Charging Out of Command ++ ??

[hazelbark]

This should move to rules area.

[KitG]

By all means - an answer to charging when out of command is well needed.

[Blathergut]

**Thinks he moves it successfully.**

[KitG]

Would anyone care to provide an answer as to what happens when a unit wishes to charge whilst out of command?

Is it a CP and a CMT? - as is suggested on page 28?

Is it 2 CP's and a CMT - as can be inferred by the QRS in the book and argued by Brett?

Is it a CMT if it has a Corps Commander or a Brigade Commander BUT no CP? - as is suggested on page 28 of the rule book?

Is it a nothing with a Brigade Commander? - As is inferred from page 19 - BC's act as Divisional Commander for the unit they are leading?

What if it be a spent or disordered outside of command that wishes to charge? Is this TWO Cp's and a CMT (as suggested on page 28)? Or is it TWO CMT each taking TWO CP's each - as suggested by the QRS in the book, as a CMT when out of command takes two CP's? This only works if a charge outside of command range is a complex move - something I have already stated I do not believe should automatically be the case as a charge can well be a simple move. In this case would it not be 2 CP's AND a CMT - as is suggested by page 28??

[terrys]

If the unit can charge without a CMT it can do so as normal even if out of command.
A unit that require a CMT to charge when out of command will require 2 CPs to do so.

[BrettPT]

If the unit can charge without a CMT it can do so as normal even if out of command.

The problem with this is according to page 44, a unit out of command will always require a CMT - it is a complex move to charge if out of command.

The QRS has replaced "Complex" for assaults outside of command with "+1 CP".
Assuming that the QRS is correct, page 44 needs to be amended for consistancy at some stage.

A unit that require a CMT to charge when out of command will require 2 CPs to do so

So just to be clear, your intent is for command range to be irrelevant when declaring charges - unless the charge would normally require a CMT, in which case you need a CMT and 2CPs.

Cheers
Brett

[terrys]

Assuming that the QRS is correct, page 44 needs to be amended for consistency at some stage.


So just to be clear, your intent is for command range to be irrelevant when declaring charges - unless the charge would normally require a CMT, in which case you need a CMT and 2CPs.

Yes and Yes

We don't want perfectly steady units to stand in around unable to charging, and we wanted another reason for CPs to be required.
I have a note to amend page 44 in the next rule errata.

[deadtorius]

Thanks Terry, makes sense.

[KitG]

If the unit can charge without a CMT it can do so as normal even if out of command.
A unit that require a CMT to charge when out of command will require 2 CPs to do so.

This further adds to the confusion, then, because now NO CP is even required for a unit charging out of command range.

Previously it was said by you that a CP was required - is this no longer the case?

Furthermore, what if the unit concerned is being led by its Corps Commander? Is a CP not required? (But in order to move with the unit the CC would need to use a CP). Also what if the Corps commander is leading a spent or dosordered unit that would normally require a CMT to charge? Presumeably this would mean that 2 CPs and a CMT would necessary BUT that the unit concerned would pass the CMT on a 4+ as it has a general leading it??

In any event, what is said here is contrary to both what is said on page 28 of the rule book and the QRS on page 44 of the rule book.

[KitG]

Could a CLEAR ANSWER on this be provided please??

I do not feel that having units being able to charge without restrcition of command distance leads to a balanced game in any way - the attacking player will simply be able to deploy a hodge podge of units without regard for command distances and lauch a series of assaults in an angled manner, so that the majority of these assaults, or at least the ones that matter, will wind up within command distance of one of his generals. This will make a mockery of any balanced game as the advantage will lie with the attacker and therefore the winning of the toss will effectively decide the game.

It will also remove one of the effects of being impetuous.

It also goes against the general thrust of how games have been played for the past three years - by all means charge when out of command range, but you have always had to pay some kind of penalty for this - and fair enough too, otherwise what is the point of being in command range at the start of your turn??

It will also directly contradict the rule book, does not appear in any errata and be reliant on someone saying "That rule has changed...I read it on this forum..."

This rule set is starting to make FOW look extremely professional, thoroughly playtested and well balanced by comparison.

[viperofmilan]

Could a CLEAR ANSWER on this be provided please??

I do not feel that having units being able to charge without restrcition of command distance leads to a balanced game in any way - the attacking player will simply be able to deploy a hodge podge of units without regard for command distances and lauch a series of assaults in an angled manner, so that the majority of these assaults, or at least the ones that matter, will wind up within command distance of one of his generals. This will make a mockery of any balanced game as the advantage will lie with the attacker and therefore the winning of the toss will effectively decide the game.

It will also remove one of the effects of being impetuous.

It also goes against the general thrust of how games have been played for the past three years - by all means charge when out of command range, but you have always had to pay some kind of penalty for this - and fair enough too, otherwise what is the point of being in command range at the start of your turn??

It will also directly contradict the rule book, does not appear in any errata and be reliant on someone saying "That rule has changed...I read it on this forum..."

This rule set is starting to make FOW look extremely professional, thoroughly playtested and well balanced by comparison.

I've got to agree. Personally, I thought the rule as written was pretty clear - declaring a charge out of command range was a complex move requiring a test, and a test for any other action normally requiring a CMT required 2 CPs when taken by a unit out of command range. Simple, reasonable, and very playable. Just how all of this obfuscation and confusion came to be introduced is a mystery to me.

Kevin

[Blathergut]

To wade in again:

Page 28 (right-hand column, 4th bullet): "Declaring an assault...outside command range of Div. Com...requires the expenditure of a Command Point, unless led..."

Does this expenditure of a CP necessarily require a CMT? Is this what Terry is referring to when he mentions additional use of CPs? You have to expend a CP but it is not a CMT as well. No dice roll to pass. But the divisional commander must have the point to spend in order to get the unit to charge.

If a CMT is also required, then you will need 2 CP.

If the unit is out of divisional command but commanded by BC or CC then the unit does not need this divisional expenditure.

[terrys]

Definitive answer - cancelling all previous comments:

Declaring a charge with a unit out of command is 1 additional CP
So that:
A Simple assault move requires 1 CP
A complex assault move requires 2 CPs

The confusion is caused by the table on page 44 which states that "Any attempt to assault when out of command range" is complex.
This is incorrect - It is treated as any other charge but requires an additional CP.

In Beta versions of the rules we trialed making it a complex move but found that it didn't work well (spent units requiring 2 CMTs & 4 CPs to charge).
We removed all references in the wording but didn't notice that it was still in the table on pg 44. (and the QRS).

Any charge led by a CC is "in command range" but the CC must spend his own CP to assault with the unit.

[Blathergut]

Thank you Terry for the detailed comment!

[BrettPT]

Jolly good
Thanks for that Terry

[viperofmilan]

Declaring a charge with a unit out of command is 1 additional CP
So that:
A Simple assault move requires 1 CP
A complex assault move requires 2 CPs

Just to clarify for the terminally dense like myself, 1 CP (but no test) is required to declare a simple move charge when out of command range, but 2 CPs and a test are required to declare a complex move charge when out of command range?

Kevin

[Blathergut]

Correct!