Using terrain to stop unwanted charges

[paulcummins]

Just want to check this so I dont come unstuck if I get caught by it again (though I cant read the rules any other way)

A BG of knights facing my superior spearmen. I want them to charge me. The knights would clip terrain if they went stright forward, but could wheel/drop back to get past the terrain if they wanted to charge.
Does this effectively give them the option of charging/not charging as the charge *could* take them into terrain?

[shall]

I believe so. Could seems to cover it.

The intent is that troops would charge if they could so so without huge concerns from terrain (leaving that they love or entering that they dislike) so it seems reasonable to me that they would not be forced to charge in such a situation (were I ruling as an umpire).

You need to be braver and stand in the open!! Then they will charge you. Go on you know it amkes sense ....the field of glory goes to the brave

Si

[paulcummins]

I was in the open, just the knights had a bit of rough clipping the corner of one base.

As it was they charged in anyway and slaughtered me - 2x6 BG of superior MF Off Spear against 4 knights.

what a cunning plan. That'll teach me to get into something vaguely resembling a fair fight.

[shall]

Get some Spartans in front of them in the open... Then see them wriggle on a stick!!

Si

[sagji]

Just want to check this so I dont come unstuck if I get caught by it again (though I cant read the rules any other way)

A BG of knights facing my superior spearmen. I want them to charge me. The knights would clip terrain if they went stright forward, but could wheel/drop back to get past the terrain if they wanted to charge.
Does this effectively give them the option of charging/not charging as the charge *could* take them into terrain?

Just to clarify the question - I assume you are asking

"If knights are in a position where an impact move without orders went straight forward it could END in terrain, but there is also another valid impact move that would not end in any terrain THEN do you get a CHOICE of checking if they make an unordered charge?"

I dissagree with Si's reply - I say no - as if they fail the roll you could move them first, you could move them straight forward and thus they could end in the terrain. As they could end in terrain they can't make an unordered charge, the fact that you could, or would, choose to move them in a different way is not relevant.

NOTE: If ANY legal unordered charge move, by the knights, COULD end in terrain then they won't charge without orders. If the terrain was in the alternate path, but not the straight forward path, or if another BG of knights that has yet to test could block the clear path, then they still would not charge without orders.

[shall]

I dissagree with Si's reply - I say no - as if they fail the roll you could move them first, you could move them straight forward and thus they could end in the terrain. As they could end in terrain they can't make an unordered charge, the fact that you could, or would, choose to move them in a different way is not relevant.

Thus you agree with Si ..

Si

[SirGarnet]

Uncontrolled charges are more limited than those you could make under control. Uncontrolled charges that can not contact all potential targets choose the one nearest to straight ahead. If it can evade, assume it does and add 2 MU to the normal move to see "if their move could end even partly in terrain . . . ." If the target could evade and not be hit, what is the next target it can charge, if any, and would there be a terrain issue with the move +2 MU charge move against that one?

Chargers can wheel at any point in their move (which affects charge direction and thus possible evade direction). Even so, it should be pretty easy to see if there is a charge path against the required target, or alternate target if the first evades, that "could" end in terrain (moving through is OK, just not ending in it).

If there is such a path, they "will not charge without orders" like it or not.

[sagji]

Uncontrolled charges are more limited than those you could make under control. Uncontrolled charges that can not contact all potential targets choose the one nearest to straight ahead. If it can evade, assume it does and add 2 MU to the normal move to see "if their move could end even partly in terrain . . . ." If the target could evade and not be hit, what is the next target it can charge, if any, and would there be a terrain issue with the move +2 MU charge move against that one?

Chargers can wheel at any point in their move (which affects charge direction and thus possible evade direction). Even so, it should be pretty easy to see if there is a charge path against the required target, or alternate target if the first evades, that "could" end in terrain (moving through is OK, just not ending in it).

If there is such a path, they "will not charge without orders" like it or not.

No

You don't add +2 as the VMD you consider ALL possible VMDs - if +2 will get them throught the terrain, but -2 will leave them in the terrain then they don't test.

If their first target's evade could leave them in terrain then they don't retarget - ending in terrain doesn't stop the first target being a valid target.

To sum up they don't test if ANY legal path to ANY legal and valid target and ANY combinitation of circumstances, including any combination of VMDs and CMTs not yet made, COULD result in them ending in terrain then the don't test. EVEN if you don't intend to move the units in that order or to select those targets.

[SirGarnet]

No

You don't add +2 as the VMD you consider ALL possible VMDs - if +2 will get them throught the terrain, but -2 will leave them in the terrain then they don't test.

If their first target's evade could leave them in terrain then they don't retarget - ending in terrain doesn't stop the first target being a valid target.

To sum up they don't test if ANY legal path to ANY legal and valid target and ANY combinitation of circumstances, including any combination of VMDs and CMTs not yet made, COULD result in them ending in terrain then the don't test. EVEN if you don't intend to move the units in that order or to select those targets.

Although you said "no" I think the only thing you were clarifying is that "could" means look at all VMDs?

But when you say "ANY legal path to ANY legal and valid target" you need to change that to "valid target for a BG testing for uncontrolled charge" which is a subset equal to or less than the set of all normally legal and valid targets.

I think "any combination of VMDs and CMTs not yet made" is complex and problematic - do you mean that for each CMT you look at scenarios* where the CMTs can happen in any order and where the actual charges that might occur (and here you can't limit it to uncontrolled charges but need to consider other charges that might be declared) might happen in some order that might result in the BG being examined ending in undesirable terrain (i.e., a player will say I don't test because a chain of events could occur like this . . . )? There must be clever set-ups doing it this way that will allow friendly troops to thus mutually prevent each other from testing.

Vs. looking at the situation as it lies on the table at the time of CMT with possible charge responses of the priority target and other targets and possible paths of the testing BG, which is vastly simpler and quicker.

[shall]

Must say I don't think we have ever had to fall back on gramamtical mathematics in practice Impressive though it is.

Its always seemed very simple. Potential target in range. How can I hit it. If there a version in doing so that would put me in terrain if Heavies , or bring me out if Merdiums., then don't test, else do. Seems pretty easy to see if a +2 VMD gets you stuck in or out of terrain and to see if there is an variant that hits terrain in practice. Maybe I am being too simple and missing something hyper-cunning here?

In terms of intent, the basic intent is that shock troops will charge things when they are confident they are in a good popsition to do so under full and normal steam. From a "real world" point of view, a bunch of knights with a marsh next to them, potentiallly interfering with their normal and preferred power charge over a flat plain, would IMO rather alter their "confidence and exuberance".

The rule effectively gives the benefit of the doubt to the uncontrolled chargers which, for my money, is the better of the two philosophies possible. It encourages more straightfoward methods of dealing with enemy shock troops, rather than relying on a smidgen of boggy ground (which would remind me of the "my rear ankle is wet in boggy terrain and thus I am safe from you nasty k-ni-ggts, ha ha" of old).

Si

[daleivan]

Must say I don't think we have ever had to fall back on gramamtical mathematics in practice Impressive though it is.

Its always seemed very simple. Potential target in range. How can I hit it. If there a version in doing so that would put me in terrain if Heavies , or bring me out if Merdiums., then don't test, else do. Seems pretty easy to see if a +2 VMD gets you stuck in or out of terrain and to see if there is an variant that hits terrain in practice. Maybe I am being too simple and missing something hyper-cunning here?

In terms of intent, the basic intent is that shock troops will charge things when they are confident they are in a good popsition to do so under full and normal steam. From a "real world" point of view, a bunch of knights with a marsh next to them, potentiallly interfering with their normal and preferred power charge over a flat plain, would IMO rather alter their "confidence and exuberance".

The rule effectively gives the benefit of the doubt to the uncontrolled chargers which, for my money, is the better of the two philosophies possible. It encourages more straightfoward methods of dealing with enemy shock troops, rather than relying on a smidgen of boggy ground (which would remind me of the "my rear ankle is wet in boggy terrain and thus I am safe from you nasty k-ni-ggts, ha ha" of old).

Si

Simon,

Thanks for taking the time to explain the reasoning behind this. I like your points--keeping it simple is my preference and avoids 'cheese moves.'

Thanks!

Dale

[sagji]

No

You don't add +2 as the VMD you consider ALL possible VMDs - if +2 will get them throught the terrain, but -2 will leave them in the terrain then they don't test.

If their first target's evade could leave them in terrain then they don't retarget - ending in terrain doesn't stop the first target being a valid target.

To sum up they don't test if ANY legal path to ANY legal and valid target and ANY combinitation of circumstances, including any combination of VMDs and CMTs not yet made, COULD result in them ending in terrain then the don't test. EVEN if you don't intend to move the units in that order or to select those targets.

Although you said "no" I think the only thing you were clarifying is that "could" means look at all VMDs?

No - you not only have to consider all possible VMD combinations, but all possibalities - such as BGs intercepting, including intercepting other charges that may be the result of CMTs not yet made to not charge.
And also you implied that if the charge would not contact evaders you retarget the charge, this is not the case. You declare the direction of charge before determining VMDs and you can only change it to go after the evaders, there is no retargeting other than BGs revealed by evades also become targets.

But when you say "ANY legal path to ANY legal and valid target" you need to change that to "valid target for a BG testing for uncontrolled charge" which is a subset equal to or less than the set of all normally legal and valid targets.

I assumed it was obvious in context that "valid target" ment valid target for a BG making an unordered charge.

I think "any combination of VMDs and CMTs not yet made" is complex and problematic - do you mean that for each CMT you look at scenarios* where the CMTs can happen in any order and where the actual charges that might occur (and here you can't limit it to uncontrolled charges but need to consider other charges that might be declared) might happen in some order that might result in the BG being examined ending in undesirable terrain (i.e., a player will say I don't test because a chain of events could occur like this . . . )?

You must declare all charges before making any CMTs for charging without orders and refusing to charge, so you never need to consider charges yet to be declared.

There must be clever set-ups doing it this way that will allow friendly troops to thus mutually prevent each other from testing.

Vs. looking at the situation as it lies on the table at the time of CMT with possible charge responses of the priority target and other targets and possible paths of the testing BG, which is vastly simpler and quicker.

But the rule doesn't say "could end in terrain if executed now" it says could "end in terrain", thus you have to consider all possible choices, however bad, by the players and all possible rolls.

Example BGs A and B have not declared a charge and are shock troups.
If B charges without orders and enemy BG C intercepts a full move and if A rolls a VMD of 6 it will hit C, and if A's target evades and rolls a 2 and this would result in A stepping forward into terrain to hit it.
If B has not tested to charge A doesn't need to, once B has passed its CMT you now need to roll for A as it now can't enter the terrain.