Charges without orders that could be intercepted by nellies

[peteratjet]

In a recent game, a situation arose where my lancer armed cavalry were in charge range of enemy cavalry, with enemy elephents poised to intercept charge my guys' flank. My opponent told me that as a charge without orders would result in them contacting nellies, they didn't have to test not to, as per the 5th bullet point "If their move would result in contact with a fortification, elephants or a riverbank"

I wasn't convinced, arguing that "end in contact with" didn't include "intercepted by". (this was about who was right, not who would would benefit. )

Later, a similar situation arose with an impact foot battlegroup threatened by cavalry if it charged, but I can see that the 4th bullet point explicitly covers that case. "If they are foot whose move could contact or be intercepted by mounted"

So me question is .. Does the 5th bullet point include the case where elephants could intercept the charge?

[philqw78]

I have brought this up for V2 wording. IMO the move ends in contact with heffalumps so no test and no charge unless you want to.

[hazelbark]

The charge is not required because it says "could" contact elephants.

[zoltan]

I'm not comvinced because the lancers could only contact the elephants if they elect to intercept. Resolving charges occurs before moving onto the intercept phase.

[philqw78]

I'm not comvinced because the lancers could only contact the elephants if they elect to intercept. Resolving charges occurs before moving onto the intercept phase.

No it doesn't. Intercepts are moved before charges.

[grahambriggs]

It certainly needs clearing up. You could even read it that they have to test not to charge if the elepants could intercept flank/rear but not if they could intercept frontally. In that with the first case the lancer charge is cancelled, so it couldn't contact the elephants.

[philqw78]

It certainly needs clearing up. You could even read it that they have to test not to charge if the elepants could intercept flank/rear but not if they could intercept frontally. In that with the first case the lancer charge is cancelled, so it couldn't contact the elephants.

But it would still end in cantact with

[grahambriggs]

It certainly needs clearing up. You could even read it that they have to test not to charge if the elepants could intercept flank/rear but not if they could intercept frontally. In that with the first case the lancer charge is cancelled, so it couldn't contact the elephants.

But it would still end in cantact with

I think the rule says "If their move could end in contact". "their" clearly refers to the lancers. It's loosely worded but you could say that their move wouldn't end in contact, because it's been cancelled. So it's the move of the elephants that's ended in contact. not the move of the lancers.

It doesn't help that it's a circular argument!

[sdaddino]

it is very hard to support this thesis
cavalry must charge because they do not charge elphant...and the charge is not cancelled if they are intercept by elephant.
I don't have the book with me but I can say that cv must charge...and the rule is refered only if they can contact elephan during the charge and not the intercept.
Otherwhise elephant cannot intercept never cavalry...and the rule should be:
Elephant can intercept units unless cavalry
don't you think?
And if I don't want to intercept with my elephant?
the pahses are:
declare the charge
roll to stop unit that you don't want to charge
declare intercept
make charge movement

[dave_r]

it is very hard to support this thesis
the pHases are:
declare the charge
roll to stop unit that you don't want to charge

Except in this case you don't have to test because you "could end in contact with elephants". It doesn't state "your charge must end in contact with elephants" just that you could end in contact with elephants, which in this scenario, you can.

declare intercept
make charge movement

You missed out move interceptors, but in this case it isn't relevant.

[davidandlynda]

For what its worth unless an author says otherwise I will be using the "cavalry don't have to test"theory for Oxford doubles next week,as we have may have some in our army it could end up being not in our favour again
David

[Fluffy]

I understand "could" as meaning "it is possible", so any event where it is possible for chargers to end up fighting elephants in that impact phase they don't need to test.

If you try common sense, the idea appears to be that troops are weary around elephants, so will be less keen if the elephants are close enough to intercept (supporting the "no-test" theory).

[sdaddino]

Except in this case you don't have to test because you "could end in contact with elephants". It doesn't state "your charge must end in contact with elephants" just that you could end in contact with elephants, which in this scenario, you can.


You missed out move interceptors, but in this case it isn't relevant.

explained before...cv do not test if they can charge elephant

[peteratjet]

It did occur to me that in the case of a flank intercept charge by the nellies, the cavalry wouldn't actually move at all

[grahambriggs]

it is very hard to support this thesis
the pHases are:
declare the charge
roll to stop unit that you don't want to charge

Except in this case you don't have to test because you "could end in contact with elephants". It doesn't state "your charge must end in contact with elephants" just that you could end in contact with elephants, which in this scenario, you can.

The proble is Dave it actually says the exception applies to the lancers if "their move could end in contact with elephants" (my emphasis). It all depends whether "their move" means their charge move (which won't contact the elephants because it will be cancelled) or "their move" in the general sense of "their impact phase". A strict reading might get you to the former, but common sense suggests the latter.

[ravenflight]

= Offensive Spearmen
= knights
= phasing Impact Foot (enemy of knights & Offensive Spearmen)
= spacer

:shock::shock::shock:
3" distance
:twisted::D:D:D
3.75" distance
8)8)

Ok, I've changed my mind, so hopefully this will make sense.

Do the Impact foot have to charge?

There is no way THEIR (the impact foot's) move will contact the knights. They can't step forward enough.

I say they don't have to charge. Same with the nellies.

[grahambriggs]

= Offensive Spearmen
= knights
= phasing Impact Foot (enemy of knights & Offensive Spearmen)
= spacer

:shock::shock::shock:
3" distance
:twisted::D:D:D
3.75" distance
8)8)

Ok, I've changed my mind, so hopefully this will make sense.

Do the Impact foot have to charge?

There is no way THEIR (the impact foot's) move will contact the knights. They can't step forward enough.

I say they don't have to charge. Same with the nellies.

The foot don't have to charge. But this is a different exception "If they are foot whose move could contact or be intercepted by mounted." I believe the knights can intercept here.

If the ;elephants' exception was written in a similar way the it would be clearer.

[ravenflight]

The foot don't have to charge. But this is a different exception "If they are foot whose move could contact or be intercepted by mounted." I believe the knights can intercept here.

If the ;elephants' exception was written in a similar way the it would be clearer.

Fair enough, i don't have my rules handy, but i feel the nellies SHOULD be treated the same.