Slitherine

I think those words are just saying "they want to get stuck in so we've made it possible for them to do so even if you don't want that to happen, but we've put some exclusions in because they're not daft, just aggressive"

Sorry Graham but I'm getting confused here.

Pete is saying that if you can charge straight ahead without encountering a thing that prevents you testing, then you must test.

But you are saying if there is any possible angle you can charge at that will encounter one of those things then you don't test.

To me they are mutually exclusive statements. Is Pete right? Or are you?

grahambriggs wrote:I think those words are just saying "they want to get stuck in so we've made it possible for them to do so even if you don't want that to happen, but we've put some exclusions in because they're not daft, just aggressive"

Yes but if going straight ahead does NOT take them into disordering terrain just into the enemy (hopefully) why is that daft?

The writers tended to use as few words as possible, believing this would make the rules easier. In most cases it does.

The rules do not say what Pete is saying.

awesum4 wrote:Sorry Graham but I'm getting confused here.

Pete is saying that if you can charge straight ahead without encountering a thing that prevents you testing, then you must test.

But you are saying if there is any possible angle you can charge at that will encounter one of those things then you don't test.

To me they are mutually exclusive statements. Is Pete right? Or are you?

In my opinion I'm always right

I think Pete ruled it a different way to what the rules say - umpires are not infallible.

stancolleymore wrote:

grahambriggs wrote:I think those words are just saying "they want to get stuck in so we've made it possible for them to do so even if you don't want that to happen, but we've put some exclusions in because they're not daft, just aggressive"

Yes but if going straight ahead does NOT take them into disordering terrain just into the enemy (hopefully) why is that daft?

Well, for example, the initial impact may be fine, but if you then want to feed in more bases by expanding that can take you into the bad going. You might still think that it's a good idea, so declare a charge anyway. But the rules don't make you test in such circumstances.

I suppose the other way to consider it is that in reality terrain doesn't have a neatly defined edge. So t might be that our neatly defined "brush" actually peters out into the open terrain as the odd clump of brambles.

grahambriggs wrote:

awesum4 wrote:Sorry Graham but I'm getting confused here.

Pete is saying that if you can charge straight ahead without encountering a thing that prevents you testing, then you must test.

But you are saying if there is any possible angle you can charge at that will encounter one of those things then you don't test.

To me they are mutually exclusive statements. Is Pete right? Or are you?

In my opinion I'm always right

I think Pete ruled it a different way to what the rules say - umpires are not infallible.

As an umpire you can rule on the spirit of the rules as well as the rules as written. The bottom line is that people want an answer to a question that they can't answer themselves. As an umpire you are often under time pressure so any ruling is best that get's the game moving forward.

Upon reflection after carefully studying the rulebook you sometimes find you've made an error. I always think of the comment "You are entitled to an honest umpire, not an infallible one". Players make many mistakes during a game, similarly as an umpire you also make mistakes. But never on purpose.

dave_r wrote:Upon reflection after carefully studying the rulebook you sometimes find you've made an error. I always think of the comment "You are entitled to an honest umpire, not an infallible one". Players make many mistakes during a game, similarly as an umpire you also make mistakes. But never on purpose.

Bloody hell! That's just so mature and sensible. Well written too. Are you OK Dave?

I played Terry Shaw at The Worlds (ITC) in Virginia. He deliberately pushed half a base of MF longbowmen out of the rough going into the open to tempt my knights into a charge. Of course my Knights failed the test not to and charged. My Knight's straight ahead charge was completely in the open. While the initial contact point was also in the open, my Knights were forced to conform into the rough going and disordered.

zoltan wrote:I played Terry Shaw at The Worlds (ITC) in Virginia. He deliberately pushed half a base of MF longbowmen out of the rough going into the open to tempt my knights into a charge. Of course my Knights failed the test not to and charged. My Knight's straight ahead charge was completely in the open. While the initial contact point was also in the open, my Knights were forced to conform into the rough going and disordered.

Terry was always a cheating git.

zoltan wrote:I played Terry Shaw at The Worlds (ITC) in Virginia. He deliberately pushed half a base of MF longbowmen out of the rough going into the open to tempt my knights into a charge. Of course my Knights failed the test not to and charged. My Knight's straight ahead charge was completely in the open. While the initial contact point was also in the open, my Knights were forced to conform into the rough going and disordered.

You assumed the authors know the rules? They're the worst for that. I played Simon Hall last week and we had a lot of "can my BG who's in close combat charge your other unit?". Of course not, but that's one of the options they considered and didn't put in the rules.

dave_r wrote:

zoltan wrote:I played Terry Shaw at The Worlds (ITC) in Virginia. He deliberately pushed half a base of MF longbowmen out of the rough going into the open to tempt my knights into a charge. Of course my Knights failed the test not to and charged. My Knight's straight ahead charge was completely in the open. While the initial contact point was also in the open, my Knights were forced to conform into the rough going and disordered.

Terry was always a cheating git.

The charge and initial contact itself did not result in my knights entering disordering terrain (it was the subsequent conform). Similarly, I did not say 'ooh err if I wheel my charge a gnat's todger my Knights COULD enter disordering terrain and therefore don't have to test'.

zoltan wrote:

dave_r wrote:

zoltan wrote:I played Terry Shaw at The Worlds (ITC) in Virginia. He deliberately pushed half a base of MF longbowmen out of the rough going into the open to tempt my knights into a charge. Of course my Knights failed the test not to and charged. My Knight's straight ahead charge was completely in the open. While the initial contact point was also in the open, my Knights were forced to conform into the rough going and disordered.

Terry was always a cheating git.

The charge and initial contact itself did not result in my knights entering disordering terrain (it was the subsequent conform). Similarly, I did not say 'ooh err if I wheel my charge a gnat's todger my Knights COULD enter disordering terrain and therefore don't have to test'.

So it was all your own fault then