Slitherine

Question from a recent game:

After 2 rounds of good shooting that fragment infantry AA, enemy Chariots declare a charge on them. AA has BB behind it in rear support (and within 5 MU of the Chariots) and to their left are CC (LF) in front and DD behind - each roughly at a corner of a slightly diamond-shapes square. CC is LF that are in charge range but won't be contacted unless AA breaks so the charge is declared only on AA. DD is over 5 MU from the Chariots so not in charge range, yet.

Was the following the right way to handle this sequence of events?

1. Chariots declare a charge.
2. AA tests for being charged when fragmented. AA fails and breaks.
Note: Because a fragmented BG broke due to being charged, the friends broken test occurs immediately rather than at the end of the phase (page 112).
3. BB, CC and DD immediately test for AA breaking. As you might expect given the title of this post, they all fail, going disrupted.
4. AA makes its initial rout move, bursting through to the other side of BB, sending BB to fragmented.
This means the CC Light Foot are now a revealed charge target and must evade or take a test to receive the charge, and also means that BB is in the charge path and must "test immediately" for being fragmented.
5. BB tests, fails and breaks.
6. CC and DD both test for BB breaking and fail, going fragmented.
7. BB makes its initial rout, bursting through AA (who already routed, so no effect--BB ends up routing ahead of AA so it looked right).
8. Chariots declare charge direction so CC can evade.
9. CC evades back through DD.
10. Chariots, not having moved an inch, roll VMD since the sole remaining target evaded. They roll up 1.
11. DD is fragmented and charged so it tests, and it fails and breaks.
12. DD bursts through the LF, routiing them immediately -- CC routs ahead of DD (not sure if that's right, but it was a technicality at this point).
13. Chariots peacefully move 6 MU forward.
Stunned awe. Game ends soon thereafter.

The rules do say a BG tests for multiple breaks due to charges just once - DD tested twice for breaks from the same charge, but the breaks were not at the same point in the sequence of the charge so tests were done separately.

I hope this is clear. Any mistakes here?

Thanks,

Mike

I thought you only tested once per phase for broken friends. If you have already tested don't test again. So test those leasts likely to break first.

All the testing seems OK. It can happen and in 200+ games I have had 1 such catastrophe - well done!!

Reading it the one bit I am not sure about is where you say Chariots choose charge direction. This should happen at the beginning. You can only change from the initial choice if all targets evade. Here targets have routed not evaded. You can turn the chariot charge like a gun turret to maul everything vulnerable in range.

But the tests for FRG and burst throughs - yep can happen if you set it up "right".

Si

MikeK wrote:1. Chariots declare a charge.
2. AA tests for being charged when fragmented. AA fails and breaks.
Note: Because a fragmented BG broke due to being charged, the friends broken test occurs immediately rather than at the end of the phase (page 112).
3. BB, CC and DD immediately test for AA breaking. As you might expect given the title of this post, they all fail, going disrupted.
4. AA makes its initial rout move, bursting through to the other side of BB, sending BB to fragmented.
This means the CC Light Foot are now a revealed charge target and must evade or take a test to receive the charge, and also means that BB is in the charge path and must "test immediately" for being fragmented.
5. BB tests, fails and breaks.
6. CC and DD both test for BB breaking and fail, going fragmented.
7. BB makes its initial rout, bursting through DD (who already routed, so no effect--BB ends up routing ahead of AA so it looked right).
8. Chariots declare charge direction so CC can evade.
9. CC evades back through DD.
10. Chariots, not having moved an inch, roll VMD since the sole remaining target evaded. They roll up 1.
11. DD is fragmented and charged so it tests, and it fails and breaks.
12. DD bursts through the LF, routiing them immediately -- CC routs ahead of DD (not sure if that's right, but it was a technicality at this point).
13. Chariots peacefully move 6 MU forward.

At point 7 DD haven't routed yet; at point 6 you declare they have just been fragmented. You likely mean AA instead of DD.
At point 11 there is also an error, because you state DD were out of charge reach, chariots VMD is 1, so chariots pursuing shouldn't contact DD. DD must not test to be charged while fragmented.

3. BB, CC and DD immediately test for AA breaking. As you might expect given the title of this post, they all fail, going disrupted.
..
6. CC and DD both test for BB breaking and fail, going fragmented
...
The rules do say a BG tests for multiple breaks due to charges just once - DD tested twice for breaks from the same charge, but the breaks were not at the same point in the sequence of the charge so tests were done separately.

So why did you test again?? If a BG only tests once for breaks in each phase.

Although that is generally what happens, do we actually state that somewhere? The turn sequence - laways a good place to look - has tests for FRG routs due to charges in twice.

Si

Haven't got my book but I thought it was Fragged test if charged and the next test for seeing breaks.

Oops, yes, missed that typo putting in abbreviations - will fix.

The Chariots rolled up on VMD so DD came in range.

Reading it the one bit I am not sure about is where you say Chariots choose charge direction. This should happen at the beginning. You can only change from the initial choice if all targets evade. Here targets have routed not evaded. You can turn the chariot charge like a gun turret to maul everything vulnerable in range.

Going back to the charge FAQ discussion thread that got sidetracked to interceptions (viewtopic.php?t=8752) and some other threads as well as official FAQ 4(i) on declaration for interceptions, I think it clear that the rules don't actually require declaration at the start although people tend to do so. Direction must be declared when necessary to see if possible interceptors can do so, otherwise when it's time for evaders to evade or, if neither of those apply, when its time to move the chargers. If everyone evades then it's possible to change the declared direction - in this case it would not have mattered. I think it works better in situations where it matters than the declare-at-start method I used initially and liked at first.

But the tests for FRG and burst throughs - yep can happen if you set it up "right".

I think it came as a surprise to everyone. With commander and rear support, things didn't look ominous until AA fragged. ANd they had been going so well . . . .

Although that is generally what happens, do we actually state that somewhere? The turn sequence - laways a good place to look - has tests for FRG routs due to charges in twice.

Two places in the Impact Phase, the second one being as a result of evades (DD's test as a result of CC's evade). The first 2 friendly break test rounds were both on the first Frag line - basically did that frag line, moved the rout that uncovered BB, then as a new target BB went back a step and tested for them.

So why did you test again?? If a BG only tests once for breaks in each phase.

That's a great question. If 2 BGs next to each other break at the same time, it is easy to take one test, but how to do so here given the sequence of events where a number of things happened between the 2 checks, though in real time it was very close in time?

Would have been nice if testing for AA routing exempted them from testing again for BB routing in the same stage of the sequence of play, but later in time. Obviously we couldn't anticipate the BB rout and treat the first test as having 2 causes. Mechanically this worked out - and being machine-gunned by cohesion tests into a collapse makes a memorable gaming moment!

Under "Multiple Causes" bridging pp 113,114:

"If a battle group must test for multiple breaks due to charges, or multiple breaks or lost commanders at the end of the phase, it only tests once but with a -1 adjustment to the dice for "more than one reason to test"."

Paul

There is a similar situation if this happens



Is a BG of Disrupted troops
Is a BG of 2 Elements
is a fragmented BG

If loses an element and is removed during the JAP both neighbouring BG must test. If the Disrupted BG tests first it does not have to test if the fragmented BG breaks due to its later test.

Yours, Mike, is more complex and the tests much further apart but they are from the same cause.

Under "Multiple Causes" bridging pp 113,114:

"If a battle group must test for multiple breaks due to charges, or multiple breaks or lost commanders at the end of the phase, it only tests once but with a -1 adjustment to the dice for "more than one reason to test"."

Richard clarified this under a posting I made a while ago - Paul is correct.

I think this means that point six is incorrect - CC and DD would not test for BB having broken as they had already tested for witnessing AA break.

If LF evade through other LF to they burst through them or simply interpenetrate?

dave_r wrote:
If LF evade through other LF to they burst through them or simply interpenetrate?

They interpanetrate as it is legal to do so

Thought so - in which case point 12 is also incorrect.

dave_r wrote:Thought so - in which case point 12 is also incorrect.

Still burst through since there was only the one LF and there could be no interpenetration (will check for a typo).

Yours, Mike, is more complex and the tests much further apart but they are from the same cause.

This is the issue I am struggling with. Meaning multiple breaks are not multiple causes? Or that the multiple breaks are multiple causes for purposes of the modifier applying but are only one cause for a single test?

There's a lot of activity between the breaks but they are all due to a single charge as you say. Suppose there was a second charger that caused the second break due to being fragged. Would that be a different cause and test, or is it one CT per stage in the turn?

If some other frag breaks occurred due to a second charging BG, they would be treated separately since the first roll is done, or go back and retally the modifiers?


Thanks for your rhelp,

Mike

Buy some new dice Mike.

Pete

This is the issue I am struggling with. Meaning multiple breaks are not multiple causes? Or that the multiple breaks are multiple causes for purposes of the modifier applying but are only one cause for a single test?

There's a lot of activity between the breaks but they are all due to a single charge as you say. Suppose there was a second charger that caused the second break due to being fragged. Would that be a different cause and test, or is it one CT per stage in the turn?

Mulitple breaks are a minus modifier not multiple tests. So, as I read it:

1. Test for any Fragged BG being charged. If they break test all those in range, if more than one break and are in testing range of a single BG that BG tests applying the minus.

2. Any further BGs that break do not cause tests on those that have already tested, but do cause tests on those that have not, applying a minus if there are multiple breaks in 3 MU.

quote]Under "Multiple Causes" bridging pp 113,114:

"If a battle group must test for multiple breaks due to charges, or multiple breaks or lost commanders at the end of the phase, it only tests once but with a -1 adjustment to the dice for "more than one reason to test"." [/quote

Richard clarified this under a posting I made a while ago - Paul is correct.

I think this means that point six is incorrect - CC and DD would not test for BB having broken as they had already tested for witnessing AA break.

If LF evade through other LF to they burst through them or simply interpenetrate?

Must have missed that - where is it?

How did he suggest applying the -1?

Not that I disagree per se but woud like to find it.

Si

As I read the rules, technically charge direction needs to be declared for Evaders after they decide to Evade but before they decide on direction of evasion, and charge path needs to be declared for potential Interceptors to determine if they can successfully Intercept, which need not occur until Interceptions occur in the sequence of play. However, for simplicity and clarity, the Official FAQ states “you do need to declare the path of your charge at the time of [charge] declaration if there are potential interceptors around, in order to determine whether your chargers will cross their zone of interception.”

Charge Path and Charge Direction are both indicated physically by placing a measuring stick (or similar marker) at the outer corner of the completed intended wheel and laid along the edge of the continued path of the BG. Your wheel will be somewhere in the course of your charge move and there is no requirement it provide the shortest total path to your target. The specific rule is on page 66: “When troops who can evade are charged, their player must decide whether or not they will evade. If they are to evade, the charger then uses a measuring stick or tape to indicate the direction of the charge, which must be achievable by wheeling and which would 'legally' contact the evaders had they remained stationary.” This rule means you can’t specify a path/direction that relies on their evading out of the way, such as “wheeling through skirmishers,” and enemy skirmishers very close to your troops can limit their ability to wheel in a charge. Of course, if all targets do in fact evade out of the charge path, you can change your wheel to follow evaders (p68) or you may charge fresh targets revealed by the evade. For more on charge direction see the thread at viewtopic.php?t=6312.

I have mentioned before that basially I tend to declare charge direction all the time and if I say nothing its dead ahead. I think its much cleaner that way. WE tried to narrow it to "only when it mattered" but missed a few in our wording. AS a general pricniple I think it matters in the above sequence of events. So although we maybe haven't been that specific my personal view is I would rather just say you decalre a direction as you operationalise each charge.

Thoughts?

Si

I'm not sure "operationalise" is a real word

Paul

I know it isn't but our american cousins have created it in the business world. And being highly international as I am ....

Si