Slitherine

shall wrote:All you declare is a direction ... the default being dead ahead.

... onto which you will whell when charging and away from which evaders may choose to

... just lay a measuring stick onthe table, that's common practice.

nothing mor complex or as you say we all go bonkers!

Si

Okay, sorry to be obtuse...

But I did not have the rules at work and just had a chance to review the rules. The section in question (Declaration of Charges, p52) does NOT state that a "direction" must be declared anywhere I can see.

It only states (that is relevant to this discussion) that "...there must be a visible enemy base that can be legally contacted..." and then implies that the victim(s) must be identified via "...A battle group can declare charges on as many enemy battle groups as can be legally contacted within this move distance." Oddly and as far as I can tell it only implies that the targets have to be indentified in this one sentence (not that I have a problem with that mind you).

So, my question is where does it state that a "direction" has to be declared???

Also, it seems that if I declare a charge such as to "avoid" an enemy's ZOI, and they do not attempt to intercept (as indeed they can't if I never enter their ZOI!) we must accept that my unit may very well end up hitting their victim with far less bases than they would have if they ploughed though the ZOI unimpeded (because my opponent chose not to intercept or failed a CMT)… Or am I missing something else?

GG

Hi GG,

Its on page 66, first paragraph. You only indicate a direction of charge if your target evades.

Brian

BrianC wrote:Hi GG,

Its on page 66, first paragraph. You only indicate a direction of charge if your target evades.

Brian

Ah, okay. But then my last statements still hold true. You can skirt a enemy's ZOI and thus impact fewer than what would otherwise be "max" stands in contact with your charge victim. That is unless I missed something else...

GG

I'm far from an expert but I think hitting less bases is only compared to if you charge straight forward. You must charge in such a way that you will hit at least the same number of enemy bases if you would have charged straight forward. Or something like that. So I think if you had to wheel anyway that you could determine by your movement how many bases to contact.

Brian

Page 53

In essence charge straight ahead and see how many of your bases end up in combat that way. Then you can wheel as long as at least this many are in contact after the move. The closer you are the less likely this will do anything.

So wheeling to avoid fighting is usually pretty difficult in practice - espcially with intercepts as you say. Wheeling to get all of 4 Kn to hit something perfectly legit. Foot types don't like interecpting mounted often so more flexibility with mounted charging a foot line - which is realistic.

Just follow that sequence of thinking and try lots on the table and you will see it works pretty well

Its true that putting the direction down before moving your charge is only necessary if there are evaders you are charging so you know they have to react and how, otherwise you can deal with the rest as you go down the line. However intercepts sometimes cut in to. So as a matter of course I personally have found it easier in practice to put a direction down any time I am not going straight ahead. But its not essential.

Si

shall wrote:All you declare is a direction ... the default being dead ahead.

... onto which you will whell when charging and away from which evaders may choose to

... just lay a measuring stick onthe table, that's common practice.

nothing mor complex or as you say we all go bonkers!

Si

While the rules don't say when you determine the exact path, in practice you have to know before you can determine who can intercept, and who can evade.
In some circumstances you need to know when declaring charges - you can only declare a charge if you can contact enemy, if this requires that another BG's charge gets it out of a BG's path then you need to know that BG's path at the point of declaration.

shall wrote:Page 53

In essence charge straight ahead and see how many of your bases end up in combat that way. Then you can wheel as long as at least this many are in contact after the move. The closer you are the less likely this will do anything.

Si

Right, understood. But, again if there is a "possible" intercept involved that I wish to avoid then my wheel may very well be ONLY to avoid the intecept and then wheeling may result in less than (otherwise) max stands in contact at the end of the charge. And at no time during this declaration do I have to define my charge path (unless someone evades).

GG

But then you would not be allowed to wheel if this would bring fewer bases to contact. The logic here is quite simple. Intercept charging requires the players to know the path of the charge to see if the interceptors will cross it. If you can demonstrate a charge path that does not result in fewer bases contacting than a straight ahead charge and which avoids the interceptors route then that is OK. If you cannot, you will be intercepted.

rogerg wrote:But then you would not be allowed to wheel if this would bring fewer bases to contact. The logic here is quite simple. Intercept charging requires the players to know the path of the charge to see if the interceptors will cross it. If you can demonstrate a charge path that does not result in fewer bases contacting than a straight ahead charge and which avoids the interceptors route then that is OK. If you cannot, you will be intercepted.

I don't like this, don't see it as realistic and am not sure it is really supported in the rules. Why allow wheels at any point in the charge then? Much easier to clamp down on maneuvers in the charge than anything else.

Basically you are saying you can not avoid being intercepted unless it makes no change in your final number of stands in contact. So my CV can not swerve to avoid the ZOI of some HF to hit the bowmen because let's face it 99 times out of 100 any wheel of this sort WILL result in less stands impacting.

Let's be clear here: Nobody is trying to clip in any shape form or fashion. They are trying to avoid being intercepted and because of the wheel required to do so (and the fact only one wheel is allowed) they will generally end up contacting less stands.

IMHO, if nothing else this needs a FAQ.

Actually GG I am confused now as well. I just read the rules on page 62-63. It says that interceptors move before chargers, so how does the interceptor know his zone is being infringed upon if the charger does not move? If there are no evaders, no direction marker is laid. The way I play it is the charger charges its normal rout and if it enters this zone the defender may intercept at any point within its ZOI. I would bring back the charging BG to any point that I can hit in my ZOI limit. Now I am not sure if that is the right way to play it.

IMO the charger should be allowed to maneuver based on his charge target, and if his charge causes an intercept charge then its move stops and the interceptor moves to intercept the charging BG.

Brian

Basically you are saying you can not avoid being intercepted unless it makes no change in your final number of stands in contact. So my CV can not swerve to avoid the ZOI of some HF to hit the bowmen because let's face it 99 times out of 100 any wheel of this sort WILL result in less stands impacting.

Without this rule we'd be open to the other extreme.....
You could wheel to clip an extreme edge of a single enemy base just to avoid being intercepted.
Where do you draw the line?
Standing in the position of the charged – I’d be most upset if my opponent wheeled his charge to clip the end of my BG of bows that I thought my men-at-arms were protecting.


The rule allows players to skillfully position their stronger troops to give protection to their weaker ones.

rogerg wrote:
But then you would not be allowed to wheel if this would bring fewer bases to contact. The logic here is quite simple. Intercept charging requires the players to know the path of the charge to see if the interceptors will cross it. If you can demonstrate a charge path that does not result in fewer bases contacting than a straight ahead charge and which avoids the interceptors route then that is OK. If you cannot, you will be intercepted.

I don't like this, don't see it as realistic and am not sure it is really supported in the rules. Why allow wheels at any point in the charge then? Much easier to clamp down on maneuvers in the charge than anything else.

Actually it is realistic in practice.

First you need to allow wheels or two BG offset by 5mm could not charge each other which would be nonsensical. So what you want is to get rid of the nonsense but in the main make it hard to wheel a lot if you do have enemy directly ahead This is exactly what the mechanism is for - the wheels will be allowed where they are making contact easier/fuller but will be difficult for other reasons. Wheels when charging are not there primarily to allow you to avoid being intercepted by troops to the front, but rather to allow contact to be made when offset from each other. But as Roger says you may be able to avoid the intercept zone by such a wheel as long as it is is resulting in greater contact.

You will find it works very well and reastically in practice even if it seems a bit wierd when you read it.

As for intecepts etc. The full sequence of events is this (but becomes a bittoo much like saying left leg before right which we tried to avoid in the interest of not being too boring)

If charging evaders declare a direction now as we know its needed
Evaders then respond (assuming no interceoptors exist)
Then decide a legal charge with or without a wheel as allowed
If this includes a wheel I find myself putting stick down to set the direction
If this charge path can be intercepted move the interceptors now
Finally move the chargers

Granted we left it short hand. We'll FAQ it just to be clear.

For my part I do the following

• When i declare charges at evaders I put a stick down at declaration so the opponent can figure out what to do
  Then I decide my charges in whatvere order and if I want to wheel I put a direction down then
  If trying to dodge interceptors I will work it out an agree whether I can manage it or not with the opponent
  Then get on with it

Not too hard in practice

Si

There is a critical sequence of actions in the impact phase - as detailed in the 'Full Turn Sequence' at the end of the book.

in short....
1) Declare chargers
2) Test to (not) evade
3) Test (and move) for FRG'd BGs being charged
4) Move interceptors
5) Move evaders
6) Move chargers

The important thing to note is that Interceptors are moved before evades

Thanks for the explicit list Terry. So I guess if you are going to position BG's to intercept then you should do it in such a way that they will be able to cover 1 base width at least.

I say that because the charger cannot wheel in such a way to hit less bases than he would if charging forward straight. So if you had interceptors and moved them say 45 deg and were able to block a straight charge to one base at least, then the charger would have to charge straight ahead because he can no longer legally charge around the interceptors as they would hit less stands if they did. Did that make sense? But if the interceptors could only move so as to cover say half a base width of the outside base, the chargers could technicall wheel slightly missing the interceptors and still impact their original target if they can hit all bases. And I know, this is a very strict incident where this could happen. But with my luck it will in a soon to be played game : ).


It did to me but I know I can get lost in verbal images. I can do a few pics if needed. But I think I am getting the concept a little better now.

Thanks

Brian

I think there is an outstanding point in that if the target is not evading it is still critical to know the path of the charge before it moves otherwise you can not determine whether it crosses the ZOI. And this then begs the question as to whether you can still intercept if the chargers can manage a snappy wheel such that they still contact the same number of bases as a straight-ahead charge but avoid the ZOI.

This has become a chicken-and-egg debate over the moving of interceptors/declaration of charge path, given that the rules only REQUIRE the charge path when an evade move is to be made, i.e. after the interceptors have moved. I think this needs an FAQ because if I read Si's post correctly, his practice is to declare/negotiate the charge-path early in the sequence even though this is not strictly in sequence order.

Steve

I think I can interp this as no wheeling (for any reason) unless it will impact at least as many stands as would be impacted without said wheel, enemy ZOIs not withstanding.

IMHO, this may restrict LH (and their ilk) a bit too much in their ability to avoid being charged (I am thinking of a wide sweeping move around an interposing unit for example)... but since I have very, very few of those in my lists... I'm all for it!

Seriously, I would just word it as I stated above: No wheeling (for any reason) unless the result impacts at least as many stands as would otherwise be contacted.

This then begs the question do you HAVE TO wheel to bring max stands into contact? I am thinking yes, but don't know if it says as much in the rule book either.

Lastly, I think it should also be clarified a bit more that the target(s) of the charge need to be indentified upon declaration. I only saw it implied in one statement in the charge section last night (quoted above).

Ok we'll FAQ it ...

But its pretty obviousthat you need a path if there are potential interceptros or you don't know if they can or can't. It doesn't really matter as long as you move interceptors before any evades as Terry says.

So something like this I guess

[quote]"when do we need to delcare a direction for charge at that time?"

If troops are around who may intercept or evade - while the rules say its needed if evaders exist, we didn't make explciit that you will need a charge path to decide if interceptors can do anything (which happens in fact before evades). So if there are potential interceptors declare a pathm check its legal and decide if interceptors can move. Then move interceptors. Then move evades. Then move chargers.[/quote]

Si

GrumblingGrognard wrote:I think I can interp this as no wheeling (for any reason) unless it will impact at least as many stands as would be impacted without said wheel, enemy ZOIs not withstanding.

That is what the rules already say, i.e. no wheel if less would be contacted.

GrumblingGrognard wrote:Seriously, I would just word it as I stated above: No wheeling (for any reason) unless the result impacts at least as many stands as would otherwise be contacted.

They already do.

GrumblingGrognard wrote:This then begs the question do you HAVE TO wheel to bring max stands into contact? I am thinking yes, but don't know if it says as much in the rule book either.

No, you can always charge straight ahead, the rules only prohibit wheels as above.

Last post correct

Si

shall wrote:Ok we'll FAQ it ...

But its pretty obviousthat you need a path if there are potential interceptros or you don't know if they can or can't. It doesn't really matter as long as you move interceptors before any evades as Terry says.

So something like this I guess

[quote]"when do we need to delcare a direction for charge at that time?"

If troops are around who may intercept or evade - while the rules say its needed if evaders exist, we didn't make explciit that you will need a charge path to decide if interceptors can do anything (which happens in fact before evades). So if there are potential interceptors declare a pathm check its legal and decide if interceptors can move. Then move interceptors. Then move evades. Then move chargers.

Si[/quote]

Excellent.