Slitherine

shall wrote:

Aye, but then you've got an advantage of knowing with near certainty "authors intent"

Madcam.

Yes probably ..

But then I didn't have a clue about authors intent for DBM, and managed 10 years umpiring that at least Ok.

Si

Yes, but then you were only a "fair" player so had to excel in something.

Must have been that advanced degree in Barkerese.

Madcam.

Well so be it. I supose the key here will have to be consistency within an event. As the umpire for an upcoming event I will just have to be consistent from game to game. The closest analogy I come to is a baseball umpire. You want to know that if something is a strike in the 1st inning it better be a strike in the 9th as well although two different umpires may have a different strike zone.

Seems to me a slippery slope.

Gino
SMAC

Not really. We are not saying we won't FAQ common issues; jus that an FAQ will never cover everything and umpires can generally deal with the unusual ones. Its the difference between a 5 page and a 50 page FAQ. This forum acts as pretty good guidance for regular players and given most umpires will have good experience I suspect its a good balance.

Si

Too many FAQs just give the people looking for cracks more oppotunities to work with - a degree of uncertainty is helpful. Sounds counter-intuitive, however, having dealt with some of the best rules twisters around I can assure you its better that way

rogerg wrote:If the hf BG declares on the LH it depends on the direction of its charge as to whether it contacts the cavalry. If it is the last to charge and the targets are directly ahead, it will presumably end up where the VMD puts it. This situation is not like the other discussed however. The cavalry bases are legal contacts.

The hf has not made "legal" charge contact, so by your view there can't be contact in the impact phase, so the hf stop 1 MU short.

The issue is however, unlikely to arise. The charging player will presumably charge the hf first at a slight angle to get contact on one of the cavalry. If this can be done without exceeding the 3MU move there will be no VMD. Otherwise he takes the VMD and accepts the result.

Hang on - in the first paragraph you say it isn't a problem because hf can end in contact that isn't legal charge contact, and in the second you are saying that while they can't end in contact that isn't legal charge contact the charging player can work around it. Which is correct?

Also there may be reasons to not wheel hf - if hf is protected, Def Sp while HF are both armoured Off Sp.

Looking at the rules there are two key words.

"A charge cannot be declared if it would contact only the flank or rear edge of an enemy base ..."

This means that you can declare a charge that contacts something else and steps forward in to such a base.
This means that you can declare a charge that contacts such a base and then steps forward in to something else.
This means that you can declare a charge against something that evades, and you then contact such a base and nothing else.
A BG that charges without orders isn't restricted - such a BG be definition hasn't made a charge declaration.

There is no restriction on making such contact, and no removal of the impact combat.

In the initial question.
The charge is a legal charge declaration as it would contact the LH.
If the LH had not been present then the charge could not have been declared.
The charge having been declared, and once the LH have evaded, then the LF are a legal target of the charge - the restriction is only on declaration not on being a target of the charge.
Thus the Kn contact the LF, fight a round of impact combat, and then conform at the start of the manoeuver phase.

Simon's initial response I don't think is supported by the rules.
I see nothing that precludes impact combat - or implies such.
If there is no impact combat then the knights can't conform as they aren't in close combat.

In reply to the last post but one
Option 1 - hf declares on the LH and charges straight ahead. The LH evade. hf takes a VMD and ends up either short of the cav front or in side edge to side edge contact with both cavalry and between them. These will not be charge contacts. Side edge to side edge is not a charge contact. The rules state front edge or front corner only. There is not interaction between hf and the cav until they join in as overlaps in melee.

Option 2 - is better for the charging hf as it guarantees they fight in overlap in melee. So option 1 is never likely to occur. hf charges first at the LH declaring a slight angle. The LH evade and, unless at exactly 3 MU, the hf contact the cav (just) with a front edge on the cav corner, perfectly legal. The other HF charge at a similar angle. One cavalry base now has two HF and one hf base in contact. The foot player picks his best two fighting bases. After impact, the heavy foot align and hf is fighting as an overlap to each side.

Just to say I agree with Simon about the FAQs, too many and you end up with your opponent triumphantly pointing at page 47 of something that is twice the size of the rulebook.

The downhill slope to heresy trials starts with 'interpretations' - just ask the Council of Chalcedon

deleted

My understanding is that no base can be moved sideways more than a base width. If one of 'C' even partly straddles the gap between the two 'A' bases, no slide or contraction is possible. It is a burst through situation.

As Roger says bases can shift of fall behind, but no individual bse may shift more than 1 base width from its original position to do so.

He rightly says therefore that the answer depends on the exact locations but follow the above rule and it will get you there everytime.

Si

My head hurts. I was hoping for a concise statement of the rule, but I'm happy to understand how it works in this not so uncommon situation.

I believe it's not a charge declaration issue since declaration happens at the start of the phase and charge targets can be added later. P52 rather simply says "If a battle group is revealed and can now be contacted due to friends evading or breaking and routing, it becomes a target of the charge . . . ."

So, assuming the LF are revealed and lie in the charge path, the rule on p57 regarding contacting flank edges means the Knights could contact a third rank of LF if in the charge path since the first two are engaged. Assuming there is no such third rank, the LF cannot "now be contacted" so is not a target. As a result, the Knights can wheel in an attempt to catch the evading LH or just continue ahead in a charge path consistent with the declared charge direction and stop just before hitting the LF. Having charged, they may not move in the manoeuvre phase so sit unhappily for a turn while the LH turn and approach to pepper them with arrows.

(If their charge is fruitless, it seems to be their own fault as, realizing what could happen they could have declared a more useful charge direction that would result in overlap with the LF or some other more useful position once the LH evaded.)

Is this correct logic in this particular case?

Thanks,

Mike