Page 3 of 4
Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 3:35 pm
by lawrenceg
rogerg wrote:I'm pleased that your're agreed. However, it still means players are free to declare a charges knowing that it will not contact because other BG's will block it.
I can't see what advantage could be gained from this, other than the rare occasion where BG A of shock troops has a clear path to a target, but the clear path could be blocked if BG B charges first, but in that case A could adopt a different path to contact bursting through BG C. Declaring a charge by A would stop A from bursting though C. However, it could be argued that A cannot burst through C anyway as bursting through only applies if at the time of the CMT A cannot contact the enemy without passing through friends.
I still think it would be bettter to go with "...to declare a charge it has to be able to contact if no other BG were to move move and also if other BG's charge ".
workable, with some tightening up of the wording.
This is not a rule change. It just enforces the requirement of making a legal contact. I believe this would also reduce the need for further clarifications.
You still need the same clarifications to cover mutually incompatible charges when at least one was without orders. Plus clarifications of how to adjudicate
and also if other BG's charge (e.g. which other BGs?). Overall I think you'll find that the proposed wording has the double advantages of being simpler than your suggestion and agreed by all three authors and is almost identical in game effect.
The second paragraph about charges not contacting looks like a nice area for dispute.
Could you give examples of disputable scenarios?
Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 4:29 pm
by rogerg
The phrase 'as far as possible to the intended target' is open to interpretation. Would this mean without wheeling, wheeling so as to make the greatest move, wheeling to any option possible if the other BG had not charged? Would the charge that did make contact have to wheel so as to allow the non-contacting chargers to make the greatest move from one of the three option above?
Next comes the option of intercepting the chargers who do not make contact. The charger's path as defined above affects this.
You are correct that a clarification is needed if one or more 'incompatible charges' are without orders. This is easily resolved by having the charge by the shock troops failing a test taking priority. If these also are incompatible, the phasing player chooses which to cancel.
I haven't got a specific example in mind. I am just arguing that it will be less complicated to know which BG's are charging, and how they will arrive, before the opponent decides who evades, stands and intercepts. There have already been many questions about wheeling and contact. This can only get worse if we have mutually interacting charges.
I suspect it might be possible to have interception charges being made that don't make contact because another charge has blocked the chargers path.
Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 5:30 pm
by lawrenceg
rogerg wrote:The phrase 'as far as possible to the intended target' is open to interpretation. Would this mean without wheeling, wheeling so as to make the greatest move, wheeling to any option possible if the other BG had not charged? Would the charge that did make contact have to wheel so as to allow the non-contacting chargers to make the greatest move from one of the three option above?
Unplanned wheeling is only allowed if the targets evade out of reach. In that case you wheel or not as necessary to meet the "as far as possible" criterion, this does not need to be stated. Otherwise you follow your declared path as far as possible. This is derived from the existing rules without the need for clarification.
An improvement might be to change the wording to "must end as close as possible to the intended target" which is probably what he actually meant, rather than leaving the door open to the "make the greatest move" interpretation.
Next comes the option of intercepting the chargers who do not make contact. The charger's path as defined above affects this.
Interceptions are not affected because they go before charges and are based on the originally declared paths.
You are correct that a clarification is needed if one or more 'incompatible charges' are without orders. This is easily resolved by having the charge by the shock troops failing a test taking priority. If these also are incompatible, the phasing player chooses which to cancel.
Yes, it is easily dealt with. Not as easy as simply "the phasing player chooses which to cancel", which is effectively the current proposal.
I haven't got a specific example in mind. I am just arguing that it will be less complicated to know which BG's are charging, and how they will arrive, before the opponent decides who evades, stands and intercepts. There have already been many questions about wheeling and contact. This can only get worse if we have mutually interacting charges.
I suspect it might be possible to have interception charges being made that don't make contact because another charge has blocked the chargers path.
IMO the authors' proposed rule is less complicated.
You suggestion is not all that much more complicated and is slightly harsher on the owner of the shock troops. On the whole this is probably a good thing (not sure if it is worth the extra complication) although it does lead to the paradoxical situation where the player declares shock troops A to charge, but shock troops B fail their CMT not to charge the same target. Then the ones ordered not to charge charge, but the ones ordered to charge don't.
Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 7:59 am
by SirGarnet
lawrenceg wrote: Unplanned wheeling is only allowed if the targets evade out of reach. In that case you wheel or not as necessary to meet the "as far as possible" criterion, this does not need to be stated. Otherwise you follow your declared path as far as possible. This is derived from the existing rules without the need for clarification.
As indicated in my question above, it appears that by rules charges declarations are only against targets. Direction of charge need not be stated until someone decides to evade, otherwise when the charge is made. A charge path need not be determined until the actual charge (unless necessary for interception to be made).
Charge path is clear - it's the path the charge actually takes. My real question is what direction of charge means and whether it affects anything except where evaders may evade. (Terry? Hammy? Lawrence? Roger? Anyone with experience as to how it's done in the UK tourneys correct/clarify this please?)
I prefer the charge direction and paths to be declared when charges are declared - much simpler - but that's not the way the rules specify. If the charge path may remain undefined until the actual charges are made, then a proposal to limit charge declarations based on someone hypothetically getting in the way makes less sense, particularly because they might actually get in the way even though they had the option of not doing so.
I haven't got a specific example in mind. I am just arguing that it will be less complicated to know which BG's are charging, and how they will arrive, before the opponent decides who evades, stands and intercepts.
Concur with this sentiment. Question is what the rules require.
Thanks,
Mike
Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 9:51 am
by lawrenceg
MikeK wrote:
Charge path is clear - it's the path the charge actually takes. My real question is what direction of charge means and whether it affects anything except where evaders may evade. (Terry? Hammy? Lawrence? Roger? Anyone with experience as to how it's done in the UK tourneys correct/clarify this please?)
I prefer the charge direction and paths to be declared when charges are declared - much simpler - but that's not the way the rules specify. If the charge path may remain undefined until the actual charges are made, then a proposal to limit charge declarations based on someone hypothetically getting in the way makes less sense, particularly because they might actually get in the way even though they had the option of not doing so.
Mike
I suggest that "the direction the chargers would be facing when they hit the target" is the best definition of "direction of charge" to use for practical purposes.
In my experience (which is considerably less than that of Hammy et al), evaders nearly always go to their rear. If evading from the direction of charge, the charge is often straight ahead so there is no question what its direction is. If there is a wheel, they go approximately straight away from the chargers and the exact direction does not really matter. I haven't seen a case where the exact direction made a significant difference. In such a case I would use the definition above.
Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 10:27 am
by SirGarnet
lawrenceg wrote:I suggest that "the direction the chargers would be facing when they hit the target" is the best definition of "direction of charge" to use for practical purposes.
Appreciate the considered response. Yes, it is logical if the charger declares a direction in that manner. If he says "I'd move 2.75 MU, then wheel this far to hit at this angle." and places a direction marker down, then if the target evades does that charge path need to be followed or simply any move contacting the evader former position with that direction of facing at the time? Or can a wheel that "attempts" to follow evaders be made in another direction?
Evading in the direction of charge does come up as a decision reasonably often, so if the charger can force the evader to declare an evade before picking the direction, it is at least important that what that direction means be really clear.
Thanks,
Mike
Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 12:47 pm
by lawrenceg
MikeK wrote:lawrenceg wrote:I suggest that "the direction the chargers would be facing when they hit the target" is the best definition of "direction of charge" to use for practical purposes.
Appreciate the considered response. Yes, it is logical if the charger declares a direction in that manner. If he says "I'd move 2.75 MU, then wheel this far to hit at this angle." and places a direction marker down, then if the target evades does that charge path need to be followed or simply any move contacting the evader former position with that direction of facing at the time? Or can a wheel that "attempts" to follow evaders be made in another direction?
Evading in the direction of charge does come up as a decision reasonably often, so if the charger can force the evader to declare an evade before picking the direction, it is at least important that what that direction means be really clear.
Thanks,
Mike
From the relevant paragraph on page 68 I infer:
If any evader would be straight ahead of you then you have to follow the original path. (although they might mean "If there are no evaders in the area swept out by the original charge path...")
If not, then you can change to any permissible charge move in an attempt to catch them. It is clear from the context that the wheel mentioned is one that causes you to deviate from your original path.
In practice, intended charge paths are often declared when the charge is declared, as it is necessary to prove that contact can be made in order to declare the charge.
Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 8:52 am
by shall
Herewith my two-penneth .... aplogies if I have missed anything but a little shortof time to absorb the whole stream but hope I have the gist of it.
1. To declare a charge you must be able to contact the target. You have to be able to get around any friends to do so. Contingent charges are not part of the rules. So to me this bit is clear cut - if you cannot make contact without moving any other figures you can't charge.
2. Also once you declare a charge you must charge and attempt to contact your target(s). If you cannot make contact, you go as far as you can in the attempt - this is what we need to FAQ perhaps. You cannot cancel a charge out. This would lead to problems where you can commit and choose then not to commit - to me once you tell them to go they go. Perhaps we should allow them to go to an overlap position where this is available as that makes sense. This is the spirit of the other bases in a charging being able to contact corner-to-corner and fight in the melee phase. Perhaps we should apply that to all chargers at the target not just the bases of the BG contacting them. Of course in most cases the Bg could have not charged and go to overlap anyway in movement.
3. The active player can choose the order if charges. This does indeed give some tactical advantage to those charging with 2 BGs sometimes and I think that is a reasonable reward for getting into a 2:1 situation. One such example relates to the discussions about evader getting away. E.g.
XXXX = shooty cav
YYYZ.... y = lancer
YYYZ.... z = LH
.....Z
.....Z
Z is being used to try to stop the shooty cav running away. Shooty cav choose to stand instead of taking a risk with an evade. YY is chosen to charge first and wheels to make contact across front of the LH. It pushes the LH into an overlap position if we allow this, or stops them contacting if we do not.
This will allow the player with 2:1 Bg advantage may get the choice which BG to do most of the fighting with. This is perhaps a pretty sensible tactical result. It aso gives additional tactical options - which is always a good thing from a game dynamics point of view. Certainly i have never cancelled charge but rather moved them full and failed to make contact in the few occassions it has happened, but itis true that without and FAQ I don't see the rules covering it explicitly at present.
Shooty cav are hard enough to catch as it is. There are afew other good examples. But the main tacitcal one would be use of skirmishers to pin down enemy troops who can evade. Romans might use it to force Sassnids to stand and take a elgionary charge for instance.
While there may be some cheese to be found I don't obviously see it at present. Its just a reasonable option for the man with 2BGs against 1 is it not.
Si
Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 9:07 am
by SirGarnet
lawrenceg wrote:From the relevant paragraph on page 68 I infer:
If any evader would be straight ahead of you then you have to follow the original path. (although they might mean "If there are no evaders in the area swept out by the original charge path...") If not, then you can change to any permissible charge move in an attempt to catch them. It is clear from the context that the wheel mentioned is one that causes you to deviate from your original path. In practice, intended charge paths are often declared when the charge is declared, as it is necessary to prove that contact can be made in order to declare the charge.
In practice the charger may declare a path ("I'm wheeling 1 MU and moving forward"), then both evader and charger moves are easy to determine (just as it would be if charge wheels were initial wheels).
But the rules do say direction, not path. Since declaring direction only makes sense in the context of wheels, I suppose the direction must be the direction after the planned wheel to achieve contact with the right minimum number of bases - wherever in the charge path it lies. Chargers whose target is not ahead of their front could still move straight forward some distance and then wheel, so long as the required contact is made.
Deviating would then not mean a second wheel at all (since allowing two wheels is unnecessary and just permits more opportunistic direction declarations and zig zag charges), but changing the direction of the one wheel toward the evaders if they evade out of the path forward of the one wheel to the declared direction (wherever in the move the charger wants to take it). The charger can say he's deviating to wheel more at that point.
Is this consistent with the effects of your understanding of the rules?
Thanks,
Mike
declaring a charge path that was always required then the evade )If the charger declared a path rather than a "direction," the evade direction would be based on how the attackers get at them and the chargers would have a path to follow until they get to deviate.
[/quote]
That was my thought, but note the chargers are entitled to one wheel in the charge and they move after evasion - does this mean they get one free wheel plus a second wheel (presumably taken after the free wheel, or it does not make much sense) to deviate to "attempt" to catch evaders?
I
Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 10:54 am
by lawrenceg
Deviating would then not mean a second wheel at all (since allowing two wheels is unnecessary and just permits more opportunistic direction declarations and zig zag charges), but changing the direction of the one wheel toward the evaders if they evade out of the path forward of the one wheel to the declared direction (wherever in the move the charger wants to take it). The charger can say he's deviating to wheel more at that point.
Is this consistent with the effects of your understanding of the rules?
Thanks,
Mike
My understanding is:
If your original path points you at the evaders, you follow your original path (possibly including a single wheel).
If they all evade out of your original path, you can still only do one wheel, but this can be at a different point in the move and/or through a different angle.
Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 5:57 am
by shall
My understanding is:
If your original path points you at the evaders, you follow your original path (possibly including a single wheel).
If they all evade out of your original path, you can still only do one wheel, but this can be at a different point in the move and/or through a different angle.
And must be in an attempt to contact (at least one of) them
Also I would suggest, as there is some debate around this ...
Direction = where you are pointing
Path = area covered by moving along that direction given your move distance
Si
Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 10:38 am
by rogerg
Simon, your X,Y,Z diagram and explanation is a good example of what could happen. This seems to be a matter of perception. Some people might see Y swerving across in front of Z as a cheesy move. You see it as good tactical play. Just a matter then of letting people know the possible choices by adding that type of diagram to the FAQ to educate everyone.
As far as the non-contacter moving to overlap, I think that may be covered by the rule that mentions chargers making corner to corner contact, but not taking part in the dicing at impact. I'm still not sure it would be easy to resolve the issue of a BG intercepting Z.
Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 10:40 am
by lawrenceg
shall wrote:My understanding is:
If your original path points you at the evaders, you follow your original path (possibly including a single wheel).
If they all evade out of your original path, you can still only do one wheel, but this can be at a different point in the move and/or through a different angle.
And must be in an attempt to contact (at least one of) them
I can see this as a possible area for contention in a heated game.
If contact is not possible, could any move be construed as "an attempt" ?
Is it allowable to make a failed attempt when a successful attempt is possible?
Also I would suggest, as there is some debate around this ...
Direction = where you are pointing
Path = area covered by moving along that direction given your move distance
Si
Thanks for clearing that up.
In the case of "direction of the charge" if the charge contains a wheel, the charging BG will be pointing in an infinite number of directions between its initial and final directions. Which one(s) can the target evade in? I have suggested it should be only the final.
Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 11:03 am
by shall
shall wrote:
My understanding is:
If your original path points you at the evaders, you follow your original path (possibly including a single wheel).
If they all evade out of your original path, you can still only do one wheel, but this can be at a different point in the move and/or through a different angle.
And must be in an attempt to contact (at least one of) them
I can see this as a possible area for contention in a heated game.
If contact is not possible, could any move be construed as "an attempt" ?
Is it allowable to make a failed attempt when a successful attempt is possible?
One for umpires I would suggest - rules can only go so far....FWIW my ruling would be that the wheel towards a target must be the one that gets it closest. I have never had an issue with it.
Also I would suggest, as there is some debate around this ...
Direction = where you are pointing
Path = area covered by moving along that direction given your move distance
Si
Thanks for clearing that up.
In the case of "direction of the charge" if the charge contains a wheel, the charging BG will be pointing in an infinite number of directions between its initial and final directions. Which one(s) can the target evade in? I have suggested it should be only the final.
Direction = changes part way through the charge
Path = still the area covered by the charge, but is no oonger a rectangle but two separate ones.
Si
Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 11:09 am
by shall
Simon, your X,Y,Z diagram and explanation is a good example of what could happen. This seems to be a matter of perception. Some people might see Y swerving across in front of Z as a cheesy move. You see it as good tactical play. Just a matter then of letting people know the possible choices by adding that type of diagram to the FAQ to educate everyone.
As far as the non-contacter moving to overlap, I think that may be covered by the rule that mentions chargers making corner to corner contact, but not taking part in the dicing at impact. I'm still not sure it would be easy to resolve the issue of a BG intercepting Z.
Yes I agree Roger. Probably needs it from that point of view. I find it pretty reasonable in that case. I am trying to think of ones where I wouldn't and no doubt somebody will post one soon
. All very much tinkering at edges as I can count the number of times I have seen in in 2 years on 1 hand.
On the latter it is nearly covered but alas we say "other bases of the charging BG can .... " - so covered in spirit, but not literally I suspect. See page 52.
On a Bg intercepting Z what do you feel the issue is? Intercepts happen before any charge is moved so you can stick something in their way before YYY does anything. See detailed sequence of events.
Si
Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 12:22 pm
by rogerg
Re your diagram: Z declares a charge on X. A BG alongside X and further back cannot intercept because Z will not cross the path if it moves directly towards X. Y now crosses the front of Z as the first charge. Z now moves around Y to the overlap position. Its new path is now in the interception zone of X's friend Q. Too late to intercept though because Y has moved already.
XXXX QQQQ
XXXX
YYYY Z
(not tried ASCII art before, hope it works
Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 2:13 pm
by lawrenceg
shall wrote:
In the case of "direction of the charge" if the charge contains a wheel, the charging BG will be pointing in an infinite number of directions between its initial and final directions. Which one(s) can the target evade in? I have suggested it should be only the final.
Direction = changes part way through the charge
Si
X is LF
Y is LH facing up the page
Y charges X, including a wheel of 90 degrees.
X decides to evade in the direction of the charge.
Do X go up the page, to the right, or could they choose any direction between these two?
Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 4:15 am
by SirGarnet
lawrenceg wrote:shall wrote:
In the case of "direction of the charge" if the charge contains a wheel, the charging BG will be pointing in an infinite number of directions between its initial and final directions. Which one(s) can the target evade in? I have suggested it should be only the final.
Direction = changes part way through the charge
Si
X is LF
Y is LH facing up the page
Y charges X, including a wheel of 90 degrees.
X decides to evade in the direction of the charge.
Do X go up the page, to the right, or could they choose any direction between these two?
I think this is the easy part of the question - per the rules text, the direction is what Y declares it to be!
The hard part is determining what Y can declare as a direction, and then how that direction limits Y's actual charge movement after the evade is done.
To make it more clear, imaging YYY is facing 45 degrees to the right instead of straight up (i.e., facing "northeast" if top is north). Its shortest charge would be a wheel of about 45 degrees right and then directly across the page to the LF (charging "east"). Assuming it has enough movement, it could instead go diagonally up and to the right and then wheel 90 degrees and charge the LF from an angle that is 45 degrees different (charging "southeast"). It could also wheel anywhere between these extremes to charge.
So, which of the various compass directions Y COULD face during a charge to the LF's pre-evade position is a legitimate declared "direction"? This is critical for determining evasion options.
"Northeast" is the direction Y it starts the Impact Phase -- is it therefore the direction of the charge and the initial "charge path," even though that direction without a wheel would not contact the LF so it would not be legal to continue down that path and fail contact? Or can Y pick east or southeast or something in between? Does it then, as Lawrenceg suggests, have to ensure that its final charge direction is the declared direction (such as east or southeast)? Or does it just have to be facing the declared direction at some point, including mid-wheel?
(I think that exhausts the options?)
Clarification appreciated.
Mike
Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 4:19 am
by SirGarnet
shall wrote:One for umpires I would suggest - rules can only go so far....FWIW my ruling would be that the wheel towards a target must be the one that gets it closest. I have never had an issue with it.
It comes up. The situation that prompted my earliest question on this was where LF evaded to their rear into bad terrain and out of the straight-ahead path of a mounted charge. The charger went past the terrain and then wheeled so as to be in position for its charge at its next target in the clear behind the terrain (it didn't want to charge through the terrain). The reasons this was OK was that one wheel is allowed in the charge anyway, and, since the LF vaded off to the left, a left wheel was an "attempt" (admittedly futile) to follow them - although the tactical intent was to set up the next charge at a different target.
Mike
Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 7:16 am
by shall
Re your diagram: Z declares a charge on X. A BG alongside X and further back cannot intercept because Z will not cross the path if it moves directly towards X. Y now crosses the front of Z as the first charge. Z now moves around Y to the overlap position. Its new path is now in the interception zone of X's friend Q. Too late to intercept though because Y has moved already.
XXXX QQQQ
XXXX
YYYY Z
As the above all personal thoughts at present .... so await a consnesus view and a formal FAQ if one is deemed needed ....
First if the diag is correct then QQQ can intercept if it is close enough. It simply goes forward and stands in the face of Z doesn't it? If it is too far zway of course this will be a problem andit may get wheeled past. This would be true anyway would it not - even if YY did not exist.
As for direction of YYY I think I am right to say that we issued an FAQ to say that direction needed to be stated if there was a possible intercept. there isn't one for YYY so it doesn't have to choose a direction until it moves.
As for its direction - its up to YYY as long as it gets at least as many bases in contact. So it can't do anything silly but can have 3 over to the right if it wants instead of dead ahead.
Si