAC

No - Elephants are one of the abnormal situations - as it states "if possible to end in contact with elephants". However, if the chargers are pike with enemy Light Foot to their front and knights behind them at four inches, then the pike must test not to charge the light foot.

[petedalby]

And that's why I don't like taking into account that the LF must evade. It would mean that in one circumstance you treat chargers in one way and in another circumstance you treat them differently. If the LF were in terrain what would you do?

I completely agree Dave. It is less than satisfactory. But as it stands it is open to interpretation and I think a clarification is required.

You are saying that if a BG of Knights has Light foot to the front with Elephants at a total of 5 mu's away that they have to roll not to charge the LF and if they fail and roll up on the VMD that they MUST hit the Elephants?

In my view the rules appear to be very clear that you ignore the VMD element when considering the 6 bullet points listed on page 63 that prevent charging without orders. So yes, I believe a CMT is required - unless they are armoured knights of course. Again, this is something which we disagree on.

[AlanCutner]

Far too many assumptions being made in this thread. Its calling out for an authors clarification. Richard?

[shadowdragon]

Far too many assumptions being made in this thread. Its calling out for an authors clarification. Richard?

Agree. Much of liberal interpretation of the charge path hinges on things like the chargers rolling high on their VMD...and presumably, also, that the LF roll high enough to evade through the "interceptors". However, it one is possible to imagine that the LF roll low and are caught in front of the interceptors who end up intercepting nothing. More likely the LF will evade through the BG behind, but it is still possible that the chargers, if they roll a low VMD, will end up not reaching the "interceptors" again leaving the "interceptors" intercepting nothing.

If we excluded from intercepting from behind, in my view not much* is lost and much confusion avoided. So let's have a rules author's opinion.

* If the charging BG hits the BG behind the LF then close combat occurs that turn. If it doesn't, the BG behind the LF likely has the option to charge the next turn.

[gozerius]

The charge path is well defined in the body of the Impact rules. The charger declares a charge and, if wheeling, the angle of the charge. All BGs that can be legally contacted along this axis of charge by the charging BG, including by bases stepping forward, are targets of the initial charge declaration. The charge path extends to the initial line of contact with a target BG plus any required stepping forward. This is why in the immediately preceding scenario involving knights beyond a BG of LF the knights are targets and cannot intercept. At the moment of the charge declaration the charge path extends to the front edge of the LF and the mandatory step forward into the knights. The LF have not yet evaded.

Too many people on this thread want to factor in responses to the charge in the initial determination of charge targets. This is not permitted by the rules. New charge targets can only be exposed by being unmasked by evaders/routers.
The sequence of play must be adhered to when determining who is a target of a charge. This applies also to intercept responses. The charge path is established at the moment of charge declaration, and is not altered until a response to that charge affects it. Intercepts occur before evades, and therefore cannot be based on an expected evade, but must take into account only the situation at hand at the moment of the intercept subphase.

I admit that it is unclear whether a BG can claim to have crossed the path of charge by merely reaching a point at which a charger not previously required to step forward would be required to in order to contact the interceptor.

[ravenflight]

The charge path is well defined in the body of the Impact rules. The charger declares a charge and, if wheeling, the angle of the charge. All BGs that can be legally contacted along this axis of charge by the charging BG, including by bases stepping forward, are targets of the initial charge declaration. The charge path extends to the initial line of contact with a target BG plus any required stepping forward. This is why in the immediately preceding scenario involving knights beyond a BG of LF the knights are targets and cannot intercept. At the moment of the charge declaration the charge path extends to the front edge of the LF and the mandatory step forward into the knights. The LF have not yet evaded.

Too many people on this thread want to factor in responses to the charge in the initial determination of charge targets. This is not permitted by the rules. New charge targets can only be exposed by being unmasked by evaders/routers.
The sequence of play must be adhered to when determining who is a target of a charge. This applies also to intercept responses. The charge path is established at the moment of charge declaration, and is not altered until a response to that charge affects it. Intercepts occur before evades, and therefore cannot be based on an expected evade, but must take into account only the situation at hand at the moment of the intercept subphase.

I admit that it is unclear whether a BG can claim to have crossed the path of charge by merely reaching a point at which a charger not previously required to step forward would be required to in order to contact the interceptor.

Agree with all you say. The reason I posted my scenario above is because I believed it would help clarrify the 'charge path issue'. If the Knights cant intercept in my scenario, they they COULD intercept in the OP's scenario even tho they don't appear to 'cross the path'

Where you HAVE (rightly) added more info is the 'evades not taking place'. That was well written. Agree, you have to take it into account as if they have NOT evaded, and go from there one step at a time (as you said)

[grahambriggs]

I would say you don't take variable distance into account - as the VMD won't have been taken at the time you move interceptors.

The bit about chargers also means you don't normally take into account VMD's to see if you can't charge.

I don't have my rules on me (always a bad start but I'm going with it!). But IIRC:

- it's a weak part of the rules which needs clarification
- the key question is whether units are also the target of the charge.
- you only throw a VMD as a charger only if all your targets evade.
- hence if the knights are the target of the charge, then the cavalry don't throw a VMD
- so the cavalry don't reach the knights
- so the knights can't be in the path of the cavalry
- so the knights can't be a target of the charge.
- so they can intercept the other unit.
Fully appreciate that this is circular logic, and needs clarification.

Replace the LF with HF and the cavalry will hit the HF and step forward into the knights. So it seems to me that in that case the knights are in the path of the charge. i.e. the charge has no option but to hit them.

[paullongmore]

I also don't have my rules on me but IMO this should have been on the Xmas quiz or an exam question for umpires:

My answer would be

- When the charge is declared the charge is going to hit the LF and step forward into the Kn who are therefore a target of the charge
- The kn consequently cannot declare an intercept as they are the target of a charge
- the LF declare they are evading (at V2 they have no choice about this, but to me that is not actually relevant)
- since not all the targets of the charge have evaded (i.e. the Kn haven't) the cav do not make a VMD roll and hence do not reach the knights

This does result in the interesting situation that the Kn cannot intercept although they will not actually be contacted.

Paul

[rbodleyscott]

I don't have my rules to hand to be able to quote them accurately but it seems that you are playing this wrongly in NZ and possibly Oz ?

I agree with Rob, Dave & Phil. The interceptors move before evaders and must place themselves between the chargers and their intended target. This is clearly not possible in the example given.

I also agree with this.

[rbodleyscott]

Oh no, are we still here?

My next two-penneth.

The knights in B have to intercept by moving to a point inside the charge path between the cavalry and light foot.

Therefore a gnats todger will not be enough.

Rob

Yeah that just dawned on me. So by definition an intercept charge must reach a position (before charge and evade moves are made) where the interceptor is positioned (even by a gnat's todger) between the charger and original charge target.

"Closer to the chargers than the charge targets are" would be more accurate, rather than "between", but yes.

[rbodleyscott]

Oh no, are we still here?

My next two-penneth.

The knights in B have to intercept by moving to a point inside the charge path between the cavalry and light foot.

Therefore a gnats todger will not be enough.

Rob

Yeah that just dawned on me. So by definition an intercept charge must reach a position (before charge and evade moves are made) where the interceptor is positioned (even by a gnat's todger) between the charger and original charge target.

Not entirely so, It must reach a point where the charger will contact the interceptor before it reaches the start position of the target. If the knights could sidle up alongside and just beyond the front edge of the LF the charger would hit them first.

Correct

[rbodleyscott]

Except that page 56 says "any battlegroup in the path of a charge counts as being charged", if the path stops at the point of first contact the word "any" wouldn't be there it would say "only the first battlegroup that is contacted counts as being charged" or something very similar.

Nobody has said the path stops at first contact. The path is all legal targets when the charge is declared. As explained earlier if a base must step forward it can be intercepted for as far as it must step forwards.

Correct if they are stepping forward into another unit other than the interceptors. Highly dubious otherwise.

Sorry, I lost the will to live after reading the first 3 pages of this thread.

[zoltan]

Correct if they are stepping forward into another unit other than the interceptors. Highly dubious otherwise.

Sorry, I lost the will to live after reading the first 3 pages of this thread.

Frustration at diversity of interpretation of the English language is one of the burdens that a rules writer must bare Richard.

[batesmotel]

Correct if they are stepping forward into another unit other than the interceptors. Highly dubious otherwise.

Sorry, I lost the will to live after reading the first 3 pages of this thread.

Frustration at diversity of interpretation of the English language is one of the burdens that a rules writer must bare Richard.

I'd say that Richard's frustration is pretty naked

Chris

[grahambriggs]

Except that page 56 says "any battlegroup in the path of a charge counts as being charged", if the path stops at the point of first contact the word "any" wouldn't be there it would say "only the first battlegroup that is contacted counts as being charged" or something very similar.

Nobody has said the path stops at first contact. The path is all legal targets when the charge is declared. As explained earlier if a base must step forward it can be intercepted for as far as it must step forwards.

Correct if they are stepping forward into another unit other than the interceptors. Highly dubious otherwise.

Sorry, I lost the will to live after reading the first 3 pages of this thread.

The feeling is mutual. However, there is a good point buried in this thread, which is:

If a charge is declared (say by cavalry) against troops who must evade (the LF in one of the diagrams) or choose to evade and they are the only troops in charge distance, where does the charge path stop? I would say it's at 5MU. Others hold that it is whichever is the longer of 5MU or the evaders original position plus step forward had they stood.

[batesmotel]

I believe the charge path is exactly the same as for V1 for intercept. The charge path to allow interception ends where the charge would finish, including stepping forward if the target stood and received the charge and if no intercept occurred, e.g. I do not believe an intercept to a position that would force the charge to step forward to contact the interceptors is legal if the charger would not have stepped forward otherwise, or if the chargers would contact the interceptors only after the target evaded out of the way.

Chris

[philqw78]

The feeling is mutual. However, there is a good point buried in this thread, which is:
If a charge is declared (say by cavalry) against troops who must evade (the LF in one of the diagrams) or choose to evade and they are the only troops in charge distance, where does the charge path stop? I would say it's at 5MU. Others hold that it is whichever is the longer of 5MU or the evaders original position plus step forward had they stood.

No, Richard has answered that. The path stops at the orinal target(s), even if they must evade.

[zoltan]

The feeling is mutual. However, there is a good point buried in this thread, which is:
If a charge is declared (say by cavalry) against troops who must evade (the LF in one of the diagrams) or choose to evade and they are the only troops in charge distance, where does the charge path stop? I would say it's at 5MU. Others hold that it is whichever is the longer of 5MU or the evaders original position plus step forward had they stood.

No, Richard has answered that. The path stops at the orinal target(s), even if they must evade.

Well I don't think Richard has explicitly defined the charge path as being (only) the area between the charger's starting point and the starting point of the original target of the charge.

Rules 9-1
"Any enemy battle group in the path of a charge counts as being charged if it can be "legally" contacted, even if it was not one of the originally declared targets of the charge. This applies even if it can only be contacted by bases stepping forward (see below). It does not apply if, due to intervening friends, it could not be contacted even by stepping forward bases - unless the situation changes, as follows: If a battle group is revealed and can now be contacted due to friends evading or breaking and routing, it becomes a target of the charge..."

This says to me that the path of the charge goes all the way up to (and includes) revealed battle groups beyond the starting point of the original charge target.This includes situation where fresh targets are revealed and can only be contacted as a result of a charger VMD to chase evaders or routers.

[awesum4]

Richard has ruled very clearly that the interpretation that I originally mentioned (a mere 4 pages ago) was wrong. Thanks Richard for a single well constructed sentence that removes all the trickery.

[kevinj]

This says to me that the path of the charge goes all the way up to (and includes) revealed battle groups beyond the starting point of the original charge target.This includes situation where fresh targets are revealed and can only be contacted as a result of a charger VMD to chase evaders or routers.

It's true that this covers people who may be hit by the charge and therefore will come into the path of the charge at some point. But for the purposes of deciding whether a BG is a target of the charge and therefore can or cannot intercept:

Any enemy battle group in the path of a charge counts as being charged if it can be "legally" contacted, even if it was not one of the originally declared targets of the charge. This applies even if it can only be contacted by bases stepping forward (see below).

These ones are the targets of the original charge and clearly cannot intercept.

It does not apply if, due to intervening friends, it could not be contacted even by stepping forward bases - unless the situation changes, as follows: If a battle group is revealed and can now be contacted due to friends evading or breaking and routing, it becomes a target of the charge

These are not targets of the charge at the point at which it is declared and therefore are eligible to intercept this or another charge.