Slitherine

Three BGs declare a charge on one fragmented BG.

A: Does the fragmented BG do three CT tests consecutively?

Or

B: Does it take one test but with -1 for more than one reason to test?


I think it's B,but not sure. Is that right? Or indeed is there a C?

Thanks in advance for any replies.

Once, see the sequence of play, you declare charges... then resolve CTs for fragmented troops being charged. No minus -1 for multiple causes/chargers. They're already fragmented which is a -2, what more do you want!

I think a -1 is right. You get a minus if more than one BG routs.

Thanks

So the answer was a third option - "It is C" again. Spooky.

what more do you want!

er....perhaps some jam......

I've just had another look at the rules and on page 113 top right - Multiple causes:- "If a battle group must test for multiple breaks due to charges,or....."(my italics)..... "it only tests once but with a -1 adjustment...."

I didn't spot this before.So is that correct or has something slipped me by?

I'm not convinced by this reasoning. A battle groups breaking gives a cause to test. More than one break is more than one cause, hence a minus one. However, being charged is the cause of the test if fragmented. The number of BG's charging it does not appear to be relevant. The fragmentation of the BG itself is the cause of the test. There is only one of it.

I agree with Roger, the reason to test for fragmented is "... charged by enemy...". If the intention was for each charge, it would be "charged by an enemy BG".

Petefloro wrote:I've just had another look at the rules and on page 113 top right - Multiple causes:- "If a battle group must test for multiple breaks due to charges,or....."(my italics)..... "it only tests once but with a -1 adjustment...."

See the sequence of play. Once you've done all the tests for fragmented being charged, you then immediately test for any routs resulting (from charges). There could be two routs, hence a -1.

peterrjohnston wrote:See the sequence of play. Once you've done all the tests for fragmented being charged, you then immediately test for any routs resulting (from charges). There could be two routs, hence a -1.

There could be 2 charges hence a minus 1

Two charges, but only one being charged .

philqw78 wrote:There could be 2 charges hence a minus 1

It says "charged by enemy"... the multiple causse section specifically includes multiple breaks due to charges, multiple breaks, or lost commanders. No mention of fragmented charged by more than one BG.

But each charge is a reason to test. Therefore more than 1 reason.

I disagree, 'being charged' is the reason to test. This is a condition applying to the BG. It is somewhat like having an insecure flank. It doesn't matter how many enemy BG's cause the condition. Similarly, being severely disordered. The number of causes of disorder is irrelevant.

For the routing, each break is a reason, hence there can be multiple reasons.

After further thought, I agree.Test once and no -1.

It is somewhat like having an insecure flank. It doesn't matter how many enemy BG's cause the condition.

It was this statement that made up my mind.

This came up the other day at a game and some one asked if they had to test more than once if more than one BG was charging a fragged BG. I reckoned no and played it that way.It was only afterwards I thought about -1 adjustment thing,hence the post.

Once again thanks for all replies

This was just the 5 minute argument then. Hmmph. Back to work.

No it isn't

Well, since I'm arguing in my spare time an extra few mintes for free won't hurt.

Roger wrote:I disagree, 'being charged' is the reason to test.

And you are being charged more than once

philqw78 wrote:Well, since I'm arguing in my spare time an extra few mintes for free won't hurt.

Roger wrote:I disagree, 'being charged' is the reason to test.

And you are being charged more than once

Are you deputising for Mr Ruddock whilst he's on holiday or something? It won't work you know, he reads the rules looking for loopholes until his head hurts, whereas, as you've said yourself, you don't read the rules...

peterrjohnston wrote:Are you deputising for Mr Ruddock whilst he's on holiday or something? It won't work you know, he reads the rules looking for loopholes until his head hurts, whereas, as you've said yourself, you don't read the rules...

You think that Dave actually reads the rules?????

What a strange world you live in

hammy wrote:

peterrjohnston wrote:Are you deputising for Mr Ruddock whilst he's on holiday or something? It won't work you know, he reads the rules looking for loopholes until his head hurts, whereas, as you've said yourself, you don't read the rules...

You think that Dave actually reads the rules?????

What a strange world you live in

I'm sure he reads them, problem is the translation of the rules from English to Geordie he uses.

For example, in Geordie, "hadaway" literally means "go away". So the Geordie rules used hadaway for skirmish. But hadaway really means "you're having me on", "taking the p". So when we talk about skirmishers, Dave thinks we're making fun of him.

For example, in Geordie, "hadaway" literally means "go away".

Gan Hame = Routing