Charging

[dave_r]

An unusual situation....



The friendly knight Battle group had broken a unit in my turn and pursued into the enemy battle group. No combat was fought as they hit in the Joint Action Phase.

The enemy knight battle group didn't conform as this would have then left it being exposed to a flank charge. So there was no conformation.

In my subsequent charge phase, the battle group with the green dice wanted to charge the enemy knight battle group, but the counter argument was that all bases of the battle group were already in combat, therefore the battle group could not be charged.

Thoughts?

[Caliph]

No charge, fight as if conformed, you conform in your next turn.

[philqw78]

That's what I said

[petedalby]

Why didn't the pursuing BG step bases forward into contact?

That aside, they fight as if conformed so there is no legal charge target.

[dave_r]

Why didn't the pursuing BG step bases forward into contact?

Only the middle base would step forward as the base on the right would not have made contact.

That aside, they fight as if conformed so there is no legal charge target.

When the friendly knight BG conforms, the base of the enemy BG nearest the terrain would not be in contact.

[terrys]

If I'm looking at this correctly:
I'm assuming that the middle base of the knights that charged has stepped forward into the knight to its front.
Without the presence of the "Friendly knight battle Group" the "enemy knight battle group" would have lined up in such a way that both BGs of knights would have had their LH base in an overlap position.
This means that the LH base of the "enemy knight battle group" would have been a target for the charge (in the flank).
However, whatever it's position that base is still an overlap, and can be charged by the "Friendly knight battle Group" if they drop back a base - assuming they are in reach.

Unless I'm missing something ......

[petedalby]

I believe the wood prevents the new charge Terry. There is not a 1 base wide gap if the engaged BGs are fighting as if conformed. The 'enemy BG' does not have to conform because to do so would expose it to a flank charge.

[terrys]

You can't have it both ways - They either conform or remain in the same position.
Would you rule that a BG behind the enemy knights couldn't charge either because they are 'supposed' to be conformed.
The real point is that they fight "as if" the were conformed but are still physically in the same position. They can be the target of any legal charge while in this position.

If the "Friendly Knight battle group" are in charge reach (4" or 5") of the 'overlapping' end base they can contract it with a front corner, by contracting a base to go past the wood.
They wouldn't contact the middle base that's supposed to be in contact with its front edge.

NB Three's even an argument that (if in range) they could charge either of the 2 bases not actually in contact - which would mean that only the LH base of the friends already in contact would then be able to continue fighting during the following melee phase.

[dave_r]

I believe the wood prevents the new charge Terry. There is not a 1 base wide gap if the engaged BGs are fighting as if conformed. The 'enemy BG' does not have to conform because to do so would expose it to a flank charge.

I believe that is irrelevant. The wording is "fights as if conforms", it doesn't say other Battlegroups cannot move into the space that would have been occupied by the BG if it had conformed. The base that was hit was contactable, so IMO the rules as written support this charge.

I'm not really bothered which way we decide, but I think it needs to be clear

[philqw78]

So the charging BG can even move into contact with the centre enemy base!

Very esoteric

[grahambriggs]

I believe the wood prevents the new charge Terry. There is not a 1 base wide gap if the engaged BGs are fighting as if conformed. The 'enemy BG' does not have to conform because to do so would expose it to a flank charge.

I believe that is irrelevant. The wording is "fights as if conforms", it doesn't say other Battlegroups cannot move into the space that would have been occupied by the BG if it had conformed. The base that was hit was contactable, so IMO the rules as written support this charge.

I'm not really bothered which way we decide, but I think it needs to be clear

The "fights as if conforms" only applies "if it is not possible for battle groups in contact to line up". It was possible, the enemy knights could have conformed. But chose not to due to the flank threat. So the melee should have been one base vs one base. Then the other friendly knights can charge in.

[terrys]

The rules have always been applied with "Choosing not to line up" being the same as "cannot line up".
If we accept the contention that they are not the same then in this combat only the left hand base of the charging BG would fight the right hand base of the charged BG.
This is because the rules for melee (page 90) state "All bases whose FRONT EDGE is in contact with the enemy fight"..... and these are the only bases that have their front edge in contact.

However, if we consider the situation where the charging BG was 1 base width to the right - such that its left hand base hit the enemy base with only its front corner
then the defending BG would fight with 2 dice and the charging BG would get None"

Similarly, if the charging BG was 10mm to the left, such that its center base hit the enemy front corner, then the charging BG would get 2 dice and the enemy would get none !

All of these cases give a ridiculous (and unintended) outcome - so I suggest that we consider this to be a "Melee that cannot line up" for all future games - (until I change the rules to specify that)

[grahambriggs]

The rules have always been applied with "Choosing not to line up" being the same as "cannot line up".

Well, it's a rare situation. However, the wording on page 70 is clear. You have the wording on P69 covering how people line up normally.

The first bullet on page 70 it says (my italics for emphasis) "Troops that cannot conform by any of the above methods do not move but continue to fight in an offfset formation."

The second bullet on p70 covers the BG that did not charge this bound not having to conform if it would expose it's flank. It's not above the first bullet but below.

Incidentally, we always read "continue to fight in an offset formation" as meaning "fight as if you have aligned". But it doesn't seem to say that. It might be an idea to tidy that up.

[dave_r]

The rules have always been applied with "Choosing not to line up" being the same as "cannot line up".

Well, it's a rare situation. However, the wording on page 70 is clear. You have the wording on P69 covering how people line up normally.

The first bullet on page 70 it says (my italics for emphasis) "Troops that cannot conform by any of the above methods do not move but continue to fight in an offfset formation."

The second bullet on p70 covers the BG that did not charge this bound not having to conform if it would expose it's flank. It's not above the first bullet but below.

Incidentally, we always read "continue to fight in an offset formation" as meaning "fight as if you have aligned". But it doesn't seem to say that. It might be an idea to tidy that up.

Nice spot. I guess it depends on what we think _should_ happen. What about evades, interpenetrations and such?

[philqw78]

Nice spot. I guess it depends on what we think _should_ happen. What about evades and such?

What we want to happen tends to become more important