Testing Not to Charge (or not)?

[philqw78]

If you step forward you would not charge as your charghe is into the terrain. Even if that terrain is beyond you r charge reach without the step.

[stenic]

If you step forward you would not charge as your charghe is into the terrain. Even if that terrain is beyond you r charge reach without the step.

Ah. I'm with you now. I thinking that it was suggested the initial point of contact was the decision point for being in disordering terrain or not, but it is of course the 'end of the move'. Mea culpa.

Steve P

[Lycanthropic]

Someone get this guy some ice for his burn.

[sagji]

I disagree with Richard - I think the wording of the rules only supports the reading that the knights in this case can enter the terrain, and additionally I think this is reasonable. The knights are sensible about approaching the terrain and are trying to keep well clear - rather than than saying 2 yards away from the terrain is fine for a charge and then the melee shifting into the terrain as the BGs conform.


I also think that Richard's view can lead to situations where the knights can charge without orders into terrain.

Example:
A BG of knights has nothing in front of it but it has 2 targets equally near to straight ahead - one off to its left in clear the other off to its right partly in woods. If it charges the one on the right it will step forward into the wood. By Richard's interpertation the knights can charge the enemy in the woods without orders, by RAW it can't charge the one in the open without orders. I don't think either is correct.

I think there might be related problem.
If the BG in the clear is a 1 base BG of HF, and they are 5mm nearer to straight ahead. Before the knights move the HF are charged in the flank, and immediatly turn to face.
When testing to charge without orders they were the only target, but when resolving the charge they are not a target, as they aren't the nearest and might not be in range any more.

If "can" only applies to the VMD then the knights end in the wood. If it applies to player choices then it has to apply to all choices available.

[lawrenceg]

I disagree with Richard - I think the wording of the rules only supports the reading that the knights in this case can enter the terrain, and additionally I think this is reasonable. The knights are sensible about approaching the terrain and are trying to keep well clear - rather than than saying 2 yards away from the terrain is fine for a charge and then the melee shifting into the terrain as the BGs conform.


I also think that Richard's view can lead to situations where the knights can charge without orders into terrain.

Example:
A BG of knights has nothing in front of it but it has 2 targets equally near to straight ahead - one off to its left in clear the other off to its right partly in woods. If it charges the one on the right it will step forward into the wood. By Richard's interpertation the knights can charge the enemy in the woods without orders, by RAW it can't charge the one in the open without orders. I don't think either is correct.

You charge without orders if you can do so without having a chance of entering bad terrain. You are not compelled to charge into terrain if you could make another legal charge not entering terrain. Only if you can't make a legal charge with no chance of entering the terrain do you not need to test. Once the decision to charge is made, you are allowed to charge into the terrain, if you think it a good idea, subject to the targeting constraints. This applies to both charges with and without orders.

I think there might be related problem.
If the BG in the clear is a 1 base BG of HF, and they are 5mm nearer to straight ahead. Before the knights move the HF are charged in the flank, and immediatly turn to face.
When testing to charge without orders they were the only target, but when resolving the charge they are not a target, as they aren't the nearest and might not be in range any more.

If "can" only applies to the VMD then the knights end in the wood. If it applies to player choices then it has to apply to all choices available.

Well a 1 base BG can't exist in the impact phase.

I agree it is theoretically possible to do your charges in such an order that the only remaining target for a charge without orders will require you to enter terrain. But you have the choice of sequencing of your own charges, so you can do them in the order that allows you to do the previuosly identified charge with no chance of entering the terrain.

Richard has made it clear what the intention of the rule is. If it is possible to do a charge that has no chance of entering disordering terrain etc then you have to test not to charge.

If this is not an FAQ perhaps we should start a sticky thread "Seldom asked questions" for these (and there have been several now) slightly obscure situations that have been definitively ruled on.

[petedalby]

I agree with Richard's view.

Going back to the original scenario, and removing the intervening BG, the Kn could choose to charge the MF without their charge entering or ending in the terrain.

So if they could choose to charge, they would have to test not to charge - assuming that their charge would still not enter the terrain as mentioned.

Now replace the intervening BG. Yes, they still have to test not to charge. My apologies Paul but I think you were wrong. (Hope that doesn't affect any rulings I may require at the Challenge though! )

Pete

[pbrandon]

Pete, nothing was further from my mind - you wait tilll you see your draw though!

Paul

[nikgaukroger]

That'd be facing Hammy with his FoW army then ...

[rogerg]

Pete disagreed with you, but I agreed with you to my own disadvantage. I think you owe me two for the challenge. How about an easy first round game plus a biased umpiring decision?

[petedalby]

Pete, nothing was further from my mind - you wait tilll you see your draw though!

Now I know you're only joking but I still feel strangely unsettled!!

Just don't put me against Roger's Hussites!

Pete

[sagji]

I disagree with Richard - I think the wording of the rules only supports the reading that the knights in this case can enter the terrain, and additionally I think this is reasonable. The knights are sensible about approaching the terrain and are trying to keep well clear - rather than than saying 2 yards away from the terrain is fine for a charge and then the melee shifting into the terrain as the BGs conform.


I also think that Richard's view can lead to situations where the knights can charge without orders into terrain.

Example:
A BG of knights has nothing in front of it but it has 2 targets equally near to straight ahead - one off to its left in clear the other off to its right partly in woods. If it charges the one on the right it will step forward into the wood. By Richard's interpertation the knights can charge the enemy in the woods without orders, by RAW it can't charge the one in the open without orders. I don't think either is correct.

You charge without orders if you can do so without having a chance of entering bad terrain.

Except the rules are worded in the reverse - you can not test to charge if your charge can end in terrain.

You are not compelled to charge into terrain if you could make another legal charge not entering terrain.

No you are not compelled to charge into terrain.

Only if you can't make a legal charge with no chance of entering the terrain do you not need to test.

correct - but this conflicts with your 2 previous statements.

Once the decision to charge is made, you are allowed to charge into the terrain, if you think it a good idea, subject to the targeting constraints. This applies to both charges with and without orders.

I think there might be related problem.
If the BG in the clear is a 1 base BG of HF, and they are 5mm nearer to straight ahead. Before the knights move the HF are charged in the flank, and immediatly turn to face.
When testing to charge without orders they were the only target, but when resolving the charge they are not a target, as they aren't the nearest and might not be in range any more.

If "can" only applies to the VMD then the knights end in the wood. If it applies to player choices then it has to apply to all choices available.

Well a 1 base BG can't exist in the impact phase.

What I intended was 2 base BG as a "column"

I agree it is theoretically possible to do your charges in such an order that the only remaining target for a charge without orders will require you to enter terrain. But you have the choice of sequencing of your own charges, so you can do them in the order that allows you to do the previuosly identified charge with no chance of entering the terrain.

Thus you are saying that if I know that I will resolve the charges in that order at the point of testing that I must test to charge with a unit that will end in terrain, and the rule that says I don't have to test to charge if it can end in terrain doesn't apply because it can't end in terrain. Please provide a suitable historical example.

Richard has made it clear what the intention of the rule is. If it is possible to do a charge that has no chance of entering disordering terrain etc then you have to test not to charge.

If Richard wants the rules to read that way then all he has to do is issue an erratum with the change in it.

If this is not an FAQ perhaps we should start a sticky thread "Seldom asked questions" for these (and there have been several now) slightly obscure situations that have been definitively ruled on.

No we should have an erratum - if you change the rules that is not a clarification.

[rogerg]

Difficult rules to express, use of English, written intention implying one thing, precise wording suggesting another, all the reasons why this discussion list exists. In the end we settle the differences by taking a neutral umpires's view at the time and then clarifying the authors' intention afterwards. I think we are there now.

[sagji]

Difficult rules to express, use of English, written intention implying one thing, precise wording suggesting another, all the reasons why this discussion list exists. In the end we settle the differences by taking a neutral umpires's view at the time and then clarifying the authors' intention afterwards. I think we are there now.

I think we aren't - we have had an author's view, and that view leaves this a lot less clear than the RAW.

Code: Select all

....                              ....
MFMF.                              .MFMF
MFMF.              HF              .MFMF
.....     CvCv     HF     CvCv     .....
.....     CvCv            CvCv     .....

Each Bg of Cv is 5mm nearer to the HF than the MF, and close enough to contact the MF in terrain "." The Cv have lance.
If they both charge the one to move second will end in terrain.

Neither BG has declared a charge - do they have to test to charge without orders?

If you take away 1 of the MF and its terrain, and the Cv on that side declares a charge does the other Cv have to test to charge without orders? Does it depend on the order the player wants to do the charges in?

In my view the player should be free to do the charges in either order, and the BG to move first needs to test. If it charges without orders then the other BG doesn't test as its charge can end in terrain - however if the first passes the test and doesn't charge then the other BG has to test as its charge now can't end in terrain.

[petedalby]

Why can't both Cav charge the HF?

Pete

[lawrenceg]

Why can't both Cav charge the HF?

Pete

I think they can both charge it, as it is not in close combat at the time the charges go in. It's not in close combat until you get to "Resolve impact combats" in the turn sequence.

[lawrenceg]

You charge without orders if you can do so without having a chance of entering bad terrain. You are not compelled to charge into terrain if you could make another legal charge not entering terrain. Only if you can't make a legal charge with no chance of entering the terrain do you not need to test. Once the decision to charge is made, you are allowed to charge into the terrain, if you think it a good idea, subject to the targeting constraints. This applies to both charges with and without orders.

THe last two sentences above are wrong. Charges without orders cannot go into disordering terrain.

Page 58 says:

...shock troops will not charge without orders (and are therefore not required to take a CMT to prevent charging) in the following circumstances:

If their move could end even partly in terrain ....

The fundamental rule is will not charge without orders . The stuff about not having to test is derived from that (therefore...), put in to save you the bother of testing in situations where you can't charge.

If it so happens that you have tested, that does not alter the fact that the BG will not charge without orders if, at the time when it tries to charge, the situation has changed so one of the cases listed under "will not charge without orders" now applies.

[shall]

...shock troops will not charge without orders (and are therefore not required to take a CMT to prevent charging) in the following circumstances:

If their move could end even partly in terrain ....

The fundamental rule is will not charge without orders . The stuff about not having to test is derived from that (therefore...), put in to save you the bother of testing in situations where you can't charge.

If it so happens that you have tested, that does not alter the fact that the BG will not charge without orders if, at the time when it tries to charge, the situation has changed so one of the cases listed under "will not charge without orders" now applies.

Quite right alneit it rarely applies. My two penneth as working thoughts.....

The other key word is COULD. Could means "is possible that". This is consistent with the way we look at interception by Elelphants where we have said that shock troops wouldn't test as they could end up in contact with Ellies.

The way it works as far as I play it is that you would charge the enemy closest to dead ahead if there are multiple targets (end of section) and you can't contact them all. If you can contact them all then do so. Therefore as best I can tell in the example noted ...

If the Cv(Left) would be forced to charge the MF on a field test, as the target closest to directly ahead and this could (indeed would) take them into terrain. They therefore don't need to test. Cv(Right) has the same target issue if it would go for the righthand MF. As the Cv become more central there is a point at which they both go for the HF instead and have to test. As far as I can see both could charge the HF under orders.

In terms of philosophy the basic principle is that such shock troops risk charging iff they feel comfortable that they have open terrain all around them and no risk of going anywhere horrible. MF shock troops are the reverse and will charge only if sure they will stay in safe territory. Hence COULD and the possibility of getting in a pickle is sufficient to put them off. Thus a little bit of marsh around will be enough to temper knights enthusisam. In general we wanted to failed test to create control traps for players but not to open up all sorts of horrible little terrain traps.

Si

[pbrandon]

I don't want to read too much into what you have said Si and I don't want to put words into your mouth, but my reading of what you have written is at odds with what Richard has said previously in this thread, I think. My understanding (and again I'm not trying to put words into his mouth) was that Richard took the view the test not to charge had to happen if there was a viable charge target that could be contacted by the shock troops without entering the terrain. You seem to me to be suggesting that if any available charge could enter terrain, then no test is taken. Probably I am mis-understanding what one of you is saying, but a clarification would be appreciated.

Paul

[shall]

I don't want to read too much into what you have said Si and I don't want to put words into your mouth, but my reading of what you have written is at odds with what Richard has said previously in this thread, I think. My understanding (and again I'm not trying to put words into his mouth) was that Richard took the view the test not to charge had to happen if there was a viable charge target that could be contacted by the shock troops without entering the terrain. You seem to me to be suggesting that if any available charge could enter terrain, then no test is taken. Probably I am mis-understanding what one of you is saying, but a clarification would be appreciated.

Well its always possible that we play it slightly differently as we are a few hundred miles apart .. we don't always agree, but will sort out a common view if different. I can't see RBS points scrolling down below.

To expand a little how I play it and why:

1. Page 59 last section says quite definitevely "shock troops who cannot contact all potential target BGs within charge range, charge the one(s) nearest to straight ahead". So the charge is predetermined prior to the test not to charge. It will either contact all potential targets or go at the one closest to dirctly ahead and hit this and any others as a result.

2. If this could put it in terrain with press forwards, evaders moving away and a long-doce roll etc. then I don't make them test. If it wouldn't, I do. Vice-versa for MF leaving terrain.

From what you say perhaps RBS interprets page 58 "Mounted shock troops must pass a CMT to prevent them from charging any ememy BGs within charge range" as allowing a change of target beyond (1) above? Otherwise I would have thought we are agreeing albeit in different words.

If given the above you can narrow the area that seems different, Paul (and maybe point me to his postings) I can then take it off line and clarify officially after chatting to RBS. Ap;logies for any apprent confusion if we are presenting a slightly different version of the same thing.

Of course I might be suffering baby brain and have it all wrong....


Si

[shall]

Paul

Found his original. The scroll back only covered page 2.

We share a common spirit that shock troops only charge if they can do so without risking entering nasty terrain.

There may well be a subtle difference in how we intepret thereafter. Having not seen the apparently bonkers situation I am not sure. It may well be I would hve formed the same view.

Happy to investigate.

Si