Testing Not to Charge (or not)?

[pbrandon]

I had forgotten the issue about charging straight ahead if not all can be contacted and that is likely to reduce the number of times the question is relevant, but let me try and put a picture together to illustrate it as I think that will be clearer than attempting to describe it. Maybe not today as am FoGging tonight (with no shock troops in my army ).

Thanks for the replies btw.

Paul

[shall]

I had forgotten the issue about charging straight ahead if not all can be contacted and that is likely to reduce the number of times the question is relevant, but let me try and put a picture together to illustrate it as I think that will be clearer than attempting to describe it. Maybe not today as am FoGging tonight (with no shock troops in my army ).

Yes I find that quite important on many occasions. Have a good game.

Thanks for the replies btw.

Always a pleasure

Si

[pbrandon]

In the picture above blue are Kn (shock troops) owned by player A. Red are, let's say, MF owned by player B. The green area is rough going which one of the two red BGs is entirely within. All other going is good. Neither red BG is entirely ahead of the Kn and both require exactly the same amount of wheel to be contacted. Both units can be contacted in terms of move distance.

It is player A's turn and he does not want the Kn to charge. Does the Kn BG have to take a test not to charge?

Point of view 1 - there is an enemy BG that can be contacted in with the Kn staying in good going and so the Kn must test not to charge.

Point of view 2 - since the Kn could charge an enemy BG in disordering terrain, they do not have to charge.

On the first page of this thread, Lawrence offered the two altenatives and RBS agreed with this statement “They can do a charge that could not end in disordering terrain, therefore they do need to test.”

RBS went on to say: “because the rule is clearly intended (solely) to prevent shock troops being forced to charge into disordering terrain against their general's (player's) wishes.

The fact that the general (player) can, by wheeling the shock troops, engineer a charge into disordering terrain does not mean that the troops are being forced to do so.”

My understanding of that is that RBS tends to PoV 1 above.

On age 2 of this thread in your first contribution you said:
“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.”

I read that as being PoV 2.

With apologies for the lengthy quotes from earlier posts (I am trying to clarify where my confusion arises from) am I misunderstanding what one of you is saying or is there a difference of opinion here?

Paul

[sagji]

Why can't both Cav charge the HF?

Pete

Because when the first contacts it in the flank it immediatly turns, and this then means that when the other moves its nearest target is the MF in the terrain.

[sagji]

Point of view 1 - there is an enemy BG that can be contacted in with the Kn staying in good going and so the Kn must test not to charge.

Point of view 2 - since the Kn could charge an enemy BG in disordering terrain, they do not have to charge.

Paul

My initial view was pov2, however Simon has convinced my that pov3 is the correct view.

point of view 3 - the restriction on testing is in parenthesis and so is an expected use case - like the roll of +2 VMD for charge distance. The actual rule is that troops won't make a charge without orders if ...
In this case the Kn do test to charge, but then when about to charge have a choice of target, if they choose the target in the terrain then they don't move, and haven't made a charge, so can move in the maneouvre phase.

[pbrandon]

Oh gawd! There's a third option? I haven't really thought about it, but is this functionally any different to PoV 2? Just as I type that I realise there is in terms of the option to burst through friends.

Paul

[ars_belli]

Thanks for the pics and sample, Paul. They really help clarify the situation for those of us who are more visually oriented.

Cheers,
Scott

[lawrenceg]

I think from RBS comments and Simon's mangled English that what the authors intended is :

If it is possible to do a legal charge with no risk of (exemptions as listed) then you need to test.

If, at the time you come to do the charge, it is possible to do a legal charge with no risk of (exemptions as listed) then you MUST do such a charge. Otherwise, you don't charge.

The existence of other legal charges that do carry a risk of (exemptions as listed) makes no difference.

Remember that for a charge without orders to be legal, either it must contact all possible targets, or if it can't contact them all it must contact the one closest to straight ahead. This is in addition to normal restrictions eg on wheeling or contacting enemy already in combat.

If it is possible to contact all targets, but not without a risk of (exemptions as listed) then you don't need to test, even if you could charge, say, just one of them with no risk. This is a logical consequence of the rule as written (but I'm not sure if it was intended).

[shall]

My general policy is to play RAW until I find something odd. Then I will discuss altering the rules and change my approach thereafter. See the lines in columns discussion for this, where I feel the rules allow the proposed move, I actually intended it to allow it, but am pretty ambivalent and happy to adapt to a different view - even though itis technically a change of the RAW, which are clear IMHO.

Excuse me for further delving this area live, but as we may have a different view it is at times useful to bash it about it about with the help of some players, rather than in isolation. There are lots of side effects to this one that are concerning if done certain ways.

Your drawing is very helpful Paul.

1. Potentially both targets are in range if targetted individually
2. If they were near together so both could be contacted by a charce then this must happen. This would go into terrain so there is no test and no out of control charge.
3. If such a charge cannot target both then it charges the one "most to the front". If in the speciic mesurements that target is the one in the open, the charger must test and risk such a charge; if it is not then it does have to test as its target is the one in the rough. No choices.

As far as I can see there is nothing that stops any BG in range being a target, all cancellation is about the charger entering terrain.

My worry if you go the other way is that there are many potential side effects if the rule becomes, charge any possible target ignoring those closest.

Set up a siutation now with the MF in the rough 50% to the front just far enough away from the enemy to allow the Knights to do a massive wheel and charge the cavalry to the side. The main target is clrearly the troops in the rough going. But under POV1 the knights have to do an insane charge around to one side, opening their flank up to the troops in the scrub, when surely they would not. I can cunjour up quit a few where I suspect the cancellation is a much better policy than forcing you to charge "the last avaialble traget that doesn't get you in terrain".

My mindset throughout has always been "cancelletion if in doubt, careering ahead if feeling 100% comfortable to do so"

Si

[nikgaukroger]

3. If such a charge cannot target both then it charges the one "most to the front". If in the speciic mesurements that target is the one in the open it must test and risk such a charge, if it is not then it does have to test as its target is the one in the rough. No choices.

Excuse question but I am sans rules at the moment but doesn't the "charge most to the front" bit of the rules only kick in when a charge has been declared or forced upon a BG by a failed test? If so it couldn't affect whehter the test takes place.

I am more inclined to go with Lawrences view on this as being pretty clear and, IMO, in line with the spirit of the rules as I understand them.

[pbrandon]

Then am I just misunderstanding what RBS said or is there a difference of opinion?

Paul

[lawrenceg]

3. If such a charge cannot target both then it charges the one "most to the front". If in the speciic mesurements that target is the one in the open it must test and risk such a charge, if it is not then it does have to test as its target is the one in the rough. No choices.

Excuse question but I am sans rules at the moment but doesn't the "charge most to the front" bit of the rules only kick in when a charge has been declared or forced upon a BG by a failed test? If so it couldn't affect whehter the test takes place.

Well the text in the rules appears after the text about needing to test, but you will know when you do the test that you are going to have to apply it, therefore it does affect whether a test takes place. The thought process would be along the lines of (for example):

Q1: If I charge without orders, where will I charge?
A1: At the BG closest to straight ahead.

Q2: If I charge the BG closest to straight ahead, can I do this without risk of entering disordering terrain etc?
A2: No

Conclusion: no need to test.

[nikgaukroger]

Has sense

[shall]

Excuse question but I am sans rules at the moment but doesn't the "charge most to the front" bit of the rules only kick in when a charge has been declared or forced upon a BG by a failed test? If so it couldn't affect whehter the test takes place.

It justs says what shock troops charging without orders do. Without such a statement there is no way to determine who they charge adn whether theushould test when there are multiple targets. ( as Lawrence has just said another way)

The earlier bit about testing is determined by whether the charge could go into terrain, reflecting that such charge is not happening at present and that future events have to be taken into consideration.

As for the intent, it may be another why my and RBSs intents are slightly different as well. My intent was that shcok troops would charge when fully comfortable about the terrain around them, this will then set control challenges but avoid terrain traps. RBS may have intended that you charge any target that can be charged without going into terrain, which is a less full condition. This creates control and terrain traps (which is why I am less keen).

However I would suggests the RAW reflect more the former that the latter at present.

Room for some good discussion that might belp us finalise a view. A good one for sure.

Si

[petedalby]

Because when the first contacts it in the flank it immediatly turns, and this then means that when the other moves its nearest target is the MF in the terrain.

I don't want this to sidetrack or interfere with the main debate - but I still don't get it?

The target BG in your example was of 2 bases. Why can't the first charging BG hit the front base and the 2nd charging base hit the rear base?

This gives 4 dice vs 4 dice at impact. After impact the 2nd charging BG must conform to the front of the enemy BG and fights as an overlap only?

Or have I totally misunderstood the situation you were tying to describe?

Pete

[lawrenceg]

Because when the first contacts it in the flank it immediatly turns, and this then means that when the other moves its nearest target is the MF in the terrain.

I don't want this to sidetrack or interfere with the main debate - but I still don't get it?

The target BG in your example was of 2 bases. Why can't the first charging BG hit the front base and the 2nd charging base hit the rear base?

This gives 4 dice vs 4 dice at impact. After impact the 2nd charging BG must conform to the front of the enemy BG and fights as an overlap only?

Or have I totally misunderstood the situation you were tying to describe?

Pete

He was envisaging a situation where the target BG gets hit by a flank charge on both bases, which causes them both to turn to face the flank. This makes the 2 base BG now 15 mm deep for HF and facing sideways, instead of 40 mm wide, facing forwards. Effectively this moves the nearest point of the BG by 25 mm to the side when you judge "nearest to straight ahead". Then the other BG on the other side becomes nearest to straight ahead and you have to charge that instead.

i.e. a totally contrived situation made up to illustrate a point.

[petedalby]

Thanks Lawrence

Pete

[rogerg]

Simon, I would suggest one man's trap is another's good play. It would be best I think to interpret the rules without having to make these subjective judgments.
There is a logical problem with the rules in that the need to test is dependent on a future condition that may change, the state of the target.
The intention which I understand from the RBS comment, and the rules, is that shock troops want to charge and must test not to if the owner declines. The only times that this test is not necessary is if the only charges available at the time of the test will enter bad terrain, could be intercepted by elephants etc. Should this condition change by the time the figures are to be moved, can there be a retrospective cancellation of the charge? I would suggest the answer is yes. The intention of the rules seems to be that shock troops should not be forced into a situation which would have been a reason not to test.

If this is to be a FAQ, then perhaps it needs to be worded to say that charges due to failed tests are cancelled if the reasons not to test apply at the time the figures are to be moved. Not only does this seem to be the spirit of the rules, any other decision will see people devising elaborate traps. And, as history has shown, we will all learn how to do this or lose out in competitive play.

[shall]

Simon, I would suggest one man's trap is another's good play. It would be best I think to interpret the rules without having to make these subjective judgments.

Indeed but it is our job to decide which traps we consider the fomer and which the latter, and set the rules accordingly. For my part my intent is to create control traps but not terrain traps for shcok troops, and the rules were written with that in mind. There is nothing subjective about it as it is then inbuilt into the RAW. I may be missing something but thus far I am struglling to see what it is.

There is a logical problem with the rules in that the need to test is dependent on a future condition that may change, the state of the target.

Why is this a logical problem. It means you have too look at what will happen before making a move, but so is measuring to see if they are in charge range.

The intention which I understand from the RBS comment, and the rules, is that shock troops want to charge and must test not to if the owner declines. The only times that this test is not necessary is if the only charges available at the time of the test will enter bad terrain, could be intercepted by elephants etc.

Surely we should first go by the RAW, which generally speaking have been written to match the intent. Where does it say any of this. It doesn't say that at all - nor was is supposed to. As for intent, RBS's intent may have been the above, but mine was not. My itent and the RAW are aligned. You use the rules to see where you would charge, and if that could take you into terrain, contact with elephants you don't test.

So the rules never mention at all "if the only charges available at the time of the test will enter bad terrain", they say if your chrage (which is predetermined in terms of targets by the rules) COULD enter terrain. This is fundamentally different. Am I missing something?

Should this condition change by the time the figures are to be moved, can there be a retrospective cancellation of the charge? I would suggest the answer is yes. The intention of the rules seems to be that shock troops should not be forced into a situation which would have been a reason not to test.

Clearly if you missed something that you failed to spot until soemefigures were moved then of course it is "cancelled" in that it never happened. This is no different to taking a base of for a death roll, realising you forgot to add the +1 for Elephants, and agreeing to put it back with the goodwill of your opponent. However, there is no reason for anything new to occur that is not foreseen. You can see potential intercepts, you know where they are charging and you can see potential evaders. What else is there? Again I must be missing something.

If this is to be a FAQ, then perhaps it needs to be worded to say that charges due to failed tests are cancelled if the reasons not to test apply at the time the figures are to be moved. Not only does this seem to be the spirit of the rules, any other decision will see people devising elaborate traps. And, as history has shown, we will all learn how to do this or lose out in competitive play.

Surely this is common practice where a genuine mistake has been made in all games ...?

[pbrandon]

I must admit I found Roger's post a bit cryptic, but I think he may have been referring to the other example that has been discussed on this thread, not my one which I got the impression you were referring back to Si.

Paul