Slitherine

I've never had this come up before - so I thought I'd share it - would you have done this any differently?







is an enemy LF BG
is my LF BG
is my lancer BG
is a gap

I declared a charge with my LF.
Further to the rear of the enemy LF BG is an enemy Cav BG within charge range of my lancers so my lancers had to test not to charge. Despite the IC with, they promptly failed.
We played it that the lancers had to charge first - bursting through the LF - who still had to charge because they had elected to. The enemy LF rolled short and were caught by the lancers. My LF also piled in by contracting by one base in their charge.

So it ended






What do you think?

In your diagram, it looks to me like the lancers would have tested to charge whether or not the enemy Cavalry were within reach since it appears they could charge the opposing LF by dropping back a file and therefore not being required to interpenetrate the friendly LF.

Chris

Fair point.

A different one there Pete but it sounds plausible.

The only question I would have would be once your LF were burst through did that move them back sufficiently to still hit the enemy LF after the VMD for the LF.

It would also be possible I think for you to charge with the LF first and then for the lancers to contract a base to still get into contact.

The lancers are not forced to burst through the LF because they can avoid this by dropping back a base (at least, that's how it looks from your "emoticon art"). The bullets at the end of p.58 (including enforced burst-through) only apply if the chargers would not be able to aoid the friends by wheeling or dropping back bases.


If for some reason they could not avoid the friendly LF, I would question whether the enemy cavalry are "in reach" as the lancers would not be able to reach them if the enemy LF do not evade, or evade short. If they are not in reach then the lancers do not have to charge as the only enemy in reach are skirmishers.

lawrenceg wrote:The lancers are not forced to burst through the LF because they can avoid this by dropping back a base (at least, that's how it looks from your "emoticon art"). The bullets at the end of p.58 (including enforced burst-through) only apply if the chargers would not be able to aoid the friends by wheeling or dropping back bases..

I think you are right here. It is a bit awkward.

So you roll to charge becausee you can drop back (you can also burst through) but p 58 looks like dropping back is prefered to bursting through.

The very last sentence in parens is the confusing part in this context. It makes it look like something, but as Lawrence says that all comes in assuming you need to burst through.

Thanks guys - my 'emoticon' set up is slightly wrong in that my BGs were not perfectly lined up - dropping back a base for the lancers was not an option.

petedalby wrote:Thanks guys - my 'emoticon' set up is slightly wrong in that my BGs were not perfectly lined up - dropping back a base for the lancers was not an option.

Right, in that case as long as the LF were still close enough to hit the enemy after they were pushed back to make room for the charge then fine.

Interestingly I don't think there is anything requiring the lancers to move first so you could in theory charge with the LF first which would mean that the lancers may not be able to reach (although a wheel and drop back might have still found a way home), if the lancers could not contact then their charge would I think be cancelled.

hammy wrote:

petedalby wrote:Thanks guys - my 'emoticon' set up is slightly wrong in that my BGs were not perfectly lined up - dropping back a base for the lancers was not an option.

Right, in that case as long as the LF were still close enough to hit the enemy after they were pushed back to make room for the charge then fine.

Interestingly I don't think there is anything requiring the lancers to move first so you could in theory charge with the LF first which would mean that the lancers may not be able to reach (although a wheel and drop back might have still found a way home), if the lancers could not contact then their charge would I think be cancelled.

Bottom of page 58:

2nd bullet says your lancers do not have to test and will not charge in this situation.

If the target was not skirmishers and you failed the test then the 3rd bullet says "must burst through" so IMO there is no option to move the front BG first in order to avoid it being burst through.

2nd bullet says your lancers do not have to test and will not charge in this situation

That's probably the bit we did wrong. As you said earlier - there is no requirement for the LF to evade - so the only target definitely in reach are skirmishers - so no compulsory charge.

Having missed this bit - it felt right to make the burst through first.

petedalby wrote:Thanks guys - my 'emoticon' set up is slightly wrong in that my BGs were not perfectly lined up - dropping back a base for the lancers was not an option.

So you were playing sloppy?

So you were playing sloppy?

Fraid so - horribly out of practice.

That's probably the bit we did wrong. As you said earlier - there is no requirement for the LF to evade - so the only target definitely in reach are skirmishers - so no compulsory charge.

I have had this ruled differently.
This basis for the ruling was that the rules say within charge distance (I don't know the exact wording), and so the lancers would have to test if there were non-skirmishers within 5 MU.
The rules do not say that you have to be capable of declaring a charge against them.

prb4 wrote:

That's probably the bit we did wrong. As you said earlier - there is no requirement for the LF to evade - so the only target definitely in reach are skirmishers - so no compulsory charge.

I have had this ruled differently.
This basis for the ruling was that the rules say within charge distance (I don't know the exact wording), and so the lancers would have to test if there were non-skirmishers within 5 MU.
The rules do not say that you have to be capable of declaring a charge against them.

The exact wording is "in reach".

IMO if you can't reach them then they are not in reach.

Whether one should take into account the possibility of targets evading and a VMD of +2 I'm not sure. Possibly that only applies to the exemption bullets in the previous paragrah, as the next paragraph starts "Otherwise".

Also, once the skirmishers have evaded short and it is now definitely imposible to reach the other target, does the "and will not charge" now kick in even if the shock troops failed their test?

Something else to be looked at for clarification when the impact phase gets rewritten in v2.0.

lawrenceg wrote:Something else to be looked at for clarification when the impact phase gets rewritten in v2.0.

Yes, as I've always seen it played as 'within normal charge reach'