phil: Also in your example a BG can never be intercepted by enemy within charge reach, unless it is LH who have not passed a CMT.
This is why the definition of charge target is crucial.
However, LH who fail their CMT cannot be intercepted, as they are not charging because they failed the CMT.
Another component of the broader "potential target" rule is that it could increase the number of intercepts. Using the LH example above, other BGs whose ZOI reach the "huge charge path pie slice" would be eligible to intercept.
The charge path declaration rule gets more tangled in knots when you consider the rule on actually making the charge move.
Until the charger's landscape is established -- i.e., after all evades and intercepts, the charger may not be able to choose a direction. Page 53 limits a charge move to (a) directly ahead to legally contact a target; or (b) an advance with a single wheel if required to avoid friends or if this would result in equal or greater bases in contact than straight ahead.
The wheel decision can only be made after evades and intercepts occur, because the charger cannot know whether the wheel will be valid.
Put another way, the rules suggest that, at declaration, a charge is always straight ahead, unless evades and intercepts do nothing to alter the potential charge.
To be clear, I recognize that the broader definition of charge targets is, to say the least, funky. OTOH, declaring a specific charge path has its own problems. It does not fit well into the charge sequence. The path declared may not be legal once the landscape changes between declaration and charge moves. It assumes that enemy BGs enjoy much more knowledge than they should (i.e., not just that the enemy has spurred the charge, but the precise path and target of that charge). It allows for fiddly micro-management because it suggests that the charger can angle that direction to edge out potential intercepts by declaring a path that skirts enemy ZOIs. It also suggests greater freedom of movement than the actual charge moves permit.
Most importantly, I don't really "have a dog in this fight." The rules should make sense, though. The current treatment of charge targets (under either interpretation) does not.
Consider the modified example of Lancers facing 2 BGs of single rank Cv that are 3 MU off from either corner. Both can (but need not) evade if they are charge targets. Both may be contacted by a single move straight ahead with one base from each fighting in the impact phase. A single wheel could result in 2 bases of Lancers fighting one Cv BG. (if only I could insert diagrams
)
Lancers declare a charge.
Under the declare=path rule, that charge could be straight ahead making both Cv BGs targets.
The enemy evades on the left and receives on the right.
Must the Lancers move straight and fight only a single base in impact? Can they not wheel to add more bases into the impact fight, now that the other Cv have flown the coop? The rules say that the Lancers can wheel if this would result in equal/more bases fighting than a straight ahead move. At declaration the wheel would yield equal impact bases. At the move stage the wheel yields more. Why should the Lancers have to commit to a path before they know what they can do?
Is that realistic?
"Men we are going to charge those heathens for blood and glory!"
"Look at those nancy-boys on the left run for their momma."
"Sir, the enemy on the right are goers! Let's show them what we are made of."
"Sorry, lads. We promised that we would not turn. My hands are tied. Maybe next time."
Really?
Spike
Keeping his options open.
I agree with Nik on this. It is the simple and clean solution.
