Slitherine

Moving this from another thread to isolate the puzzle.

Sorry for lack of diagrams, but here goes. (diagrams are welcome, I just suck at them).

A BG of shock mounted Lancers faces two enemy BGs of MF (A and B) within charge range. It can legitimately wheel to contact either but not both. It will contact the same number of bases either way -- e.g., the enemy BGs are 3 MU diagonally from each corner of the shock mounted BG.

If the Lancers elect to declare a charge, then it also declares a charge path that dictates charge targets, evades and intercepts. That path can include a wheel, provided it contacts => enemy bases. So it could declare a charge against either A or B, but not both.

So far, so good.

Now comes a possible chicken-and-egg problem.

BG A has a BG of Elephants (X) in position to intercept, overlap, etc. The elephants cannot intercept or overlap a charge against BG B.

If the Lancers do not declare a charge, must they pass a CMT to avoid charging?

When you decide not to charge and have to roll a CMT, do you also have to declare a path? If you declare a path that would trigger an exception (mounted into elephants, etc.) does that eliminate the CMT? If your possible charges include 2 valid options -- one with exception and one without -- must you still CMT?

On the one hand, there is a possible charge that would not trigger an exception (i.e., against BG B), so it makes sense that the shock mounted would have to CMT to avoid making that charge.

OTOH, there is an equally valid charge that would contact Elephants, so the exception arguably negates the need to CMT.

So do the mounted have to CMT or not?

If they do have to CMT, must they only charge unit B? Could they (perhaps unwisely) charge unit A notwithstanding the nearby elephants?

Spike

Lover of Impact Phase

Easy way out would be to say "to hell with it lads lets just charge em all!!"

Unfortunately you apparently did not choose the easy solution.
I would say that battle group B is a legitimate target and would cause a CMT, first bullet pg 58, Mounted shock troops must pass a CMT to prevent them from charging any enemy battle group(s) within charge range. You have 2 groups in range, due to the elephants 1 group grants you immunity from the uncontrolled charge. The other enemy group will cause the test.
Battle group B is now the target of the charge and one would assume you would have to declare your intentions to also charge A by going straight in or wheeling solely into B, to determine if the elephant intercept will be occuring.

This is the version of the Paul Brandon 'I can just clip that rough going charge'. I vaguely recall that, after much debate, the answer was something like this:
A legal charge must, among other things, be able to contact the same number of bases when it wheels as if it goes directly ahead. 'Could contact' is taken to mean that, if there is a possible charge where a wheel still permits the same number of bases to caontact as the straight ahead charge, then there is no requirement to test if that meets the exception criteria.

For example, if a straight ahead charge would not hit anything, all you have to do is find any possible path to any target that could be intercepted by elephants and you have a reason not to test.

The rationale (from Simon Hall I think) is reasonable. The situation that makes the troops unwilling to commit to charging is knowing elephants are nearby. The charge path and 'can contact' are just game mechanisms to tie down what 'nearby' means. The same applies to lancers charging into disordering terrain. Knowing that there is unfavourable terrain around makes them nervous about charging and getting caught riding into it or being ambushed out of it.

deadtorius wrote:Easy way out would be to say "to hell with it lads lets just charge em all!!"

Unfortunately you apparently did not choose the easy solution.
I would say that battle group B is a legitimate target and would cause a CMT, first bullet pg 58, Mounted shock troops must pass a CMT to prevent them from charging any enemy battle group(s) within charge range. You have 2 groups in range, due to the elephants 1 group grants you immunity from the uncontrolled charge. The other enemy group will cause the test.
Battle group B is now the target of the charge and one would assume you would have to declare your intentions to also charge A by going straight in or wheeling solely into B, to determine if the elephant intercept will be occuring.

Perhaps the description is not clear, but charging all of them is not an option. The Lancers can hit one or the other, not both.

Just to be clear, do you mean the elephants eliminate the CMT ("due to the elephants 1 group grants you immunity from the uncontrolled charge") or that the exception-free option takes priority and forces a CMT?

If the latter, I am not convinced that B is automatically the "target of the charge" should the CMT fail.

Spike

rogerg wrote:This is the version of the Paul Brandon 'I can just clip that rough going charge'. I vaguely recall that, after much debate, the answer was something like this:
A legal charge must, among other things, be able to contact the same number of bases when it wheels as if it goes directly ahead. 'Could contact' is taken to mean that, if there is a possible charge where a wheel still permits the same number of bases to caontact as the straight ahead charge, then there is no requirement to test if that meets the exception criteria.

For example, if a straight ahead charge would not hit anything, all you have to do is find any possible path to any target that could be intercepted by elephants and you have a reason not to test.

The rationale (from Simon Hall I think) is reasonable. The situation that makes the troops unwilling to commit to charging is knowing elephants are nearby. The charge path and 'can contact' are just game mechanisms to tie down what 'nearby' means. The same applies to lancers charging into disordering terrain. Knowing that there is unfavourable terrain around makes them nervous about charging and getting caught riding into it or being ambushed out of it.

This makes sense. I wonder if it gets a bit slimy where one extreme (but valid option) allows some Lancers to wait to charge a "more obvious" target.

Spike

The rules state that any units within range could cause the CMT to charge. One unit is an exception due to the elephant intercept. The other unit is within charge range and from your description outside the the intercept of the elephants so it is a valid target and the one that will force the CMT since ther is nothing stopping the unit from making that uncontrolled charge.

In your original post it sounded like a straight ahead charge would carry you into both units.

deadtorius wrote:The rules state that any units within range could cause the CMT to charge. One unit is an exception due to the elephant intercept. The other unit is within charge range and from your description outside the the intercept of the elephants so it is a valid target and the one that will force the CMT since ther is nothing stopping the unit from making that uncontrolled charge.

In your original post it sounded like a straight ahead charge would carry you into both units.

The principle that came out of the Paul Brandon 'I can just clip that rough going charge' is:

Suppose you failed the CMT not to charge.

Is there any possible legal path you could choose to take that would be subject to exemption?

If yes then you do not need to test.

THe existence of a possible charge that is not subject to exemption is not sufficient to force a test.

Note that a BG forced to charge has limited choice of target BG.

Lawrence not sure what your meaning is here
THe existence of a possible charge that is not subject to exemption is not sufficient to force a test.

The path to battle group B is clear and elephant free and like the path to battle group A would need a wheel to contact, so why would it not cause the CMT for the uncontrolled charge? If your saying that if any shock BG does not have an exemption then they don't have to test it sounds like any battle group you don't want taking off on you would mean you don't have to test.
Rules state you have to test for any BG in charge range with the exception of in this case the elephants rules out one battle group. The other is still a legitimate charge by the sounds of it since the charge path will not cross the ZOI of the elephants. Since there is nothing there to cause the lancers to think twice about it, no ugly terrain or elephants, it should be tally ho and to hell with the consequences of the other BG.

lawrenceg wrote:
Note that a BG forced to charge has limited choice of target BG.

Other than the usual charge limits (e.g., no wheels for fewer base contacts, etc.) what other limits are there for the target?

Spike

page 58 list them all,

Move could end even partly in terrain that will disorder or severely disorder
MF starting wholly in uneven, rough or difficult terrain and their move would end even partly in open terrain
foot defending fortifications or riverbank
foot whose move could contact or be intercepted by mounted
their move could end in contact with a fortification, elephants or a riverbank
they are fragmented

Thats only if there is no friends in the way. pages 58 and 59 deal with the other exceptions if you are behind friends which you would have to burst through.

From your description BG B does not fall into any of those exceptions nor do the chargers so I do not see why the lancers would not have to test to charge BG B.

rogerg wrote:This is the version of the Paul Brandon 'I can just clip that rough going charge'. I vaguely recall that, after much debate, the answer was something like this:
A legal charge must, among other things, be able to contact the same number of bases when it wheels as if it goes directly ahead. 'Could contact' is taken to mean that, if there is a possible charge where a wheel still permits the same number of bases to caontact as the straight ahead charge, then there is no requirement to test if that meets the exception criteria.

For example, if a straight ahead charge would not hit anything, all you have to do is find any possible path to any target that could be intercepted by elephants and you have a reason not to test.

I would point out that this reading is the one that is most likely to cause players, especially new or inexperienced ones, to shout "Cheese" - on which basis it may not be the best one.

Saying that you just look at the straight ahead charge (or one with the minimum wheel as the enemy who potentially trigger the test may not be straight ahead) is what you look at when deciding whether a test to not charge is needed. I suspect that this would be viewed as being the less cheesy and, thus, cause least friction and less expereinced players will not feel they have been raped by competition tigers - which I hope we would all agree would be a better state of affairs.

deadtorius wrote:page 58 list them all,

Move could end even partly in terrain that will disorder or severely disorder
MF starting wholly in uneven, rough or difficult terrain and their move would end even partly in open terrain
foot defending fortifications or riverbank
foot whose move could contact or be intercepted by mounted
their move could end in contact with a fortification, elephants or a riverbank
they are fragmented

Thats only if there is no friends in the way. pages 58 and 59 deal with the other exceptions if you are behind friends which you would have to burst through.

From your description BG B does not fall into any of those exceptions nor do the chargers so I do not see why the lancers would not have to test to charge BG B.

No book handy, but aren't those exceptions that prevent having to test not to charge. My question to Lawrence is, once you have failed a CMT and must charge, what limits are there on your target, apart from the usual ones for declared charges.

Spike

spikemesq wrote:

deadtorius wrote:page 58 list them all,

Move could end even partly in terrain that will disorder or severely disorder
MF starting wholly in uneven, rough or difficult terrain and their move would end even partly in open terrain
foot defending fortifications or riverbank
foot whose move could contact or be intercepted by mounted
their move could end in contact with a fortification, elephants or a riverbank
they are fragmented

Thats only if there is no friends in the way. pages 58 and 59 deal with the other exceptions if you are behind friends which you would have to burst through.

From your description BG B does not fall into any of those exceptions nor do the chargers so I do not see why the lancers would not have to test to charge BG B.

No book handy, but aren't those exceptions that prevent having to test not to charge. My question to Lawrence is, once you have failed a CMT and must charge, what limits are there on your target, apart from the usual ones for declared charges.

Spike

If you have failed a CMT it therefore becomes a charge and in that case the attackers choice as in normal charges. I'm sure I have this wrong but never stopped me before.

In reply to Nik, I agree, it does look a bit cheesy when you read the specific details. Perhaps I should have started with the rationale.

Most soldiers did not relish fighting elephants. Having enemy elephants nearby that could get into the fight should discourage troops from charging.

A rule of 'elephants within a certain distance' negate the charge test would not be good enough. The elephants might be running away, facing other troops, the other side of a river or something.
A rule that says 'your charge would meet elephants' also fails. The troops might be able to charge, but just miss the elephants. The latter would join the fight very quickly. This is not unlike the example being described.
The actual FoG rule is that a charge 'could end in contact' with elephants. This is a precise definition of 'elephants near enough to get involved'.

It looks cheesy because the easy way to describe it is to say that: 'if you can find a charge path that might contact elephants, then you don't test'.

Reminds me of the House of Lords. At first glance it might seem wrong to have people in the government structure simply because their parents were before them. Then you think about the drawbacks of other ways of doing it and it starts to look like a good idea. Perhaps this is one for another site

spikemesq wrote:

lawrenceg wrote:
Note that a BG forced to charge has limited choice of target BG.

Other than the usual charge limits (e.g., no wheels for fewer base contacts, etc.) what other limits are there for the target?

Spike

see page 59.

rogerg wrote:In reply to Nik, I agree, it does look a bit cheesy when you read the specific details. Perhaps I should have started with the rationale.

Most soldiers did not relish fighting elephants. Having enemy elephants nearby that could get into the fight should discourage troops from charging.

If it were only nellies I may be pursuaded agree with you, however, it also includes terrain and so IMO it falls down there.

Either way, even with nellies it has much too much potential to look like cheese to a new/inexperienced player and it is better to avoid that IMO. Must admit that were it raised and I was umpiring I'd be very much inclined to go with the least apparant cheese option.

BTW am I right that despite Simon's view there was never an actual response from the authors and, IIRC, Richard was not in agreement with Simon? (can't be arsed to go back and look myself )

Nik, I can't remember all the details of the previous discussion. The issue sticks with me because Paul raised it playing against me. He argued that a group of knights should not test to charge because they could manage to make contact by going through some rough terrain. My first response was to call 'cheese'. However, as above, I am swayed by the argument that the rule works well, partly because there is nothing better.

One thing to look at is to consider the alternatives. For example, would players be happy if a group of knights had to test not to charge if it was possible for them to wheel 89 degrees to just avoid a wood.

I will bow to your better knowledge of history to come up with examples. Agincourt springs to mind where knights charge through unfavourable terrain. However, I think that is covered by the player decision. One can imagine the situation as a wargame where the French player realises he has messed up his deployment, can't manouvre the knights out of the way easily and decides a charge is the lesser of several evils and hopes for lucky dice.

If there are no historical examples of knights charging near unfavourable terrain, one can assume the rule is appropriate.

rogerg wrote:Nik, I can't remember all the details of the previous discussion. The issue sticks with me because Paul raised it playing against me. He argued that a group of knights should not test to charge because they could manage to make contact by going through some rough terrain. My first response was to call 'cheese'. However, as above, I am swayed by the argument that the rule works well, partly because there is nothing better.

Interpretation of the rule - if it were clear this discussion would not happen IMO it would work either way, once you know how it is going to be done uncertainty passes.

One thing to look at is to consider the alternatives. For example, would players be happy if a group of knights had to test not to charge if it was possible for them to wheel 89 degrees to just avoid a wood.

Fairly extreme situation and I think you have to be careful that extreme situations do not dictate the rules for the majority of cases which are less extreme.

IMO that example is less likely to be called cheese that where a charge is deemed not to need testing to avoid because although there is an enemy BG dead ahead that can be contacted in good going no test is needed because a 10 degree wheel lets a single base just clip a piece of terrain.

I think the latter is for more likely to occur and so, as mentioned before, would tend to the view that as, IMO, it would be more likely to be seen as cheese it is better to avoid.

In fact I'd go as far as to say that if the question arose as Britcon or the ITC (where I get to do some umpiring) I would rule this way - i.e. not the Simon interp.

I will bow to your better knowledge of history to come up with examples. Agincourt springs to mind where knights charge through unfavourable terrain. However, I think that is covered by the player decision. One can imagine the situation as a wargame where the French player realises he has messed up his deployment, can't manouvre the knights out of the way easily and decides a charge is the lesser of several evils and hopes for lucky dice.

If there are no historical examples of knights charging near unfavourable terrain, one can assume the rule is appropriate.

Falkirk - English knights charge Scots spearmen who are fairly close up against a wood?

I believe we are agreed on what we are trying to achieve. The terrain situation is different to that of the elephants. On balance, I am usually happier having one rule covering two cases rather than adding extra rules, but that is a personal preference. All things considered, I think FoG has done a good job of getting the correct effect with as few rules as possible.

I tend to feel umpires should rule the letter of the law if it exists and not the spirit. However, you're a good umpire, so I would probably take it from you without too much complaint.

rogerg wrote:I believe we are agreed on what we are trying to achieve. The terrain situation is different to that of the elephants. On balance, I am usually happier having one rule covering two cases rather than adding extra rules, but that is a personal preference. All things considered, I think FoG has done a good job of getting the correct effect with as few rules as possible.

I tend to feel umpires should rule the letter of the law if it exists and not the spirit. However, you're a good umpire, so I would probably take it from you without too much complaint.

IMO in a situation where a shock BG can clearly charge without contacting enemy that would negate the need to test or entering terrain then it should be testing not to charge. Avoiding a test because a 90 degree wheel would result in a condition that negates the need to test is IMO plain cheesy.

I suppose it is in some ways similar to the DBM impetuous troops not charging into corner to corner contact with elephants which always felt a bit odd as well.

Some sort of formal ruling on this issue would be nice but it doesn't happen often and the authors are I believe rather busy on other things.