Slitherine

Hi,
In the chapter about charges declaration, it's said that a BG can declare a charge on any BG at normal move distance....there is no reference about any axis for the charge during "declaration" phase....exept, later in the chapter about evade, it's said if the target (s) can evade you have to put a stick to show the axis you choose....
Ok, but what about if you have 2 different targets, they can't evade (let's say HI...), are at normal move distance, but on a fully different axis.
So as you can reach one with a slight right wheel, or (exclusive) the other one with a slight left wheel...of course none of them can be reached with a straight ahead charge... (forget interception, let's suppose there is no possibility.... )
How the "in phase player" has to declare his charge (assuming he wants to, of course !!!!) :

1/ "...I charge with my BG on both of yours, cause they are potential target...but I'll decide the one I'll choose whenever I'll move my charger!!!!"

Maybe, it seems not important, but as evade moves are done before, evades from other fight may interfere, or change something, and as well as player in phase choose the order in which the different impacts will be done, that can have a tactical interest to keep the doubt !

2/"...I charge....this BG with my BG,"

Which is same as to indicate a charge axis....which is not written anywhere... if no target can evade...

I ask same question on the french forum, I have only one answer, at Poitiers they play 2/ (answer from Zeitoun), we (at Toulouse) tend to play same 2/...what about you ?????

Friendly
Bawawa, crazy questioner !!!!

sorry read HF instead of HI in the text of my question....

The direction of a charge does not need to be declared until is it significant. In the case of two possible targets where only A or B could be contacted then the direction is significant at the point of declaration as the BG not being charged may be able to intercept.

A significantly smaller number of electrons would have died if the rules actually required the direction of a charge to be declared at the same time that the charge was declared

hammy wrote:The direction of a charge does not need to be declared until is it significant. In the case of two possible targets where only A or B could be contacted then the direction is significant at the point of declaration as the BG not being charged may be able to intercept.

Let's considere no interception is possible, whatever charger choice ?

The direction of charge is still significant at the point it is declared so as the direction matters it must be specified.

IMO if the direction of a charge makes a difference then the direction must be know so you know how it affects other BGs.

If for example BG A is steady but BG B is fragemented then when your BG declares a charge the direction has to be specified as it it is charging BG B then a cohesion test is needed, if it is charging BG A then no test is needed.

Hammy,
Are you saying that if you have 2 fragged BG's EITHER of which could be hit by a charge but NOT BOTH that only one (as specified by charger) would have to test not to break. Or would both have to test as potential targets? Seems that they would both have to test as this is really now different than testing when you see the other guys about to run at you not when they actually hit you.

Gino
SMAC

kal5056 wrote:Hammy,
Are you saying that if you have 2 fragged BG's EITHER of which could be hit by a charge but NOT BOTH that only one (as specified by charger) would have to test not to break. Or would both have to test as potential targets? Seems that they would both have to test as this is really now different than testing when you see the other guys about to run at you not when they actually hit you.

Gino
SMAC

I would always play that only the BG that is actually being charged has to test.

>Or would both have to test as potential targets?

Why would a "potential" target have to test? I don't think there is anything in the rules which suggests it should be done this way, rather than testing for a fragged BG which is the actual target of a charge.

ShrubMiK wrote:>Or would both have to test as potential targets?

Why would a "potential" target have to test? I don't think there is anything in the rules which suggests it should be done this way, rather than testing for a fragged BG which is the actual target of a charge.

There seems to be an opinion among some American players that as the direction of a charge does not have to be specified at the point of declaration any charge is effectively against all possible targets until later in the impact phase when the charge direction is formally declared. IMO this quantum charging (i.e. charging everywhere and nowhere all at the same time) is quite simply b&%^"£$ but people seem to contunually ask the question

kal5056 wrote:Hammy,
Are you saying that if you have 2 fragged BG's EITHER of which could be hit by a charge but NOT BOTH that only one (as specified by charger) would have to test not to break. Or would both have to test as potential targets? Seems that they would both have to test as this is really now different than testing when you see the other guys about to run at you not when they actually hit you.

Gino
SMAC

Only targets test. Not potential targets. Should all those shot at test as they may potentially take 1HP3B? No.

The rules on P52 refers to "Declared targets of the charge". I think that makes it clear that you need to specify the targets at the time of declaration, if not the exact path that the chargers will follow.

hammy wrote:The direction of charge is still significant at the point it is declared so as the direction matters it must be specified.

.

Yes it's logical, I fully agree, but....could be a good idea to write it like that into the FAQ, cause it's not so clear into the rules, there is no notion of "significant".... ?!!!!

Same about my previous topic about charge declaration and "outlier" target...the chronology of VDM throw could be defined more accurately in the FAQ....
In that case, my opinion only, I think it's not logical, and definitly not inaccordance with "full turn sequence" to roll charger VDM before to decide if revealed target (outlier) evade or not...but "dura lex sed lex"....
Many thanks
Eric

kevinj wrote:The rules on P52 refers to "Declared targets of the charge". I think that makes it clear that you need to specify the targets at the time of declaration, if not the exact path that the chargers will follow.

Maybe I am doing it wrong then put I always ask the direction at the same time I show the direction when i charge as do most if not all the people I have played against.

philqw78 wrote:

kal5056 wrote:Hammy,
Are you saying that if you have 2 fragged BG's EITHER of which could be hit by a charge but NOT BOTH that only one (as specified by charger) would have to test not to break. Or would both have to test as potential targets? Seems that they would both have to test as this is really now different than testing when you see the other guys about to run at you not when they actually hit you.

Gino
SMAC

Only targets test. Not potential targets. Should all those shot at test as they may potentially take 1HP3B? No.

Just wanted to thank Phil for putting a self picture up as his avatar.

2/"...I charge....this BG with my BG,"

As others have said - this is how we play it in the UK.

As others have said - this is how we play it in the UK.

Same in France!

Maybe I am doing it wrong then put I always ask the direction at the same time I show the direction when i charge as do most if not all the people I have played against.

Exactly, anything else is a nonsense.

It is this American's firm belief that at least one BG must be specified as a target in order to charge. Then if there are other BGs in the vicinity of this BG which could potentially be targets or interceptors the actual charge path needs to be specified. There are no "Gotcha"s in FoG. In some cases the charging BG might actually have to prove that it can hit the target BG using the desired charge angle before it can be recognized as a legal charge.