Page 2 of 2
Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 6:40 pm
by rogerg
Do we assume you are suggesting a second chance to test? I am not sure there should be two bites at this. Either the LH are just driving off skirmishers or they are attempting to make contact. Having a reconsideration of their objective halfway through a charge seems rather unreasonable.
Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 7:15 pm
by rbodleyscott
rogerg wrote:Do we assume you are suggesting a second chance to test? I am not sure there should be two bites at this. Either the LH are just driving off skirmishers or they are attempting to make contact. Having a reconsideration of their objective halfway through a charge seems rather unreasonable.
No, I think Simon was just trying to simplify the wording. But I think this will lead to confusion as above and I prefer:
“If any of their charge targets evade, skirmishers must halt their charge 1 MU away from enemy to their front whom they would not normally be allowed to charge without a CMT (unless they passed a CMT to charge them prior to charging).”
Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 9:56 pm
by lawrenceg
rbodleyscott wrote:rogerg wrote:Do we assume you are suggesting a second chance to test? I am not sure there should be two bites at this. Either the LH are just driving off skirmishers or they are attempting to make contact. Having a reconsideration of their objective halfway through a charge seems rather unreasonable.
No, I think Simon was just trying to simplify the wording. But I think this will lead to confusion as above and I prefer:
“If any of their charge targets evade, skirmishers must halt their charge 1 MU away from enemy to their front whom they would not normally be allowed to charge without a CMT (unless they passed a CMT to charge them prior to charging).”
That should do it.
My suggestion is:
If any of their charge targets evade:
LF must halt 1 MU away from unbroken enemy non-skirmishers in the open to their front.
LH must halt 1 MU away from unbroken enemy non-skirmishers to their front, unless it is a flank or rear charge, or they have already passed a CMT to charge them.
You have several to choose from now.
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:41 am
by shall
Its the same thing and ye I was just simplifying the wording
If you have passed a CMT test already to charge non-skirmishers you by definition don't need a further one...if you see what I mean
Si
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 8:18 am
by rogerg
I think Richard's bracketed version is the closest so far, except for the 'them'. The CMT would not have been passed to charge the troops uncovered by the evaders, so this still gives possible confusion. I think you can leave the word 'them' out and it is correct.
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 8:27 am
by rbodleyscott
rogerg wrote:I think Richard's bracketed version is the closest so far, except for the 'them'. The CMT would not have been passed to charge the troops uncovered by the evaders, so this still gives possible confusion. I think you can leave the word 'them' out and it is correct.
The "them" is intentional, we don't (I think) want them to be able to make an ad-hoc charge on heavy troops not an original target of the charge. (Note that no CMT would be required in the situation that sparked this debate, because they don't need to pass a CMT to charge a flank/rear).
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 8:40 am
by shall
I agree and given that objective doesn't further actually work.
It already solves the same problems or am I missing something. I may well be - tired after a long game with Parthians last night.
Si
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 8:50 am
by rbodleyscott
shall wrote:I agree and given that objective doesn't further actually work.
It already solves the same problems or am I missing something. I may well be - tired after a long game with Parthians last night.
Si
The problem with "further" is that it relies on assumptions. Some players may not make the same assumptions as to its significance. Better to be explicit IMO.
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 9:11 am
by shall
Yes I see what you mean Richard. Just wanted to check the meaning was technically the same - I agree your more expansive version has merit in removing ambiguity.
Si
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 12:39 pm
by rogerg
The 'them' issue means you can put a skirmish line of LF in front of troops that LH cannot normally charge, and the LH will have to halt short when the LF evade. Is this intended? Would it not be an option to allow the LH to take the CMT, even if not required for their declared target? If this were passed they could then continue on into the revealed troops.
I suspect there are some rather ugly situations that can be created where LF can be used to protect very small BG's of battle troops lurking behind them. The LF cannot be caught because they evade. The troops behind cannot be contacted because the charge cannot be declared on 'them'.
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 2:45 pm
by olivier
I suspect there are some rather ugly situations that can be created where LF can be used to protect very small BG's of battle troops lurking behind them. The LF cannot be caught because they evade. The troops behind cannot be contacted because the charge cannot be declared on 'them'.
In this case don't charge with light but put heavy's at work!
Better make a combined charge with light and heavy. With some luck, your light catch the fleeing ennemy and your heavy's crash into this skulking troops
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 6:05 pm
by shall
Indeed the answer .... if you rley on your skirmishers to fight your battles you will get what you deserve....
Si
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 9:10 am
by rbodleyscott
---
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 9:34 am
by rbodleyscott
rogerg wrote:The 'them' issue means you can put a skirmish line of LF in front of troops that LH cannot normally charge, and the LH will have to halt short when the LF evade. Is this intended?
Yes. It is also intended that you cannot CMT in advance to charge them if the troops in front evade.
This probably needs to be worded more clearly. (Although the whole issue is rather marginal since it will rarely be wise to charge skirmishers into the front of non-skirmishers).
Would it not be an option to allow the LH to take the CMT, even if not required for their declared target? If this were passed they could then continue on into the revealed troops.
We prefer to make them stop.
------------------
Note there is also the issue of missile armed foot.
As far as I can see, if they charge LF screening HF they don't need to pass a CMT. If the LF evade, they would then continue into the HF. This seems reasonable to me as they are now in "charge mode" rather than "shooting mode".
However, this needs to be taken into account in any rewording to clarify the skimisher situation.
How about this:
DECLARATION OF CHARGES
The active player declares which of his battle groups are to charge and by convention places a dice behind each to note this. To be allowed to declare a charge, there must be a visible enemy base that can be ‘legally’ contacted by the charging battle group within its normal move distance through the terrain to be crossed. A battle group can declare charges on as many enemy battle groups as can be ‘legally’ contacted within this move distance.
When the charge declaration stage is over, no charge declarations can be rescinded, nor additional voluntary charges declared.
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 one of the originally declared targets of the charge. This applies even if it can only be contacted by bases stepping forward (see below). It does not apply if, due to intervening friends, it could not be contacted even by stepping forward bases – unless the situation changes, as follows: If a battle group is revealed and can now be contacted due to friends evading or breaking and routing, it becomes a target of the charge and will therefore take any required tests once the evade or rout move has occurred.
If a CMT is required to make a charge against certain troops, it must be taken if required for any of the battle groups that can be ‘legally’ contacted in the chosen direction of charge, including by stepping forward bases. It need not and cannot be taken for those that can only be contacted if another battle group evades or routs.
The intention is that the rules in the specific subsections will govern what happens in the latter case.
Thus if the revealed BG is non-skirmishers:
- LF would halt 1 MU away.
- LH would halt 1 MU away unless they would be charging the non-skirmishers' flank or rear.
- Missile armed MF would continue into contact.
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 10:45 am
by rogerg
That's pretty comprehensive. I wasn't in doubt over the previous wording. My concern was that there is an exploitable situation using large groups of LF bow in front of small groups of cavalry. This combination seems unreasonably powerful against even large groups of LH. If the LH charge to prevent the LF shooting, they end up 1MU from the cavalry. The latter have a good chance of catching the LH if they subsequently evade. It seemed a reasonable option for the light horse to be able to continue into the cavalry and fight it out. Charging LH into cavalry is something that can be attempted with a CMT, but this option is removed in this situation. I was questioning why a group of LF running away in front should prevent the charge into the cavalry.
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 11:13 am
by rbodleyscott
rogerg wrote:That's pretty comprehensive. I wasn't in doubt over the previous wording. My concern was that there is an exploitable situation using large groups of LF bow in front of small groups of cavalry. This combination seems unreasonably powerful against even large groups of LH. If the LH charge to prevent the LF shooting, they end up 1MU from the cavalry. The latter have a good chance of catching the LH if they subsequently evade. It seemed a reasonable option for the light horse to be able to continue into the cavalry and fight it out. Charging LH into cavalry is something that can be attempted with a CMT, but this option is removed in this situation. I was questioning why a group of LF running away in front should prevent the charge into the cavalry.
Our idea is that the attention of the LH would be on the LF and not on the cavalry behind.
This is really a pretty marginal issue, because even if the LH outnumber the cavalry 2:1 they will still probably lose due to worse armour/capabilities. So it will usually be stupid to charge into them. While it is reasonable to allow players to make their own mistakes, expecting the LH to cooperate in their own destruction is perhaps unrealistic.
If my calculations are correct they only have a 1 in 9 chance of being caught if the cavalry then charge them.
Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 7:26 am
by shall
The risk balance is fine I believe - it makes for a few interesting challenges if pople support their LF skirmishers well.
Choices and decision and risks...all part of a good game
If in doubt .... charge them with your heavies isntead.
Si