To Charge ??

[lawrenceg]

I can't find anything in the rules that prevents you from charging bases in melee.

You are not allowed to declare a charge on them, but if events after the end of charge declaration result in those bases becoming a target, then I think it is a legal charge.

[shall]

I can't find anything in the rules that prevents you from charging bases in melee.

You are not allowed to declare a charge on them, but if events after the end of charge declaration result in those bases becoming a target, then I think it is a legal charge.

Interesting Lawrence. Such an interp would then result in a frontal 2 dice each impact phase and them comforming in the melee phase to become an overlap. Not sure that is desirable. The reason we took the charge on these out was to take away such 2 dice double hits. But I must admit not an unreasonable variamnt based on current wording.

Any other thoughts?

Si

[philqw78]

I have played it like this in a game, but during a BG charged by 2 BG. First charger contacts front base, second charger contacted rear base of 2 deep formation (it charged from an angle off to the side). Both impacted and chargers roll 2 dice per base in contact, in manouver phase line up so second charger is just an overlap. Both of the chargers had to charge or test not to being lancers in reach.

[shall]

Yes but that is perfectly legit as both are charging and unengaged unit. Its a totally different situation as far as I can tell.

Si

[Greuthungi]

I have played it the same way. Declare the charge, LH evade, Impact then conform. FoG normally make it easier to make contact, not harder, so it is within the spirit of the rules.

A smart defender would not let anything like it happen. The defending player has a choice of evading, and probably should either have lined up the LH with the supported troops, or have stayed away.

[shall]

Did you play it with or without an Impact phase?

Si

[kal5056]

I would perfer to keep the conversation focused on FOG and not on Knight Do Do.
Gino
SMAC

[stevoid]

The 'spirit of the rules' is subjective. In the instance discussed, some would argue it is reasonable for the Kn charge to continue into the LF. Others might argue, reasonably, that the knights would not bother with the LF or would need to rally from their charge before diving into the fresh melee - a next bound move to overlap contact. What's more, the rule must deal with other troops. Drilled foot who are simply pushing back skirmishers might reasonably not get the extreme end of their line involved in a minor fight.

Many years of wargaming have shown us that what appear to be minor rule changes usually lead to big changes in play and a more complex game. Those who remember the 'DBM elbow' will understand this all too well. FoG has done very well in making a lot of rules clear cut and not opening up loop holes.

In the example being discussed, the interpretation of 'cannot declare a charge on' meaning 'cannot contact in the charge' keeps the situation clear. Add an exception, and players will make the exception happen. Novices who don't know how to exploit the exception will be beaten by it and feel aggrieved and quit FoG. The rest of us will have to learn one more loop hole in order to stay competitive. Been there, done that, with several previous rule sets. I am happy to accept that some rules occaionally give situations which look a bit odd. After two years of enjoying FoG, beta and live, I can still remember pre-FoG and I don't want to go back there.

A very perceptive post. Depending on your point of view you can argue for or against allowing the contact. Myself, I'd like to see the charge declaration restriction cover undeclared impacts as well, i.e. the can't contact. My own reasoning is that the current restriction covers the fact that the troops engaged in melee might not be in neat base-defined blocks (depending on period) and actually intermingled etc making it harc for another unit to join the fray effectively.

Cheers,

Steve

[petedalby]

Hi Si, as willb noted:

The exact wording is on page 53 under item 2. Page 53 right column, page 55 charging a flank or rear, and page 68 right column would also apply. As it is worded the knights cannot attempt to contact the light foot whether the light horse evade or not. The only legal target of the charge is the light horse. The knights can wheel to pursue the light horse and if the vmd die rolls and initial separation are such there would be the possibility of contacting the rear of the light horse

So whenever skirmishers are fighting as an overlap, they can be charged, but the chargers must attempt to contact the skirmishers.

This has been discussed before because it frustrating that you can't chase off the skirmishers, and join the melee as an overlap.

Pete

[madcam2us]

Can wheel and MUST wheel are key....

IF the rules authors decide to change the errata to include this then so be it...

However, none of the pages that have been cited are germaine to the conversation...

Pg 53 item 2 does not apply because the charge wasn't declared vs the BG in frontal melee... It was/would be declared vs the overlaping LH. And achieving same amount of bases in contact is a non-starter.

Pg 55 is not germaine for the same reason the above is not. the charge wasn't declared vs the BG already in contact.

Pg 68 does NOT force the pursuing BG to wheel to follow... it reads...

"The chargers now move their charge move, adjusting the move distance by a VMD roll if all their charge targets evaded. If all target BGs evade out of the original path of the charge, the chargers *can* wheel in an attempt to chatch them..."

So we are full circle to the original question...

My feeling is under other circumstances one's charge is not nulled if it ends contacting a different BG then the original charge target, so why should this one be?

Madcam.

[madcam2us]

Furthermore...

Pg 52 gives us the definition of "declaration of charges"

"...To be allowed to declare a charge, there must be *a* visible enemy base that can be "legally" contacted by the chargeing BG within its normal move distance through the terrain to be crossed..."

For those that are stating IF the path of the charge would include a BG that CAN'T be hit due to being involved in a frontal melee negates a BG from charging may not hold water with the above...

But keep reading...

"... A BG can declare charges on as many enemy BGs as can be "legally" contacted within this move distance....Any enemy BG in te path of a charge counts as being charged if it can be legally contacted, even if it was not one of the orginally declared targets of the charge..."

Does the above give more credance to not allowing the move...

By declaring a charge does one have to declare the target of the charge?

If so, then perhaps the wording about wheeling to follow those that should evade be changed to *must* wheel to follow if moving directly ahead would contact an enemy other than "legally"

Madcam.

[BillMc]

Furthermore...

But keep reading...

"... A BG can declare charges on as many enemy BGs as can be "legally" contacted within this move distance....Any enemy BG in te path of a charge counts as being charged if it can be legally contacted, even if it was not one of the orginally declared targets of the charge..."

Does the above give more credance to not allowing the move...

By declaring a charge does one have to declare the target of the charge?

If so, then perhaps the wording about wheeling to follow those that should evade be changed to *must* wheel to follow if moving directly ahead would contact an enemy other than "legally"

Madcam.

My thoughts in following the FOG rule logic is on the side of your "But Keep Reading" section. The key is in the term "legally contacted" , the label "chargers/charging" and the definition of "legal contact."

I believe these preclude the ability to wheel into the other unit. The terms are used throughout the referenced sections and are the lynch-pins of the issue.

The "charging" unit is not making "legal contact" (which is required - "Any enemy battle group in the path of a charge counts as being charged if it can be "legally contacted, even if it was not the originally declared targets of the charge" - p.52) therefore could not charge into the side of the unit - either as an initial declaration or as a "charge" when pursuing broken or evaders - since the rules still refer to them as "chargers." In this case it must pursue in the direction of the evaders.

Of course this also means that I think that there needs to be a bit more clarity around charge targets/direction and pursuit/evade. Though this has been discussed at nosium earlier - and I think somewhat resolved - I still think a bit more clarity here would help.

I ran into some discussions around chargers, directions and evaders as well, and although it was resolved, it really indicated to me that the issue could be a bit more clear.

thanks

[willb]

Furthermore...

But keep reading...

"... A BG can declare charges on as many enemy BGs as can be "legally" contacted within this move distance....Any enemy BG in te path of a charge counts as being charged if it can be legally contacted, even if it was not one of the orginally declared targets of the charge..."

Does the above give more credance to not allowing the move...

By declaring a charge does one have to declare the target of the charge?

If so, then perhaps the wording about wheeling to follow those that should evade be changed to *must* wheel to follow if moving directly ahead would contact an enemy other than "legally"

Madcam.

My thoughts in following the FOG rule logic is on the side of your "But Keep Reading" section. The key is in the term "legally contacted" , the label "chargers/charging" and the definition of "legal contact."

I believe these preclude the ability to wheel into the other unit. The terms are used throughout the referenced sections and are the lynch-pins of the issue.

The "charging" unit is not making "legal contact" (which is required - "Any enemy battle group in the path of a charge counts as being charged if it can be "legally contacted, even if it was not the originally declared targets of the charge" - p.52) therefore could not charge into the side of the unit - either as an initial declaration or as a "charge" when pursuing broken or evaders - since the rules still refer to them as "chargers." In this case it must pursue in the direction of the evaders.

Of course this also means that I think that there needs to be a bit more clarity around charge targets/direction and pursuit/evade. Though this has been discussed at nosium earlier - and I think somewhat resolved - I still think a bit more clarity here would help.

I ran into some discussions around chargers, directions and evaders as well, and although it was resolved, it really indicated to me that the issue could be a bit more clear.

thanks

This is what my post was about. The contacting the LF in the flank would not be a legal contact.

[gozerius]

There is a theoretical possibility for the LF to be legally contacted because it is 3 ranks deep. If the knights have enough separation from the flank of the BGs in melee, it could wheel left sufficiently so that it would hit the LH at an angle allowing both front rank bases to hit the LH. If the LH evade the Kn could continue along it's charge path, contacting the 3rd rank of the LF as part of it's normal charge, or as a result of rolling high on the VMD. This is not possible if they could only contact the LH by charging straight ahead, since they cannot alter their charge path once declared, except to pursue evaders. This is an important point because it means that a charging BG cannot pick a new charge path just because their original targets evaded, but are limited to the original charge path, or one that attempts to contact the evading target.

[shall]

This is what my post was about. The contacting the LF in the flank would not be a legal contact.

Indeed but still doesn't say what happens if theya re pointing at them? Do they stop? Not really covered.

But this is a way to clarify that they cannot contact them in the charge.

Must say in that case I am not altogther sure where they go ...

[sagji]

The charge can be declared - if the LH don't evade then the LF won't be contacte so they aren't a target of the charge when it is declared.
The chargers can choose to persue the evadeing LH.
If they don't then they continue forward. The LF aren't a legal contact, therefore aren't a target of the charge. The chargers continue untill something stops their move - in this case it is the LF so the charger's move ends when it contacts them - just as it would if it contacted slowing terrain they didn't have the move to enter, or friends it could not contract to avoid.

As it isn't legal contact there is no impact phase combat, and the chargers thus aren't in close combat - so won't conform in the manuever phase.

[willb]

I am going to have to reverse myself on this a bit. On page 57 right column it states that a charge that does not qualify as a flank attack may contact non-engaged stands in the flank, but the contact is treated as a frontal charge and that the chargers must align with the front of the target during the manoeuvre phase if possible. The third rank of the foot is not engaged and could be contacted, but the problem that I see with the specific incident is that the chargers are wheeling to do this after their target evades instead of going after the light horse. The rules state that you can wheel to engage more stands and also to pursue the evaders, but not that you can wheel to not pursue the evaders and engage a different target.

[sagji]

The only options to wheel during a charge are
a) The wheel that determines the path of the charge - this must be completed before reaching the initial position of the charge's targets and can't be done if it would result in less contact.
b) A wheel to persue targets that evade.

Thus once all your targets evade then your only options are
a) Continue along the declared path of the charge untill you have moved your charge distance including VMD or have contacted something that blocks further movement.
b) Wheel to persue the evaders.

[rogerg]

There is another option. Some troops halt short of targets they cannot legally charge. All we need is for this to include cannot legally declare a charge on.

[shall]

Yes this latter was mulling around in my mind too Roger.

On the others they solve most things but I did have to rule on one where the evaders wheeled behind the other troops, so even a wheel towards the evaders would have led to contact on a side edge.

Si