Multiple tests not to charge

[grahambriggs]

The rules are pretty specific here. If a BG fails the test not to charge it must charge all potential targets.

Could you point to where that sentence is in the rules please? I'm happy to admit I'm wrong as I may have missed something (I was going from what Zoltan quoted rather than reading through the rules)

I've quoted it above. "If it is not possible to charge all potential targets".

Therefore if you can charge all potential targets you do.

The wording was very clear under v1, could somebody check what it states - I sdont have the v1 rulebook available until Friday.

Oh, you mean "shock troops charging without orders who cannot contact all potential target target battle groups within charge range, charge the one(s) nearest to straight ahead"?

But that just says what happens if you cannot contact all. It doesn't say what happens if you can.

[bbotus]

Page 59, V1, says exactly the same thing as page 64, V2: "Shock troops charging without orders who cannot contact all potential target BGs within charge range, charge the one(s) nearest to straight ahead."

[grahambriggs]

There are circumstances where a shock battle group can fail a test not to charge, can contact all BGs in range, and yet are prevented by the rules from charging all of them. Let's say there is a group of cavalry lancers in line: CCCC with two enemies in reach. One enemy is a group of medium foot: FFFF, straight ahead. Let's say they are easily in charge range:

FFFF

CCCC

The other enemy is a group of camelry: MMMM. The camelry are lined up next to the foot so:

FFFFMMMM

CCCC

The cavalry fail their test, so must charge. If they charge straight forwards, they will hit FFF square on. One base of the cavalry is disordered. But that is not enough to lose a die, so CCCC will roll 8 dice.

If an umpire were to insist that CCCC must charge all battle groups in reach. it would presumably need to wheel a bit towards MMMM to hit them - yes?

So when CCCC does that, it's two right hand bases will be disordered. So it will lose a dice and only roll 7 dice.

9-2, last bullet specifically says "a wheel cannot be made if it would result in less combat dice being thrown by the charging BG in the impact phase combat than if it charged straight ahead"

So you can't make that BG charge all enemy BGs. And the other rules don't require it to.

[zoltan]

There are circumstances where a shock battle group can fail a test not to charge, can contact all BGs in range, and yet are prevented by the rules from charging all of them. Let's say there is a group of cavalry lancers in line: CCCC with two enemies in reach. One enemy is a group of medium foot: FFFF, straight ahead. Let's say they are easily in charge range:

FFFF

CCCC

The other enemy is a group of camelry: MMMM. The camelry are lined up next to the foot so:

FFFFMMMM

CCCC

The cavalry fail their test, so must charge. If they charge straight forwards, they will hit FFF square on. One base of the cavalry is disordered. But that is not enough to lose a die, so CCCC will roll 8 dice.

If an umpire were to insist that CCCC must charge all battle groups in reach. it would presumably need to wheel a bit towards MMMM to hit them - yes?

So when CCCC does that, it's two right hand bases will be disordered. So it will lose a dice and only roll 7 dice.

9-2, last bullet specifically says "a wheel cannot be made if it would result in less combat dice being thrown by the charging BG in the impact phase combat than if it charged straight ahead"

So you can't make that BG charge all enemy BGs. And the other rules don't require it to.

Within the RAW there are plenty of examples where a general rule can be overridden by a specific exception or set of circumstances; you may have identified one above.

Nevertheless, the general rule is that shock troops who fail a CMT not to charge MUST attempt to contact all enemy bgs within charge reach. The chargers can not voluntarily attempt to reduce the number of enemy bgs they contact. The chargers may be forced to reduce the number of bgs they contact by special rules such as the one you quote above.

[dave_r]

There are circumstances where a shock battle group can fail a test not to charge, can contact all BGs in range, and yet are prevented by the rules from charging all of them. Let's say there is a group of cavalry lancers in line: CCCC with two enemies in reach. One enemy is a group of medium foot: FFFF, straight ahead. Let's say they are easily in charge range:

FFFF

CCCC

The other enemy is a group of camelry: MMMM. The camelry are lined up next to the foot so:

FFFFMMMM

CCCC

The cavalry fail their test, so must charge. If they charge straight forwards, they will hit FFF square on. One base of the cavalry is disordered. But that is not enough to lose a die, so CCCC will roll 8 dice.

If an umpire were to insist that CCCC must charge all battle groups in reach. it would presumably need to wheel a bit towards MMMM to hit them - yes?

So when CCCC does that, it's two right hand bases will be disordered. So it will lose a dice and only roll 7 dice.

9-2, last bullet specifically says "a wheel cannot be made if it would result in less combat dice being thrown by the charging BG in the impact phase combat than if it charged straight ahead"

So you can't make that BG charge all enemy BGs. And the other rules don't require it to.

I don't see the problem - in this circumstance the charging BG cannot charge all BG's within range, so therefore charge the one that is closes to straight ahead.

[grahambriggs]

Oh well, if you choose to see things that way.

[dave_r]

Oh well, if you choose to see things that way.

Makes it nice and easy, so why not

Are your EAP's going to suffer with this at Lisbon?

[zoltan]

Oh well, if you choose to see things that way.

To me, failing a test not to charge is generally a 'bad' thing; it means you have lost control when (generally) you don't want to. In that situation it seems to me a nonsense that you could still voluntarily 'direct' the charge onto selected enemy. This would make a failed test fundamentally the same as a voluntarily declared charge on selected enemy.

[bbotus]

it seems to me a nonsense that you could still voluntarily 'direct' the charge onto selected enemy.

You can't if you fail the CMT not to charge. Not wheeling to contact someone in the rough is valid because it follows the basic rule on how much you can wheel (don't throw less impact dice). That introduces a secondary condition and really isn't an argument against what you are saying.

All else being equal, about the only choice you would have is if you could contact BG 2 with a straight ahead charge, BGs 1 and 2 with a left wheel and BGs 2 and 3 with a right wheel, then you'd have a choice of wheeling left or right but not going straight.

[grahambriggs]

it seems to me a nonsense that you could still voluntarily 'direct' the charge onto selected enemy.

You can't if you fail the CMT not to charge.

All very interesting but where does it say that in the rules? It seems a nonsense to me that you can rally routing elephants, but it's in the rules.

[philqw78]

If I was asked to rule on this I would say if you cannot contact all possible targets you go straight forwards, and bollocks to how many dice get rolled.

Some rules have to take priority

[zoltan]

If I was asked to rule on this I would say if you cannot contact all possible targets you go straight forwards, and bollocks to how many dice get rolled.

Some rules have to take priority

But how would you rule if I could contact all possible targets? Would you allow me to avoid contacting some of them?

[philqw78]

No, you either contact all or go straight forward

[bbotus]

No, you either contact all or go straight forward

I don't see how you get that answer from reading the RAW. It says to charge the 'ONE(S)' nearest to straight ahead. To me that says to charge as many as possible. You don't get to charge one if you can contact more otherwise it would have said to charge the 'ONE". Nowhere does it says to 'charge straight ahead'. Well, it does say that but only if it is read out of context and the word 'nearest' is ignored.

[philqw78]

Nearest to straight ahead is in what direction?

But yes I answered too quickly. Nearest to straight ahead to hit anything if you can't hit all. So you need an umpire.