Declaration of Charges

JimmyThePict · Post by **JimmyThePict** » Fri Jul 11, 2008 2:38 pm

During an entertaining game last night between the Pictish Nation and Dirty Rotten Sassanids we came on the following situation that we hope someone can clarify

....AAAA
BBBB

HHHH LLLL

Now A and B are cavalry facing a light horse BGs H and L , A is behind B with no room to wheel. Both A and B want to charge, B wishes charge H and A wishes to charge L. The P52 rules on declarations of charges states that to be allowed to declare a charge you must be able to legally contact it. The two opinions on this situation were :

1. A cannot at the point of the declaration of the charge contact A because it cannot make a single wheel and/or step forward because it is too close to the back of B.
2. B charges H first and because of this A now has a clear route with one wheel to contact L.

Help would be appreciated.

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Fri Jul 11, 2008 3:14 pm

From a quick reading of the rules it would seem that inorder to declare a charge you must be able to contact enemy, there is nothing there that says contact enemy if other friends charge first.

I would therfore rule 1.

terrys · Post by **terrys** » Fri Jul 11, 2008 3:58 pm

From a quick reading of the rules it would seem that inorder to declare a charge you must be able to contact enemy, there is nothing there that says contact enemy if other friends charge first.

Interesting one this. I'd be tempted to say that AAAA can charge as long as there's nothing that could block BBBB's charge, and therefore nothing to block AAAA's charge.....except.......
Suppose HHHH evades, and BBBB rolls a VMD of 1. Does it now block 'A's charge?

rogerg · Post by **rogerg** » Fri Jul 11, 2008 4:15 pm

That looks a very risky interpretation Terry. There could be some very cheesy shielding of chargers if this was allowed.
How about if B was shock toops testing not to charge? This would be a nice way of ensuring that if the shock troops fail the test they would get support from friends.

I would tend to go with Hammy's view that each charge is assessed independently.

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Fri Jul 11, 2008 4:17 pm

I'm with Hammy, I don't think you can make charges conditional on something happening - in fact, although unrelated, FoG quite clearly does not allow conditional actions in a couple of places.

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Fri Jul 11, 2008 4:19 pm

I agree with Hammy et al.

JimmyThePict · Post by **JimmyThePict** » Fri Jul 11, 2008 4:33 pm

Thanks for the quick replies, that was how I read it as well.

rayfredjohn · Post by **rayfredjohn** » Fri Jul 11, 2008 7:50 pm

If all charges have to be declaed at the same time the rear battle group can't charge 'cos it has no target it can legally contact. I think the rules are clear on this.

Ray Duggins

terrys · Post by **terrys** » Mon Jul 14, 2008 8:35 am

I only said 'tempted' to rule - with a large exception.
I'm still thinking about repercussions in other situations if a blanket 'No' was assumed.....
What happens in the following situation:

.XXYYYYZZZ
.AA

_BBBBCCCC

If CCCC charges first (straight ahead) then BBBB can't charge because there's only a 2 1/2 base gap.
If BBBB charges first it can wheel and contact YYYY legally, in which case YYYY can also wheel to contact ZZZ only.

Does this mean the BBBB can't charge? I don't think so.

If we say that BBBB can charge because we're going to move the BGs in the order BBBB then CCCC.
How different is this from the previous condition that one BG can't charge unless the other one charges first?

NB. I'm not making a ruling - just thinking about the repercussions of doing so.

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Mon Jul 14, 2008 8:53 am

terrys wrote:I only said 'tempted' to rule - with a large exception.
I'm still thinking about repercussions in other situations if a blanket 'No' was assumed.....
What happens in the following situation:

.XXYYYYZZZ
.AA

_BBBBCCCC

If CCCC charges first (straight ahead) then BBBB can't charge because there's only a 2 1/2 base gap.
If BBBB charges first it can wheel and contact YYYY legally, in which case YYYY can also wheel to contact ZZZ only.

Does this mean the BBBB can't charge? I don't think so.

If we say that BBBB can charge because we're going to move the BGs in the order BBBB then CCCC.
How different is this from the previous condition that one BG can't charge unless the other one charges first?

NB. I'm not making a ruling - just thinking about the repercussions of doing so.

But this is different to the OP. In this case either BG could charge on it's own. OK it might be possible fo the charging player to mess things up such that they can't actually charge with both BGs but that is up to them.

In the initial post one BG couldn't charge unless something else got out of the way first, that is a different issue IMO.

rayfredjohn · Post by **rayfredjohn** » Mon Jul 14, 2008 9:24 am

I agree with Hammy. The BG can charge legally when charge is declared.

Ray Duggins

terrys · Post by **terrys** » Mon Jul 14, 2008 9:44 am

How about the following:

.XXYYYYZZZZ
.AA

._____CCCC
_BBBB

identical to the previous case but with BBBB slighly further back.
CCCC declares a charge on ZZZZ which frees the space for BBBB to get into YYYY

If we say that BBBB can't declare the charge - what if it fails its CMT to not charge?
CCCC can still move first, and BBBB will then complete its charge without disrupting CCCC

How about the following:

______AA
______AA

BB________CC
__BB____CC

BB and CC are both facing AA and if charging straight ahead will each hit both front rank bases of AA
Both are capable of charging however:
Whichever charges first, the other can't then contact.
Does this mean that if you declare a charge with one, then the other can't charge?
Or do we allow both to charge because both are capable of contacting AA?

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Mon Jul 14, 2008 10:10 am

terrys wrote:How about the following:

.XXYYYYZZZZ
.AA

._____CCCC
_BBBB

identical to the previous case but with BBBB slighly further back.
CCCC declares a charge on ZZZZ which frees the space for BBBB to get into YYYY

If we say that BBBB can't declare the charge - what if it fails its CMT to not charge?
CCCC can still move first, and BBBB will then complete its charge without disrupting CCCC

Surely in this situation B can charge by moving forwards level with C then wheeling and continuing. There is nothing in the charge rules that requires the wheel to be at the start of a charge.

If B can't make contact without bursting through C then it can't choose to declare a charge but if it fails it's CMT and is forced to charge there is nothing stopping the player owing BG C from resolving that charge first.

How about the following:

______AA
______AA

BB________CC
__BB____CC

BB and CC are both facing AA and if charging straight ahead will each hit both front rank bases of AA
Both are capable of charging however:
Whichever charges first, the other can't then contact.
Does this mean that if you declare a charge with one, then the other can't charge?
Or do we allow both to charge because both are capable of contacting AA?

Surely in this case if you want both B and C to contact A you wheel slightly and hit the front and side edge? If you don;t want both to contact then only declare one charge and if you have two BGs of shock troops in this situation why did you do it in the first place?

lawrenceg · Post by **lawrenceg** » Mon Jul 14, 2008 10:32 am

hammy wrote:
terrys wrote: How about the following:

______AA
______AA

BB________CC
__BB____CC

BB and CC are both facing AA and if charging straight ahead will each hit both front rank bases of AA
Both are capable of charging however:
Whichever charges first, the other can't then contact.
Does this mean that if you declare a charge with one, then the other can't charge?
Or do we allow both to charge because both are capable of contacting AA?
Surely in this case if you want both B and C to contact A you wheel slightly and hit the front and side edge? If you don;t want both to contact then only declare one charge and if you have two BGs of shock troops in this situation why did you do it in the first place?

If AA were only two bases in a single rank then it would not be possible for either B or C to wheel without reducing the number of bases it contacted.

The troops may have got into this position by pursuits, over which the player had no control.

sagji · Post by **sagji** » Mon Jul 14, 2008 12:52 pm

I agree with Terry that the "blocked" BG can declare a charge - it can contact enemy as the "blocking" BG is committed to moving out of the way.

There are some possible issues.

The declared path of the "blocking" BG's charge must permit the "blocked" BG to contact enemy.

If the blocking BG doesn't declare a charge then it is blocking and the rear BG can't declare a charge - thus you can't have the rear charge dependant on the front failing a CT to not charge.

If the blocking BG refuses to charge (e.g. disrupted, or missile, non shock failing a CT) then the rear BG's charge is IMMEDIATLY cancelled and if it is shock must pass a CT to not charge without orders.

If the "blocking" BG doesn't get out of the way (e.g. because or a low VMD, or intercepting BG) then the other BG's charge is cancelled - just the same as if 2 BG side by side both declare a charge on the adjacent BG and the first's target evades and its VM leaves it blocking the other's route to its target.

If you don't take already declared charges into account you can get other problems. Example:

Code: Select all

  EE
  EE

AAABBB
AAABBB

A is cavalry Drilled Protected Bow Sword, B is disrupted cavalry Undrilled Armoured Bow Sword, enemy E is disrupted MF Protected Heavy Weapon.
A and B both declare a charge on E with a sufficient wheel to preclude the other from contacting E.

In effect you have made A's charge conditional on B not obeying its orders to charge.

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Mon Jul 14, 2008 1:31 pm

There is however no requirement to specify the direction of a charge when it is declared.

Charge direction only kicks in when you actually move the charge or when the target (or at least one target) of the evades.

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Mon Jul 14, 2008 2:21 pm

Isn't there a rule about being able to drop one base frotnage when charging to avoid friends and impassable?

Now the situation could equally apply with two bases blocked.

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Mon Jul 14, 2008 2:41 pm

hazelbark wrote:Isn't there a rule about being able to drop one base frotnage when charging to avoid friends and impassable?

Now the situation could equally apply with two bases blocked.

Yes a charging BG can drop one file but not more than one.

These hypothetical situations are based on needing to drop more than one file.

lawrenceg · Post by **lawrenceg** » Mon Jul 14, 2008 3:20 pm

The spirit of the rules seems to be that to declare a charge, you must be able to do the charge if all other BGs do not move.

IMO this is the simplest and best way to play it. Otherwise you can get all sorts of conditional situations arising, such as A can charge if B goes first, but B's target evades and B's VMD means it can't get out of the way of A...

There are no rules on what to do if, at the time you move the BG, its charge is not possible (with the exception of failing to reach evaders, or moving off the table).

It seems to me that if you can't do your charge move for any reason not otherwise covered, then your charge must be cancelled. This would be the simplest way to handle it and is consistent with the last sentence in the section on "Formation changes when charging" on p54.

(By the way, I can't find anything to say what happens when your fragmented target breaks and routs out of your reach.)

terrys · Post by **terrys** » Mon Jul 14, 2008 3:40 pm

The spirit of the rules seems to be that to declare a charge, you must be able to do the charge if all other BGs do not move.

I suspect that we're heading that direction.

Another question we've come to is: Can you deliberately block of one of your own declared charges?
situation as follows:

___AA
___AA

_BB_CC
_BB_CC

AA is enemy LH (Lt Sp)
BB is your own LH (bow)
CC is you own Cav

If both BB & CC declare a charge you have 2 options depending upon whether or not AA evades:
1) AA evades: CC charges straight forwards leaving a clear route for BB to try to catch them.
2) AA stands: CC wheel to contact the full front of AA, leaving the inferior BB no way to contact them.

Is it reasonable that you can deliberately block your own troops during a charge, but you can't deliberately unblock them?