Direction of charge.

[Primarch]

Ok, had an interesting game last night where a rules question arose that wasnt concluded.


The FAQ says that you only really have to declare a charge direction if there are possible intercept charges. In the game in question, I did not ask for the direction of the charger, so as not to alert him to my intercept. Only realizing later that the sequence had gone all wrong. According to the FAQ, it is my responsibility to point out a possible intercept before the opponent declares his charge direction.

This only matters for non-flank/rear intercept charges, as those cancel the charges, at least as far as I can see.


I know this may not have been designed as a "tournament" game, but it is that for a lot of us, in addition to a hobby. That being the case, is there any reason at all not to just declare direction of charge at all times when declaring? I dont feel I should have to point out a possible intercept so my opponent can avoid it with his charge move, just so I am following the rules. By not pointing it out, I am breaking the rules technically.

That being said, why not just always declare direction of charge when you declare a charge? Putting the responsibility on the chargee to correct tactical mistakes is a horrible position to put people in.


Any help here is appreciated.



Clay

[dave_r]

I think that declaring the direction of charge really only matters if:

- all your chargees evade
- you want to be clever and hit two targets

Remember - the target of a charge cannot then intercept therefore the direction of charge really has to be before intercepts are declared.

It is fairly normal practice where I come from if it is getting tricky to declare your direction of charge.

[BrianC]

We normally declare the direction of charge unless its a straightforward charge where the defenders cannot evade or there are other troops who may want to intercept. Also its good to give the direction if you are trying to hit troops in a certain direction and need the skirmishers to get out of the way so the real battle can start . I really don't think you lose anything by declaring a charge, targets then direction, just makes it clear what you are doing and who is doing it where.

When I play against a new player I will point out the opportunity for interception charges when supporting other BGs. So that once we game more they can see what BGs of mine can intercept and they can plan their approach to launch a charge accordingly. Adds an interesting layer to the game.

Brian

[Primarch]

No pretty paint type pics, but basically;


There were 2 BGs of LH facing off, slightly offset. I had Cav 3.9 inches right in line with my LH, wich put a small amount of his LH front edge directly in front of my Cav base. The charge was declared by his LH onto my LH. At that point, there was nothing to mark his charge direction, and by rules, there shouldnt be, unless noted that there is a possible intercept.

If this is missed, then it is the responsiblity of the guy with the possible intercept to point it out to his opponent so they can change the direction of their charge to avoid the intercept.

There are times when it matters. I only want to play by the rules, but the new FAQ just muddies the waters here. Again I see no reason not to declare direction of charge when you declare charge.

It cleans up a lot of the mess, and doesnt leave it up to your opponent to point out your mistakes to his detriment. In friendlies it is one thing, but if it comes up in tournaments??


Just some thoughts, and thanks for the replies.


Clay

[MkV]

I also do not understand the reasoning behind not declaring the direction of the charge when the charge is declared.

[Primarch]

Can some of the more experienced, or maybe the game designers chime in here on the thought process?



Clay

[dave_r]

Remember you can only wheel if this means that the same or more amount of bases can be hit - you can't simply choose to charge along a path to miss an intercept.

Again you can only intercept if your opponents pass through a zone extending 4" from your front line and you aren't the target of a charge.

It isn't as easy as it sounds.

[BrianC]

Remember you can only wheel if this means that the same or more amount of bases can be hit - you can't simply choose to charge along a path to miss an intercept.

Again you can only intercept if your opponents pass through a zone extending 4" from your front line and you aren't the target of a charge.

It isn't as easy as it sounds.

Isn't it actually 4MU for mounted and 2MU for foot type troops? But I assume you were talking about mounted.

Brian

[Primarch]

Ok, I know I dont have pictures, and maybe I am not being clear enough. In the instance I was part of, he could turn and charge at a slight angle, so his 2 bases still touched my 2 LH bases, but since the 2nd base was stepping forward at an off angle, it did not touch my cav base.

I will go work on some paint type pics to show you what I mean. I can assure you, the move was legal, and repeatable, I want the focus on the rule for declaring a charge direction.



Clay

[hazelbark]

I also do not understand the reasoning behind not declaring the direction of the charge when the charge is declared.

You need to declare who is your target. That pretty much dictates the "direction" because you cannot charge to have fewer bases get into contact.

[jre]

I am not a designer, but your proposal favors the defender over the charger, and makes it easier to charge with troops that require a CMT. In your example, if the enemy LH can wheel to avoid the Cv while contacting the same number of bases, it can do so, so your ingenious trap was not so foolproof.

As you are not forced to declare a direction, all enemy BGs in range that can be legally charged and are capable of evading have to decide if they will do so or not, even if they are in opposite directions. And they cannot intercept, as they are too busy watching. Once again that shows an effort to keep the player from controlling everything. The BGs only know the enemy is charging, not who is the target, when they have to decide whether they run or they stay. As well, even if you know that you will wheel to avoid the HF, the archers have to make a CMT if there is a non-skirmisher among the "legal" targets. Considering the range of LH, it is also a limitation on LH charges.

Your best friend when setting up an interception charge is the rule on "no wheeling if that reduces the number of bases hit". But remember that intercepting does not guarantee contact, except in the flank or rear.

Initiative is in the hands of the charger, unless someone runs away. In most cases there is only a "legal" charge path, but when there are more, it is the charger who chooses after they know the score, not before.

At least, that is how we play when we remember and follow the detailed sequence of play, so we usually agree on legal charges before deciding what to do and what dice to roll.

José

[IanB3406]

You need to declare who is your target. That pretty much dictates the "direction" because you cannot charge to have fewer bases get into contact.
------

The point is if you only have to delcare on your target then it is not uncommon to be able to make one wheel to avoid counter chargers and still have the same number of bases in contact....that is the issue here.

[jre]

It says "A battle group can declare charges on as many enemy battle groups as can be "legally" contacted within this move distance."

The unclear "path of the charge" appears later. However the only real requirement is no wheeling if you contact less bases.

I may well be wrong, but I follow the sequence of play...

José

[SirGarnet]

Over the past months there have been several long threads clarifying the nuances of the charge process, including a bunch of issues not discussed above. The point that evaders have to decide to evade before they know the direction of charge is an important one, since the only direction you know you can evade in is to your rear, and a shrewd charge direction could force a very uncomfortable evade.

Another important and not simple question is what charge direction means and how you relate the charge direction to actual movement.

A definitive FAQ would be useful. Those past threads included a few detailed walkthroughs by the team, but each incomplete because they were addressing just some aspects. It will take some work to parse them and weave the concepts together into a clear and complete articulation of the sequence of play.

The game would be a lot simpler if you declared charge direction at the start of the move and could only wheel at the start of the charge to that charge direction (thinking this is in fact what the rules say belongs in the common mistakes thread). However, that straitjacket would create oddities of its own.

[Primarch]

I am not a designer, but your proposal favors the defender over the charger, and makes it easier to charge with troops that require a CMT. In your example, if the enemy LH can wheel to avoid the Cv while contacting the same number of bases, it can do so, so your ingenious trap was not so foolproof.

I think maybe we arent speaking the same language. I set no trap, and I never said anything about it being foolproof. What I did say, is when the rules stipulate that you ONLY HAVE TO DECLARE A CHARGE PATH WHEN THERE IS A POTENTIAL INTERCEPT, they leave it on the defender to correct mistakes being made by the charger.

I still see no reason, nor have you mentioned one where declaring your charge direction would not be an easier, cleaner method. I can assure you, I charge at times in games as well, so this will affect me from both sides, so I am not looking at it from one side or the other, just trying to get clarity.


Oh, as far as I know, the thing about wheeling to make contact so long as you contact same bases, is directly related to your charge direction. If I declare that I am charging a target directly ahead of me, but slightly offset, then when the defender declares he is intercepting, and moves his models around the intercept, you are breaking the "sequence of play" rules you mention above. He couldnt wheel to avoid my intercept, as my intercept wouldnt have been legal if it couldnt have made contact, or interrupted his path. So I wouldnt have moved my intercepting unit.

In essence, we arent playing the same game, if you allow your players to decide after the intercept movement that they want to change the direction of their charge so as not to get intercepted. Thats specifically why the FAQ quote works the way it does. I just think it would be a more cut and dried rule if you just declared the charge direction at the time of charge declaration.


Clay

[MkV]

they leave it on the defender to correct mistakes being made by the charger.

I have seen many occasions where the charge direction has changed when the defender declares an intercept. I have been thanked during a game for declaring an intercept before the charger "officially" declared his direction so he just changed the direction of the charge to avoid the intercept.

In the game that Clay is referring to (which I was watching) evaders, interceptors and a couple of chargers had moved when the LH unit in question wheeled to avoid a cavalry unit that had intercepted into it's charge path.

[philqw78]

You must remember thet a charge path must contact at least as many bases as it would if going straight ahead to allow the charge path to change. If you watch that they don't change too often.

[gozerius]

It seems to me that a charge direction/path must be declared before any evades or interceptions can be executed. My reasons are as follows.
An interceptor must cross the path of the charger to make a valid interception.
A BG wishing to evade must know the direction of charge prior to determining the direction it will evade.
Interceptions occur before evades. Therefore the charge path must be established before evades and interceptions.
The only option I see for changing the charge path is if all target BGs evade out of the way of the original charge path.

It does not seem reasonable that EVERY BG that falls within range within a 180 degree arc of the charging BG is the target of the charge.
It does seem reasonable that while any within that arc can be a potential target, the chargers must commit to a path that defines which BGs within that arc are the intended targets. It is only then that interceptions and evades are possible. To suggest otherwise would mean that every concievable charge path within a 180 degree arc of the charger is valid for interceptions and evasions.

[KingHassan]

Clay has done a good job presenting this thread.

I like the idea of always indicating direction when declaring a charge.
Maybe the designers had a reason not to require it but I haven't been able to think of one.

In the above situation there had only been one previous charge and two evades.
Both charges were along measuring sticks that had been placed after evade and receiving responses were declared and before VMDs were rolled. As described in the rule book.
Mark who was watching had asked if the charge markers indicated charge direction and I stated that they did not and measuring sticks did.

The interceptors were not directly in line with the target BG but close and about 3 3/4" back.
My 2x2 LH moved forward then wheeled enough to contact his 2x2 LH stands with front corners.
It was not clear that the interceptors would not contact the chargers until after we had both moved which we commented on and he said he mistakenly thought I would hit his Cav due to having to step forward.

Then arguing started, a copy of the FAQ was found and Clay pointed out the exception requiring charge direction to be declared before responses when potential interceptors are around.

My point and others' was that even if the FAQ exception was pointed out by a player or Ref in the correct sequence of play the chargers would legally avoid the interceptors.


JM

[jre]

Clearly we are playing differently. I do not see anywhere in the rules that the enemy charge must contact the intercept charge. The rules say "This may partly or wholly contact the intercepting battle group, and may or may not contact the original target of the charge at all." I am not a native English speaker, but I find the use of may significant. I also do not see in the rules a requirement to provide a direction before evasion is resolved. I see in the rules the possibility to wheel freely as long as some requirements are met (number of contacts, and never more than 90º). That is what makes taking a flank position so powerful, because you preempt the charge, so there is no maneuvering then.

I envision FoG as mostly a maneuver game, and that applies even to the impact phase, a deadly ballet. As Phil says, there is a limit as you must fulfill a serious limitation, so it is not all BGs within 180º, even with LH, who have their own restrictions. What you must say is what BGs are your targets, but not how you reach them. A four wide block of HF will be clear where it is going, and they will not be wheeling around interceptors. But mounted, especially mounted against foot, have a maneuver advantage in the impact phase.

It is even likely, as indicated by the undefined use of "path", that it was the authors' intention to get a declaration of intent, but that is not what the rules say as I read them.

A BG does not know if that cavalry trotting goes against them, or the fellows just besides them. They see them coming, and react long before they reach them. As well, the mounted see the fellows in shiny armour moving and the levies just besides them, and pick and choose who they are charging, depending on where the standard bearer is going, and who moves faster.

Having BGs within interception distance lets you do a reaction move as well, so even if the enemy avoids you, it may be enough to be lined with the attacked group so you overlap the enemy when they conform.

It is all in the assumptions of what the authors mean, and 90% of the time it will not change anything. It is just that your interpretation favors the defender (any defender) and slower armies.

José