LF Charging Troops in Mixed Terrain

[shall]

Bases must step forward.

The only way, IMO, to do it using a wheel is like this:

SEE EARLIER DIAG

The LF must have room to wheel. They are doing a legal charge because no less bases than posssible contact, there is no step forward, all enemy are in terrain.

We may be off on the wrong footing with this one .. and excuse Terry and I a bit of a dialogue here. I fear you may have drifted into a DBM type interpretation base by base. The words could be clearer and can be interpreted different ways but for my way of playing it and ruling it....

"A battlegroup entirely of light foot cannot charge or intercept unbroken non-skirmishers in open terrain."

To me it is as follows:

PHILOSOPHICAL VIEW : The LF are only happy doing this if they stay in terrain while doing so - they don't like to come out.

WORDING VIEW : The "open terrain" refers to the LF as the subject rather than to the target objects (in the same way that lance in open terrain counts + if the lancer is in the open, not the object charged). So the LF must not be in open terrain when doing this - which means if they start in the open they can't, and if they start in cover and would go into the open they can't, but if they start in cover and stay in cover they can.

Mucho simpler IMHO and mucho more realistic too perhaps. Thoughts?

We may need to FAQ ... heck we may ned to agree amongts ourselves!

Si

[lawrenceg]

We may be off on the wrong footing with this one .. and excuse Terry and I a bit of a dialogue here. I fear you may have drifted into a DBM type interpretation base by base. The words could be clearer and can be interpreted different ways but for my way of playing it and ruling it....

"A battlegroup entirely of light foot cannot charge or intercept unbroken non-skirmishers in open terrain."

To me it is as follows:

PHILOSOPHICAL VIEW : The LF are only happy doing this if they stay in terrain while doing so - they don't like to come out.

WORDING VIEW : The "open terrain" refers to the LF as the subject rather than to the target objects (in the same way that lance in open terrain counts + if the lancer is in the open, not the object charged). So the LF must not be in open terrain when doing this - which means if they start in the open they can't, and if they start in cover and would go into the open they can't, but if they start in cover and stay in cover they can.

Mucho simpler IMHO and mucho more realistic too perhaps. Thoughts?

We may need to FAQ ... heck we may ned to agree amongts ourselves!

Si

The positioning of the phrase "in open terrain" means that it refers to the target objects. While Simon's interpretation may be realistic, it is not consistent with the wording of the rules.

IMO the only ambiguity is whether the "in open terrain" applies to the target BG as a whole (in which case how much of it?) or only to the bases that would actually be contacted. IMO target bases is the simpler interpretation.

Even in terrain, charging non-skirmishers with LF is normally suicide unless the target is fragmented and with no POA, so I can't imagine the situation arises very often.

[BrianC]

After reading your reply Si, your position makes sense to me ( I hope). I was initially thinking why can't LF charge non LF when say 6 of the 8 bases are in non open terrain. Given the right angle of charge you simply don't step forward the file in open terrain.

So if you could charge and not step forward the file in open terrain. But here comes the sticky point I think, you would then have to conform in your maneuver phase which would leave the open terrain file fighting non skirmisher in the open. Which I think the rules are trying to not allow.

So the LF can only charge the non skirmisher BG if the skirmishers stay in the bad terrain. Because of the conform issue.

Talking about the wheel as above. I take it then that skirmishers who have 6 bases in bad terrain and 2 ( 1 file) in open terrain can only charge if they can wheel enough to get all their bases in the bad terrain. In this particular case the rule stating that you cannot wheel if it would mean less bases being impacted is not in play here because you could not impact the non skirmisher in the open anyway.

And of course this situation would not occur often but I am 100% sure it will happen. More than likely as part of a ganging up on a heavier BG or one that is fragmented. Still its worth going through IMO as it helps to better understand the spirit of the rules.

Still a very interesting exchange of ideas.

Brian

Bases must step forward.

The only way, IMO, to do it using a wheel is like this:

SEE EARLIER DIAG

The LF must have room to wheel. They are doing a legal charge because no less bases than posssible contact, there is no step forward, all enemy are in terrain.

We may be off on the wrong footing with this one .. and excuse Terry and I a bit of a dialogue here. I fear you may have drifted into a DBM type interpretation base by base. The words could be clearer and can be interpreted different ways but for my way of playing it and ruling it....

"A battlegroup entirely of light foot cannot charge or intercept unbroken non-skirmishers in open terrain."

To me it is as follows:

PHILOSOPHICAL VIEW : The LF are only happy doing this if they stay in terrain while doing so - they don't like to come out.

WORDING VIEW : The "open terrain" refers to the LF as the subject rather than to the target objects (in the same way that lance in open terrain counts + if the lancer is in the open, not the object charged). So the LF must not be in open terrain when doing this - which means if they start in the open they can't, and if they start in cover and would go into the open they can't, but if they start in cover and stay in cover they can.

Mucho simpler IMHO and mucho more realistic too perhaps. Thoughts?

We may need to FAQ ... heck we may ned to agree amongts ourselves!

Si

[shall]

The positioning of the phrase "in open terrain" means that it refers to the target objects.

Alas grammatically I think its entirely neutral although you may read it more referring to what is immediately before it can equally apply to the whole phrase before.

Si

[lawrenceg]

The positioning of the phrase "in open terrain" means that it refers to the target objects.

Alas grammatically I think its entirely neutral although you may read it more referring to what is immediately before it can equally apply to the whole phrase before.

Si

If it applied to the whole phrase it would be better written:

"In open terrain a battlegroup entirely of light foot cannot charge or intercept unbroken non-skirmishers ."

Its meaning for practical purposes in the game would not be at all clear in that case.

I think the authors need to agree amongst themselves a list of situations in which a charge is allowed or forbidden and report back.

[terrys]

The positioning of the phrase "in open terrain" means that it refers to the target objects.

I entirely agree with Lawrence on this. It would not make sense for skirmishers to attack troops who are not disordered by terrain.

Simons position leaves skirmishers able to charge non-skirmishers who are standing in the open, but close to the terrain such that the skirmishers still have their bases in that terrain (the back-foot syndrome).
You could also get skirmishers 'lining up' with troops outside of the terrain as well.

The whole point of allowing the skirmishers to charge only in terrain is that ALL of the bases contacted should be affected by the terrain, and thus be at a disadvantage (in theory).

[BrianC]

So can I assume that my summary above is correct?

Thanks

Brian

The positioning of the phrase "in open terrain" means that it refers to the target objects.

I entirely agree with Lawrence on this. It would not make sense for skirmishers to attack troops who are not disordered by terrain.

Simons position leaves skirmishers able to charge non-skirmishers who are standing in the open, but close to the terrain such that the skirmishers still have their bases in that terrain (the back-foot syndrome).
You could also get skirmishers 'lining up' with troops outside of the terrain as well.

The whole point of allowing the skirmishers to charge only in terrain is that ALL of the bases contacted should be affected by the terrain, and thus be at a disadvantage (in theory).

[rogerg]

If you are going to clarify this one, please consider the 'medium foot fighting heavy foot in open terrain' from the cohesion test as well. I think that is the phrase, I do not have the rules to hand. We have been playing that the HF are the ones in the open.

[lawrenceg]

If you are going to clarify this one, please consider the 'medium foot fighting heavy foot in open terrain' from the cohesion test as well. I think that is the phrase, I do not have the rules to hand. We have been playing that the HF are the ones in the open.

See the Glossary, p135, "Open Terrain"

For cohesion test modifiers, only the base causing the modifier must be in open terrain. You have been playing it correctly.

[Redpossum]

If you are going to clarify this one, please consider the 'medium foot fighting heavy foot in open terrain' from the cohesion test as well. I think that is the phrase, I do not have the rules to hand. We have been playing that the HF are the ones in the open.

See the Glossary, p135, "Open Terrain"

For cohesion test modifiers, only the base causing the modifier must be in open terrain. You have been playing it correctly.

Excellent catch, Lawrence.

So how then does that apply to the original issue, that of LF charging non-skirmishers in clear? Which is causing the modifier, the LF or the non-skirmishers?

[rogerg]

Ah, Laurence is on the ball as usual. However, it's still not completely clear. Is it the medium foot doing the fighting, or the heavy foot they are fighting, that causes the modifier? Perhaps my English is not as good as it should be. Is skirmishing "moves shoots and leaves"?

[philqw78]

No it's moves, shoots and evades

[lawrenceg]

Ah, Laurence is on the ball as usual. However, it's still not completely clear. Is it the medium foot doing the fighting, or the heavy foot they are fighting, that causes the modifier? Perhaps my English is not as good as it should be. Is skirmishing "moves shoots and leaves"?

The MF is making the cohesion test. The HF is causing a modifier.

So how then does that apply to the original issue, that of LF charging non-skirmishers in clear? Which is causing the modifier, the LF or the non-skirmishers?

Unfortunately this is not a modifier to a cohesion test nor is it a POA so the glossary does not help us here.

The sense of it works best if it is the non-skirmishers that are in the open terrain.