Testing Not to Charge (or not)?

[shall]

Could be .. I am a bit confused. Have passed it to RBS in case I am missing something.

Maybe we need to step back and restate the questions separately so we are not at cross purposes. That wpould certainly help me. Can I suggest maybe a new stream with a specific in each stream?

I do wonder however whether RBS and have a very different interp and intent on this which would be quite funny. Although bound to happen at times I am sure!!

Apologies Roger if I am showing a little frustration - finding this one a bit like juggling live Mackerel (shades of Monty Python)

Si

[sagji]

What happens if the shock troops have two seperate targets equally far from straight ahead, one in terrain?

a) You must charge the one not in terrain - the "obvious" choice
b) You may choose either, but if you choose the one in terrain you don't move.
c) You can't charge either - at the point of testing you could later choose the one in terrain so the charge can end in terrain, thus you don't test.
d) You roll for which is nearer.

[shall]

It has been precedent for years that if two things are ever equal the mover chooses.

I would go with this and therefore (b). Of course you may still hit the other BG by pressing forward and therefore enter terrain ad not have to test. It would depend on the circumstance.

Si

[lawrenceg]

What happens if the shock troops have two seperate targets equally far from straight ahead, one in terrain?

a) You must charge the one not in terrain - the "obvious" choice
b) You may choose either, but if you choose the one in terrain you don't move.
c) You can't charge either - at the point of testing you could later choose the one in terrain so the charge can end in terrain, thus you don't test.
d) You roll for which is nearer.

4 pages and we are back to essentially the same question that we started with.

RBS has clearly stated his intention, which leads to option a)
Shall has clearly stated it is option b)

IMO the intention (of RBS) 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.

Simon seems to be saying

The existence of other legal charges that do carry a risk of (exemptions as listed) allows the moving player to choose one of the risky charges and hence avoid charging without orders, or choose a non-risky option if he does want to charge without orders.

[rogerg]

Sorry I got a bit cryptic. It was one of those times when I knew what I intended to say, but when it got into words it didn't appear quite so simple. I'll try again.

The logic problem I see with the rules is that the 'not to charge' test is taken before all the figures are moved. After some charges have been moved the charge path may no longer be available, having been blocked by other friends, contacted flank figures turning or whatever. This means a 'could charge without meeting terrain, elephants or whatever may no longer hold true. This I presume is what might be called a 'terrain trap'. There were references to this type of situation in earlier posts.

My comments about 'intention of the rule' were an attempt to go back to why this rule exists in the first place. I presume it is because it is supposed that shock troops may be inclined to charge without direct orders and we need this to occur in the game. We also recognise when this shouldn't happen, namely in situations which are clearly detrimental to the chargers in terms of terrain and elephants or whatever.

I hoped to get us out of the precise meaning of 'could' and what seems to me to be a possible conflict between the intention expressed above in the rules (but not in those precise words) and interpretations of the RAW.

This thread started following an incident in a game between Paul and myself. My reading of the intent expressed in the rules, and later apparently confirmed by RBS, conflicted with Paul's interpretation of 'could'. Subsequently we seem to have reached a situation where we are not sure that the authors had the same interepretation of intent. The 'rules as written' are not proving too helpful. The 'descriptive part' appearing to imply one thing, while a literal interpretation of the 'could', in a subsequent paragraph, implies another. Both are the RAW, even if the first is descriptive, rather than 'legal terminology' of the latter.

Might I politely suggest that the solution to this issue is to start with what the authors intend to happen with spontaneous
charges.

This post got a bit long as well.

[pbrandon]

Like Lawrence, I believe the two authors who have opined have a different view on the intent - which, I guess, is bound to happen from time to time. It seems to me that we want them to agree an intent between themselves and the answer will flow from that.

Terry may have to have a casting vote

Paul

[rbodleyscott]

Like Lawrence, I believe the two authors who have opined have a different view on the intent - which, I guess, is bound to happen from time to time. It seems to me that we want them to agree an intent between themselves and the answer will flow from that.

Terry may have to have a casting vote

Or Simon and I could wrestle in mud with Terry refereeing.

[pbrandon]

Don't take this the wrong way, but if you invite Terry to see some mud wrestling and that's what he gets, he may be disappointed

Paul

[shall]

pbrandon wrote:
Like Lawrence, I believe the two authors who have opined have a different view on the intent - which, I guess, is bound to happen from time to time. It seems to me that we want them to agree an intent between themselves and the answer will flow from that.

Terry may have to have a casting vote

Or Simon and I could wrestle in mud with Terry refereeing

Ok I surrender at that threat.

Seriously though from time to time we will have differences. Lets be clear that our overall intent is the same, but it seems the detailed one isn't.

I guess what is confusing me is Rogers view that the sections of the rules aren't consistent. They seem totally so to me and could means...well could. Or it would say "would if". To me "could" is chosen for a specfic reason - it means they only charge if they have 0% chnace of entering such terrain. Thus removing all terrain traps.

So we have two issues. RBS and I to fix the intent. but can someone explain to me why the rules that say could are being treated as something else. At present I just don't follow it.

While we can have a discusison about intent we surely need to work from the RAW as a first step.

From the discussion so far it seems to me that I may be inthe same camp as Paul who had a definition of could meaning "possible that", which is as far as I am aware what it does mean.

Si the confused

[lawrenceg]

pbrandon wrote:
Like Lawrence, I believe the two authors who have opined have a different view on the intent - which, I guess, is bound to happen from time to time. It seems to me that we want them to agree an intent between themselves and the answer will flow from that.

Terry may have to have a casting vote

Or Simon and I could wrestle in mud with Terry refereeing

Ok I surrender at that threat.

Seriously though from time to time we will have differences. Lets be clear that our overall intent is the same, but it seems the detailed one isn't.

I guess what is confusing me is Rogers view that the sections of the rules aren't consistent. They seem totally so to me and could means...well could. Or it would say "would if". To me "could" is chosen for a specfic reason - it means they only charge if they have 0% chnace of entering such terrain. Thus removing all terrain traps.

So we have two issues. RBS and I to fix the intent. but can someone explain to me why the rules that say could are being treated as something else. At present I just don't follow it.

While we can have a discusison about intent we surely need to work from the RAW as a first step.

From the discussion so far it seems to me that I may be inthe same camp as Paul who had a definition of could meaning "possible that", which is as far as I am aware what it does mean.

Si the confused

You must be confused, because now you appear to be saying it is option c)

c) You can't charge either - at the point of testing you could later choose the one in terrain so the charge can end in terrain, thus you don't test.

[gozerius]

I get it. So in order to determine the possibility of testing not to charge, the following must happen.
1. There are enemy BGs within charge range of the shock BG.
2. The active player does not declare a charge with said shock BG.
3a. The shock BG can contact all potential targets, along the same charge path, without encountering unfavorable terrain, including stepping forward.
3b. Barring that, the shock BG can contact the enemy BG nearest to his front without encountering unfavorable terrain, including stepping forward.
In both of the above conditions, if the target could evade, the charge path of the shock BG is through favorable terrain for the full normal move +VMD +2MU (possible stepping forward).

[expendablecinc]

Could be .. I am a bit confused. Have passed it to RBS in case I am missing something.

Maybe we need to step back and restate the questions separately so we are not at cross purposes. That wpould certainly help me. Can I suggest maybe a new stream with a specific in each stream?

I do wonder however whether RBS and have a very different interp and intent on this which would be quite funny. Although bound to happen at times I am sure!!

Apologies Roger if I am showing a little frustration - finding this one a bit like juggling live Mackerel (shades of Monty Python)

Si

I dont think its about the definition of "could" but what it is supposed to apply to.
If troops dont have to test if one of thier own choice will end up with them in terrain it will lead to soem very strange situations.

eg a line of knight lancers in front of a line of poor MF. Both BGs are entirely in the open with no terrain between them. The BGs are 1 inch apart and lined up perfectly. If there was terrain to both BGS flank (ie the standoff is accuuring alongside an enclosed field) the KNights woudlnt have to test as a 1 mm wheel woudl end u with them partly in disordering terrain. There is a choice on the part of the knights before charge declaratino that could end up with them in terrain.

The same silliness occurs when there are two potential targets. Some elite defensive spear in the open to one side and some poor MF in terrain to the other. charging the spear cannot end with the Knights in terrain so unless a charge is declared I think they shoulg have to test and if failed have to charge the spear (ie enemy that couldn't end in terrain).

Was "could" intended to cover such things as related to stepping forward and variable moves?

Anthony

[shall]

You must be confused, because now you appear to be saying it is option c)

c) You can't charge either - at the point of testing you could later choose the one in terrain so the charge can end in terrain, thus you don't test.

err no. There is only 1 target. In the case that anything is ever equal moving player chooses. So make your choose knowing they are equal and all is clear. If you re going to nominate the left hand one then you cou;dn't charge the right hand one.

Si

[shall]

eg a line of knight lancers in front of a line of poor MF. Both BGs are entirely in the open with no terrain between them. The BGs are 1 inch apart and lined up perfectly. If there was terrain to both BGS flank (ie the standoff is accuuring alongside an enclosed field) the KNights woudlnt have to test as a 1 mm wheel woudl end u with them partly in disordering terrain. There is a choice on the part of the knights before charge declaratino that could end up with them in terrain.

The same silliness occurs when there are two potential targets. Some elite defensive spear in the open to one side and some poor MF in terrain to the other. charging the spear cannot end with the Knights in terrain so unless a charge is declared I think they shoulg have to test and if failed have to charge the spear (ie enemy that couldn't end in terrain).

This is not silliness. The knights are not in a fully secrre situation having terrain dangerously close. They can of course DECLARE a charge if they want to and there is nothing to stop them doing so. The reason for could is precisely to stop forced charges in situations that could result in terrain traps.

I can make your example very silly indeed by putting some troops wo can intercept resulting in the chargers being forced into rough terrain because they can only contact the target by wheeling such that they do have to enter it. There are strange examples of all types.

The RAW basically mean that if there is a charge that could result in terrain poblems forced charges will not occor. This is a broader concept that then means than "impetuous" charges can ONLY occur in places that are "terrain safe". It means that a philosophy of "if in doubt" not out of control charges predominates.

This was certainly my intent and far from silly IMO. As for the second it was my intent that if you wanted to force the enemy to fight through loss of control you needed to be brave enough to stand properly out in the open with your spears and not with your falnk secured on rough terrain which they would naturally avoid being near.

As far as I can see the RAW meet this intent. But I may be missing something.

Si

[expendablecinc]

..This was certainly my intent and far from silly IMO. As for the second it was my intent that if you wanted to force the enemy to fight through loss of control you needed to be brave enough to stand properly out in the open with your spears and not with your falnk secured on rough terrain which they would naturally avoid being near.

As far as I can see the RAW meet this intent. But I may be missing something.

Si

Thanks. Having the intent gives a much better position to umpire should it come up in comps etc...

Would the "could end in terrain" also apply to the conform. As that occurs in the movement phase I'd expect not but good to be sure. I have seen knights charge the flank (not a legal flank charge though) who fight impact in the open but as the enemy have terrain to their front the conform results in the knight spending the melle phase in severely disrupted.

[nikgaukroger]

Thanks. Having the intent gives a much better position to umpire should it come up in comps etc...

Well that is the intent of one of the writers, I think another has said something that is slightly, but materially, different.

Probably best if they sort it out between themseleves and then post an agreed version.

[shall]

Yes indeed I think I can now see we have slightly different versions of the itent - alebit the master intent is the same.

What would help me though - which is why I am sking the question - is whether the RAW macth my intent or not. Quite important to be clear about 2 separate issues:

1. Slight differencs in intent for me and RBS to fix
2. Whether the RAW actiually mirrors one or other as written. In which case a change of intent could be rule change which we are wary of introducuing. I am always cautious about "FAQ" entires that actually chagne the RAW, rather than clarify.

Paul from the original how did you play the "could"?
Was your argument alingned with my intent?
Roger with RBS's as something looking odd?
And did you both see the RAW alinged with one or other position or neither?

Rather useful crisp minformation now I think we have narrowed in on the source of the debate. Sorry it has taken some time. I m ausre we will fix over the next few weeks for thosse of you determined to wired us out with unusual poisiions Keepenjoying the other 99.9% f the game.

Si

[lawrenceg]

What the RAW mean is a little uncertain and depends on the interpretation of:

"their move" in "if their move could end even partly in terrain ..." and "If their move could end in contact with ..."
"the move" in "If they are medium foot starting... and the move could end..."
"whose move" in "IF they are foot whose move..."

Does it mean (do they mean)

a) the move that the BG will actually do if they charge without orders

or

b) any of the possible charges which would contact the target(s) specified on page 59 ?


To add to the confusion, the statement "Shock troops will not charge without orders in the following circumstances" could be taken to imply that a charge into terrain etc is not a possible charge and therefore must be excluded when deciding criterion b) above.

So I would say the RAW are ambiguous with regard to intent.

I would also say that IMO, based on the language used, Si's intent is the most likely interpretation, but with all our wargaming knowledge of "inherent military probability" RBS's intent is the one we are most likely to believe.

[shall]

I would also say that IMO, based on the language used, Si's intent is the most likely interpretation, but with all our wargaming knowledge of "inherent military probability" RBS's intent is the one we are most likely to believe.

Lawrence I still find the points aboe totoally clear if could means could.

FWIW I don't think knights charged much in areas naer bad terrain, but I could be wrong.

The other intent is hugely abusable if we are not very careful as it changes a stance of "charge only if no doubt, to charge only if there is probably something ok"

In the example given of DF the way I play it is that the HF need advance and pressure the knights. As they get close the options to wheel get very limited and the terrain plays less and less of a role in the issue as the charge options are limited. At 1mm in front of the knights they are now fully fired up and will charge without orders.

So set up at present its quite subtle in taking terrain gradually out of the equation as the troops get nearer. This seems to me very realistic, albit it may take some tim to think it ll through and see that as being the case.

Alas if we effectively allow you to charge any enemy nearby that can be contacted without hitting terrain somehow it creates lots of cheesy traps that I for one didn't want to see happen. I can create total chaos for a few Knights with LH. In a test game when we ha dsuch an intrp I managed to drag some Undrilled 23 pt knights to charge some LH which they could only do by a massive wheel to avoid terrain. This is when I thought COULD was good. The chage pulled them into a completely ridiculous position and had them standing facing a marsh that they were neatly avoiding. They sepnt the rest of the game trying to CMT to turn around!! Now how realistic is that.

Si

[lawrenceg]

Now that you have cited a practical cheese example, I can see why your intention is what it is.
I don't expect anyone will have a problem playing it that way. Whatever the theoretical meaning of the wording used, RBS thought it was consistent with his intention, so in the real world it is ambiguous.




I agree, it is unrealistic that knights in a ridiculous position would need a CMT to turn round.