To Charge ??

madcam2us · Post by **madcam2us** » Tue Jan 27, 2009 11:07 pm

lets hope you three can put something in writing prior to the next event....

Little Wars is on Feb 7th....

Nothing like a deadline to spur debate!

Madcam.

sagji · Post by **sagji** » Fri Jan 30, 2009 12:32 pm

rogerg wrote: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.

Except it requires a rules change as currently it only applies to skirmishers - so is not something that should be sneaked through in a "FAQ"

rogerg · Post by **rogerg** » Fri Jan 30, 2009 1:39 pm

It is not strictly a change, more an interpretation. The intention of the rule appears to be that some bases are not legal targets of a charge declaration. Some of us read this as meaning that the chargers are not allowed to contact them in the charge.

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Fri Jan 30, 2009 3:09 pm

Agree with Roger - I think the rules just about cover it in the way Roger says.

sagji · Post by **sagji** » Sun Feb 01, 2009 11:16 pm

rogerg wrote:It is not strictly a change, more an interpretation. The intention of the rule appears to be that some bases are not legal targets of a charge declaration. Some of us read this as meaning that the chargers are not allowed to contact them in the charge.

I don't see how you can consider a rule that is explicitly about skirmishers that haven't taken a CMT to charge can apply no non-skirmishers in other circumstances - does it apply if the chargers are MF Bow that have passed a CMT to charge.

The rules say that the LF aren't a "legal" charge target, and that there isn't "legal" charge contact. The fact that it uses "legal" and "legal" charge contact - instead of legal, and legal contact, this means there is no restriction in contact, but that it isn't counted as contact for the purposes of initiating impact combat.

rogerg · Post by **rogerg** » Mon Feb 02, 2009 2:12 pm

Not 'legal charge contact' suggests to me that they cannot be contacted by troops making a charge move. They may be contactable in other ways during the manouvre phase, but if the move is a charge, they cannot be contacted.

The intention of the rule seems to be quite clear that some bases, in this case the first two engaged ranks, cannot be contacted by charging troops. If we have interpretations added that say 'unless uncovered by evaders' or something similar, I would say that would be a change of the rules. What's more, there will be people working out how to get angled chages in to exploit the situation.

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Mon Feb 02, 2009 2:14 pm

Again I agree with Roger - I think the intent of the rules is clear and think the wording pretty much covers it.

It does lead to the odd situation, if I read the rules correctly, where bases can become the target of a charge but cannot be contacted

However, this is easily dealt with as Roger has mentioned.

sagji · Post by **sagji** » Mon Feb 02, 2009 11:09 pm

rogerg wrote:Not 'legal charge contact' suggests to me that they cannot be contacted by troops making a charge move. They may be contactable in other ways during the manouvre phase, but if the move is a charge, they cannot be contacted.

The intention of the rule seems to be quite clear that some bases, in this case the first two engaged ranks, cannot be contacted by charging troops. If we have interpretations added that say 'unless uncovered by evaders' or something similar, I would say that would be a change of the rules. What's more, there will be people working out how to get angled chages in to exploit the situation.

Except the rules doesn't uses the pharse 'legal charge contact' it uses the phrase '"legal" charge contact'. Also it only uses it in the impact section. To me this means that there is a grey area of contact that is permitted in an impact move, but is not "legal" - so doesn't count as the target being charged.

Example

Code: Select all

CvCvLHLHCvCv
CvCvLHLHCvCv


HFHFhfhfHFHF
HFHFhfhfHFHF

The gap is 2.5 MU All 3 HF BGs charge. LH evades. hf is only charging LH and its VMD is 0.
By my view it moves 3 MU and stops in side edge contact with both Cv.
By the alternate view this isn't legal contact so it stops 1 MU short of the CV.

If the gap was 0.5 MU, and the VMD had been +2 - so that a move of 5 MU leaves it clear. In the alternate view does it go through or does the mid move contact stop it - it is still contact in the impact phase that isn't "legal" contact?

You say my view would be exploited by players - but I don't see that it gives any less ability for exploition than stopping 1 MU short - is is still not '"legal" charge contact' and thus the contacted BG isn't the target of a charge, there is no consequential impact combat, and the charging BG isn't in close combat so won't conform in the maneuver phase.

I consider the stopping short a better "exploit" after all this leaves the BG less exposed to enemy charges / shooting, and free to maneuver next turn.

rogerg · Post by **rogerg** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 10:19 am

If the hf BG declares on the LH it depends on the direction of its charge as to whether it contacts the cavalry. If it is the last to charge and the targets are directly ahead, it will presumably end up where the VMD puts it. This situation is not like the other discussed however. The cavalry bases are legal contacts.

The issue is however, unlikely to arise. The charging player will presumably charge the hf first at a slight angle to get contact on one of the cavalry. If this can be done without exceeding the 3MU move there will be no VMD. Otherwise he takes the VMD and accepts the result.

shall · Post by **shall** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 1:11 pm

My sense is that this is pretty well covered now with the legal contact phrasing. We could issue a precise FAQ but my fear is we end up with lots of FAQs for very rare situations. Any well informed umpire who is active on this list will do a good job at dealing with it IMHO. Do we really want lots of FAQs for vry rare situations? Not sure really.

Si

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 1:39 pm

shall wrote:
Do we really want lots of FAQs for vry rare situations?

No.

What we need for those is good umpires.

rogerg · Post by **rogerg** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 1:49 pm

My turn now to agree with Nik

madcam2us · Post by **madcam2us** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 2:07 pm

So we've come to a definitive???

Great! What was it again?

Madcam.

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 2:11 pm

madcam2us wrote:So we've come to a definitive???

Great! What was it again?

Madcam.

Go with Roger's view and have good umpires I think

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 5:30 pm

Hurrah!!

Pete

kal5056 · Post by **kal5056** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 10:42 pm

I agree with Madcam here. Just what concensus did you guys agree to in this string?
1) Can a BG engage another BG without declaring a charge? Except in the corner to corner and side to side exceptions spelled out in the rules?
2) Can a BG charge into a BG that would not otherwise be a legal target of a charge?
I read several opinions on both sides of these and other issues and in the end there can still be rullings either way.

Having thought the issue through much more since the initial event at the team tourney I do see both sides of the issue.

One thing about a rule that seems to describe a rare situation is that once people are aware of it they can manufacture circumstances where it may apply.

We need a definative answer to this question. I for one do not want to have to wait for an umpire's ruling to know how to play this situation and it is impossible to ask for everything like this to be spelled out in advance of a tourney.

Gino
SMAC

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 8:45 am

1) Can a BG engage another BG without declaring a charge? Except in the corner to corner and side to side exceptions spelled out in the rules?

No - other than as a pursuit.

2) Can a BG charge into a BG that would not otherwise be a legal target of a charge?

No

One thing about a rule that seems to describe a rare situation is that once people are aware of it they can manufacture circumstances where it may apply.

Totally agree - that's why so many people are averse to a proliferation of FAQs trying to cover unique situations. Treat each case on its merits. Having an encyclopedia of FAQs will just put new players off, IMO.

Play the game in the spirit of the rules and be guided by those situations that are covered. If you can't agree - then rely on the umpire - but an umpire's decision doesn't have to become legally binding upon the rest of the wargaming community.

Pete

shall · Post by **shall** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 1:33 pm

Totally agree - that's why so many people are averse to a proliferation of FAQs trying to cover unique situations. Treat each case on its merits. Having an encyclopedia of FAQs will just put new players off, IMO.

Play the game in the spirit of the rules and be guided by those situations that are covered. If you can't agree - then rely on the umpire - but an umpire's decision doesn't have to become legally binding upon the rest of the wargaming community.

Pete

Speaking as both a long standing umpire and one of the author team ...

The above is very much my personal philosophy too.

Si

madcam2us · Post by **madcam2us** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 1:37 pm

Speaking as both a long standing umpire and one of the author team ...

The above is very much my personal philosophy too.

Si

Aye, but then you've got an advantage of knowing with near certainty "authors intent"

Madcam.

shall · Post by **shall** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 1:42 pm

Aye, but then you've got an advantage of knowing with near certainty "authors intent"

Madcam.

Yes probably ..

But then I didn't have a clue about authors intent for DBM, and managed 10 years umpiring that at least Ok.

Si