Slitherine

rogerg wrote:I believe we are agreed on what we are trying to achieve. The terrain situation is different to that of the elephants. On balance, I am usually happier having one rule covering two cases rather than adding extra rules, but that is a personal preference. All things considered, I think FoG has done a good job of getting the correct effect with as few rules as possible.

I'd agree that whatever is used it should cover terrain and nellies in the same way - having variation here would be pointless. I think either interp can be applied to both situations (unless I am misreading/misunderstanding).

I tend to feel umpires should rule the letter of the law if it exists and not the spirit.

It is how I've always tried to approach it - it is the most level playing field.

However, you're a good umpire, so I would probably take it from you without too much complaint.

Well I owe you one from Warfare IIRC - I got something wrong there and you never complained

rogerg wrote: However, you're a good umpire, so I would probably take it from you without too much complaint.

Brilliant Roger. Cosidering most people will take the path of least resistance you have just guaranteed that Nik will in future rule in your favour.

No, he'll rule against me because I won't object.

If there is a "fix" to this dilemma, I wonder if the better approach isn't to refine the charge wheel options themselves, rather than clutter up the exceptions and/or further divide impact moves into "deliberate charges" and "sponno charges."

For instance, instead of the current allowances for wheeling if you contact => bases, require charges to be directly ahead and allow wheels only where the charger will contact MORE enemy bases or will contact the same number of bases from fewer BGs.

So chargers could wheel to avoid splitting impact across enemy BGs or to get more bases into the fight. They could not wheel to fine-tune their charge, as the rules currently permit.

Of course, this would not sort out the original fact-pattern, because the Lancers would still have wheel options.

That said, the "Tokyo Drift" terrain clip would largely go away. I also think that the current options for charging seem oddly flexible sometimes.

Spike

The flexible charging options give the attacker the advantage. I like this much better than games where the defender has the advantage. This leads to lots of shuffling about and a somewhat unsatisfactory game. FoG has seen a very welcome return to long lines of figures hammering into the enemy.

rogerg wrote:The flexible charging options give the attacker the advantage. I like this much better than games where the defender has the advantage. This leads to lots of shuffling about and a somewhat unsatisfactory game. FoG has seen a very welcome return to long lines of figures hammering into the enemy.

You make a fair point.

spikemesq wrote:

rogerg wrote:The flexible charging options ....a very welcome return to long lines of figures hammering into the enemy.

You make a fair point.

Rugby

Since you when you fail a test you must contact all potential target BGs, or failing that the target(s) most nearly straight ahead, if any of these would be exempted from testing, you do not test. You don't have to go looking for a BG that could be reached by any path. Just the one that would be contacted by a charge without orders. If it meets any of the exemptions, there is no test.

That sounds reasonable, and as far as I can see produces the "right" sort of results without much scope for cheese.

gozerius wrote:Since you when you fail a test you must contact all potential target BGs, or failing that the target(s) most nearly straight ahead, if any of these would be exempted from testing, you do not test. You don't have to go looking for a BG that could be reached by any path. Just the one that would be contacted by a charge without orders. If it meets any of the exemptions, there is no test.

This addresses most of the likely scenarios.

It does not solve the situation in the OP, however, because the targets were equidistant (one to each corner) and the Lancers could not charge both targets.

Spike

Get the micrometer out. I'm sure if a close enough inspection is made they won't be precisely equidistant

My thinking on reading the rules again though was that "potential target BG" does NOT include the nellies (when we are talking about lancers testing to charge...or the lancers when we are talking about shock foot testing not to charge), because these BGs are specifically excluded in the bullet points after the first para in the section.

i.e. I assume we are talking about "potential target BGs for involuntary charge" not "potential target BGs for a voluntary charge".

Since we are in a section specifically talking about involuntary charges that seems a natural assumption, but of course it is not 100% clarified.

Even then there is still the question of what to do if the lancers could charge 2 opposing lancer BGs, equidistant and equiangled from straight ahead, with nellies just to the outside of one of them and hence able to intercept in front of that one but not the other.

gozerius wrote:Since you when you fail a test you must contact all potential target BGs, or failing that the target(s) most nearly straight ahead, if any of these would be exempted from testing, you do not test. You don't have to go looking for a BG that could be reached by any path. Just the one that would be contacted by a charge without orders. If it meets any of the exemptions, there is no test.

I don't think so. The rules as written are that you charge if there exists one or more non-exempt charge targets. You contact all of the potential targets if you can, otherwise that nearest to straight ahead. The question is whether you have a non-exempt charge target.

The thread you are thinking about and I think some people are misremembering is the following from one year ago which covered some items but ended with an undertaking to revert on a fine point further once sorted out among the authors. That last question was about charging uncontrolled the end of a BG in the open that would suck you into woods when conforming (views were Richard yes, Simon yes only if no legal charge path to THAT target would put the knights in the woods).

What seemed clear was that the existence of an exempt target within charge range did not affect the obligation to test for and charge a legitimate potential target.

Whether possible interception by elephants = "their move could end in contact with elephants" for deciding whether to test is a separate question.

The overall intent of the rule was also discussed by Simon and I quoted it into the "Design Notes" sticky where I found the link to the thread.

Thread: viewtopic.php?t=9226&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=80

Mike