Page 1 of 1

Hmmm charge on evade capable troops

Posted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 5:33 pm
by Jilu
I says on page 58 (if the enemy who would be charged are capable of evading etc etc)

Does that mean that f a KN unit is at 6 MU from a unit that can evade can declare a charge on them???

Posted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 6:47 pm
by petedalby
Does that mean that f a KN unit is at 6 MU from a unit that can evade can declare a charge on them???
The short answer is 'no' - a target must be within normal charge range before you can declare a charge.

This section of the rules is concerned with troops who may charge even though you don't want them to.

If a Kn BG is within 4 MU of an enemy BG (in open terrain) and you don't wish to charge, you must CMT to prevent them charging, unless one of the bullet points on Page 58 applies.

If the the enemy BG is within 4 MU, but a variable could move the Kn BG up to 2MU extra, then you take that 2 MU into account in determining whether a CMT is required or not. So lets say an additional enemy BG of elephants was at 5MU, then the Kn BG would not be required to CMT not to charge the 'evade capable' enemy BG within 4 MU. They could of course choose to charge the enemy BG within 4 MU if they wished to, but are not forced to do so.

I'm probably not explaining that very well but hope it helps?

Re: Hmmm charge on evade capable troops

Posted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 6:48 pm
by philqw78
Jilu wrote:I says on page 58 (if the enemy who would be charged are capable of evading etc etc)

Does that mean that f a KN unit is at 6 MU from a unit that can evade can declare a charge on them???
No it means it does not have to declare a charge if that charge would reach disordering terrain, hit mounted if foot, leave rough terrain if MF, etc.

Posted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 6:53 pm
by philqw78
petedalby wrote:I've got sore feet
Did you get up the mountain or do we get a refund?

Posted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 9:00 pm
by Jilu
okk that paragraph was just misleading then

thx

Posted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 10:42 pm
by hammy
I think this is the paragraph where the typesetters added an extra blank line and split the rule in two making it read incorrectly. I don't have my rules to hand so cannot check this :(