Slitherine

Right hope someone can help I had a situation in a game this evening and can't find a rule that covers it, I looked but could'nt find it?

AABBCC

DDEEFF

AABBCC are LH facing down Unit A was at the table edge
DDEEFF are LH facing up Unit D was at the table edge

My opponent declared his charges, his units were ABC against my units DEF, I evaded and moved my evades. At his charge he declared unit A and C to wheel slightly into the middle.

After moving his unit A and C his unit B could'nt move due to being blocked, my opponent said since they could'nt charge it was cancelled and he could move where he wanted in the movement turn.

It just seems wrong if you declare a charge and then arrange for there not to be any room and you can then move them as well, dos'nt seem right.

Page 53 point 2: Combine an advance with a single wheel, made at any stage during the charge move. Any troops can wheel during a charge, without taking a CMT. Unless required to avoid friends a wheel cannot be made if this would result in less bases being eligible to fight in the impact phase combat than would occur if the battle group had charged straight ahead.

If you can prove that by wheeling he would get less bases into contact from a single battle group the was moving I guess he pulled a cheese move on you.

deadtorius wrote:Page 53 point 2: Combine an advance with a single wheel, made at any stage during the charge move. Any troops can wheel during a charge, without taking a CMT. Unless required to avoid friends a wheel cannot be made if this would result in less bases being eligible to fight in the impact phase combat than would occur if the battle group had charged straight ahead.

If you can prove that by wheeling he would get less bases into contact from a single battle group the was moving I guess he pulled a cheese move on you.

Thanks for that

After moving his unit A and C his unit B could'nt move due to being blocked, my opponent said since they could'nt charge it was cancelled and he could move where he wanted in the movement turn.

That's just plain nonsense and rhymes with rowlocks!

petedalby wrote:

After moving his unit A and C his unit B could'nt move due to being blocked, my opponent said since they could'nt charge it was cancelled and he could move where he wanted in the movement turn.

That's just plain nonsense and rhymes with rowlocks!

Well with the usual caveat about things described on the forum I would say that if asked as an umpire I would agree with Pete I would rule that you cannot, retrospectively as it were, arrange your charges so that not all can make a charge.

david53 wrote:Right hope someone can help I had a situation in a game this evening and can't find a rule that covers it, I looked but could'nt find it?

I think the solution is simple - give him a slap.
But seriously if one charge gets in the way of another - not due to cheese but by enemy evading so chargers converg. Does the last charger not simply stop short of interpenetrating the other chargers?

he did declare the direction of the charge at the same time as declaring the charge yes? Before you chose to evade?

titanu wrote:

david53 wrote:Right hope someone can help I had a situation in a game this evening and can't find a rule that covers it, I looked but could'nt find it?

I think the solution is simple - give him a slap.
But seriously if one charge gets in the way of another - not due to cheese but by enemy evading so chargers converg. Does the last charger not simply stop short of interpenetrating the other chargers?

I'm sure I've ruled that before now on the basis that, if nothing else, it seems right.

durrati wrote:he did declare the direction of the charge at the same time as declaring the charge yes? Before you chose to evade?

Whilst recommend as "good practice" by the FAQ this is not, alas, actually required by the rules - you declare the direction after the charge response has been made, but before evades are actually done.

One for v2.0 methinks, Nik. Out of the FAQ and into the main body...

titanu wrote:[
I think the solution is simple - give him a slap.

He was bigger than me

But it was a friendly game and I did win in the end?

Page 54 has some things to say about this:

1. You can contract by a base to avoid friends. (This is still true if the enemy evaded.) That might have allowed the BG to charge in the original example, depending on the exact geometry.

2. If you cannot contact enemy because you are unable to contract enough to avoid friends* then your charge is cancelled. (This implies, although it is not stated, that if you cannot contact enemy for some other reason then your charge is not cancelled.)

There seems to be a balance of opinion that 2 above should be changed in v2.0 so the BG charges as far as it can (i.e. until it meets an obstruction)

The restriction on page 53, no wheels if it leads to fewer bases in contact, should rule out wheels that obstruct other BGs from making contact in most cases.

Given the above, it looks as though you were, as the Australians say, "rorted".

There seems to be an underlying principle that you cannot declare a charge unless it is feasible in the event of no targets evading. Technically, deciding the direction of a charge (or the entire path) is not part of the declaration, but it probably ought to be.

* The wording is ambiguous here. It says "If, owing to this, contact is not possible..." but it is not entirely clear what "this" refers to . It could be referring to the previous sentence: "No turns or expansions are permitted."

There's definitely scope for a tidy-up in v2.0.

As Daves opponent last night I think I need to put the record straight. Things were not quite as Dave explained. Firstly and most crucially Light Horse FF were facing in the opposite direction to D and E, with their rear to my light horse C. By charging C at an angle (which was declared straight away) i forced them to evade across the path of D and E. A and B both then had to charge, straight ahead to force D and E to evade into their freinds F, creating a nice mess against the table edge. When all the evades were complete I rolled for my charges, A and C rolled normal and B went long. With C at an angle there was not enough room for both A and B and I decided to move A and C first which meant there was no room for B to complete its charge. This was not in any way intentional, I'm really not clever enough to plan that far ahead. Forcing your opponents bgs to evade into each other is in my opinion not at all cheesy, just good tactics. Now down to the real question. B was unable to complete its charge and therefore had its charge cancelled. This was not an issue as it states this in the rules. However the real question is can it then make a normal move. In my opinion it is allowed to do so as it hasn't charged. Cancelled means just that. Dave thought othewise. I hope this makes things clearer.


Matthew

MatthewP wrote:As Daves opponent last night I think I need to put the record straight. Things were not quite as Dave explained. Firstly and most crucially Light Horse FF were facing in the opposite direction to D and E, with their rear to my light horse C. By charging C at an angle (which was declared straight away) i forced them to evade across the path of D and E. A and B both then had to charge, straight ahead to force D and E to evade into their freinds F, creating a nice mess against the table edge. When all the evades were complete I rolled for my charges, A and C rolled normal and B went long. With C at an angle there was not enough room for both A and B and I decided to move A and C first which meant there was no room for B to complete its charge. This was not in any way intentional, I'm really not clever enough to plan that far ahead. Forcing your opponents bgs to evade into each other is in my opinion not at all cheesy, just good tactics. Now down to the real question. B was unable to complete its charge and therefore had its charge cancelled. This was not an issue as it states this in the rules. However the real question is can it then make a normal move. In my opinion it is allowed to do so as it hasn't charged. Cancelled means just that. Dave thought othewise. I hope this makes things clearer.


Matthew

B's charge is cancelled only if contact is not possible owing to the reasons stated on page 54. If it can't make contact because the targets evaded out of range then the charge is not cancelled. Not being able to complete the charge move is not, on its own, sufficient to cancel the charge.

It's a subtle point and quite easy to miss, so I'm sure you didn't do it deliberately.

I agree that if a charge is genuinely cancelled then cancelled means cancelled. BGs can move in the manoeuve phase if they didn't charge in the impact phase. That is perfectly clear.

By the way, if Dave's LH had not evaded, would the interference between your BGs have resulted in fewer bases getting into contact than if they all went straight ahead?

No all charges were legitamate under the rules when they were declared. If Dave had stood all of them would have gone in although on of them may have had to drop a base. There was only one charger wheeling (C) and this would have contacted two bases which is exactly the same number as it would have contacted if it had charged straight ahead.

MatthewP wrote:No all charges were legitamate under the rules when they were declared. If Dave had stood all of them would have gone in although on of them may have had to drop a base. There was only one charger wheeling (C) and this would have contacted two bases which is exactly the same number as it would have contacted if it had charged straight ahead.

The rule is not "less bases of the wheeling BG being eligible to fight...".

It is "... less bases being eligible to fight in the impact phase combat than would occur if the battlegroup charged straight ahead."

In other words you have to take into account the effects of the wheeling BG on the totality of impact phase combats, not just its own combats.

I don't think many players realise this.

MatthewP wrote:As Daves opponent last night I think I need to put the record straight. ......... . I hope this makes things clearer.

Matthew

It does, a lot. From the original post it seemed like you deliberately angled your charges once you knew the opponent was evading, purely so one BG would have its charge cancelled and be able to move in the manoeuvre phase. Which would have been extremely cheesy.
But as you say, angling a charge to force an opposing BG to evade in a certain direction is a pretty normal thing to do I think.

Same thing happened on the table next to them as well. Opponenet had his LH mixed up in front of a BL of Kn and LH so he could maximise his shooting. The next turns charges meant that either a LH or Kn would not complete its charge, all the opposing LH evaded. 2 BG of Knights and 3 BG of LH were charging. If one of the KN moved first the Lh would hit them up the bum without being able to drop a base to pass, if the LH went first similar would happen for the knights

[quote="MatthewP"mplete its charge. This was not in any way intentional, I'm really not clever enough to plan that far ahead. Forcing your opponents bgs to evade into each other is in my opinion not at all cheesy

[/quote]

No I never thought it was a cheesy move to force me to run through my LH thats part of FOG, what i did and still think is wrong I have explained in past posts.

If I mistook the position with reference to your units my mistake I wish I had a phone that took pictures(even then I can't work out how to put them on here)

BTW I still owe you that drink I promised you.

Dave

Polkovnik wrote:

MatthewP wrote:As Daves opponent last night I think I need to put the record straight. ......... . I hope this makes things clearer.

Matthew

It does, a lot. From the original post it seemed like you deliberately angled your charges once you knew the opponent was evading, purely so one BG would have its charge cancelled and be able to move in the manoeuvre phase. Which would have been extremely cheesy.
But as you say, angling a charge to force an opposing BG to evade in a certain direction is a pretty normal thing to do I think.

Once again sorry I did not think what you were doing was cheesy but as i have stated a BG that can just cancel its charge and move again in the movement phase is open to people planning it that way.