Slitherine

Point A
An enemy evasion from another charge gets near a new charge. Can this be contacted? I think this is partially covered in the 6.1, but provoked a hole string of questions. Do you have to try for the original target? Let’s say due to positions the charger would have to wheel right for the original target and left for the potential new target? I.e. only one is going to potentially get hit. Who decides which target? Charger I presume, but then that feeds back to new units arriving as a result of other evasions.

Point B
If you are charging your opponent evades. Is it specified that you roll the VMD after you pick the direction you go? I presume so, but could not find it written. So aha my main evading opponent on my right got a +2 I can never reach, so I will wheel and charge left to another one of my declared charge targets.

Point C
I have two units charging three. I declare charges against all three. But if I wheel properly I can each hit one unit and the 3rd enemy unit can not use its ZOI because it was charged. Therefore I get away with 2 on 2 to start with instead of 2 vs. 3.

Point D
Since ZOI charges are conducted before charges. There will be charges that “could” go through a ZOI or could not. Because of distance the ZOI hits nothing. Then the charge moves? What are we missing here?

Point E
LH contacted during charge. Had an interesting situation. Macedonian shock cavalry were approaching som lance armed Roman subject LH. I move my spanish scutarii up to be able to ZOI into the Macedonian flank. Bad deployment and the Macedonian declare charge, then we realize my Lance LH have no restricted zone and can't ZOI against the Macedonians. OK on all that. But then the macedonian wheel is not sufficient to avoid contacting the LH as it contacts the scutarii. Since the LH was not charged, it could not evade bcause that sequence is passed? Now i didn't want to evade but should have. This seem like a bit of potential cheese that allows you to charge the non-skirmishers and then wheel into the skirmishers. I presume this is actually disallowed in the rules, but could someone point me to where to aid my understanding?

Thansk Dan

As a general point I would say experience to-date is that FOG relies on battlewide strategic control more than getting micro-plans to come off. In my experience "small plays" to try to line up 1 element vs another have little effect on the battles.....but if you get all your troops inthe right place and time it well kaboom.

Also I would add that we have taken a decision to avoid clogging up the rules with every last detail the comp palyers want and instead provide a repsonsive and high qulaity website with answers to such questions. So all you raise is very good stuff but expect the answers ultimate there rather than in the rules. We really want to keep the book a realtively easy read in recognistion that 90% of club players will be ahppy to interpret such thigns for themselves.

On the good issues you raise .....

Point A
An enemy evasion from another charge gets near a new charge. Can this be contacted? I think this is partially covered in the 6.1, but provoked a hole string of questions. Do you have to try for the original target? Let’s say due to positions the charger would have to wheel right for the original target and left for the potential new target? I.e. only one is going to potentially get hit. Who decides which target? Charger I presume, but then that feeds back to new units arriving as a result of other evasions.

We did get a debate on this anc concluded that the method was that the charger decides order of charges. If someone evades and end up in the way of a new charge then they can be hit by this. They are effectively a target at the time the 2nd charge is actioned and so be it - well done for forcing them to evade in front of you BG of elephants!!

Point B
If you are charging your opponent evades. Is it specified that you roll the VMD after you pick the direction you go? I presume so, but could not find it written. So aha my main evading opponent on my right got a +2 I can never reach, so I will wheel and charge left to another one of my declared charge targets.

Current rules after evades as follows........
The chargers now move their charge move, adjusting the move distance by a VMD roll if all their charge targets evaded. If all target battle groups evade out of the original path of the charge, the chargers can wheel in an attempt to catch them. A charging battle group whose move would take any part of it off the table edge instead halts its move at the table edge.

So simpler in process - roll the VMD and if anyone is in the original path of the charge chase them. If not choose to wheel and chse them instead. If two evaded in different direciton then yes I think you can choose to chase one or the other.

Point C
I have two units charging three. I declare charges against all three. But if I wheel properly I can each hit one unit and the 3rd enemy unit can not use its ZOI because it was charged. Therefore I get away with 2 on 2 to start with instead of 2 vs. 3.

You mean BGs .........

A charging battle group must make a charge move in one of two ways:
1.Advance directly ahead, up to the full extent of its charge move (plus any variable move distance to contact evaders) to ‘legally’ contact any part of the target battle group(s).
2.Combine such 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 charged straight ahead. A wheel while charging cannot be more than 90 degrees.

Yep. So when you action each charge - as against say it is going to charge - you do one of the above. And......

Any enemy battle group in the path of a charge counts as being charged if it can be ‘legally’ contacted, even if it was not one of the originally declared targets of the charge. This applies even if it can only be contacted by bases stepping forward (see below). It does not apply if, due to intervening friends, it could not be contacted even by stepping forward bases – unless the situation changes, as follows: If a battle group is revealed and can now be contacted due to friends evading or breaking and routing, it becomes a target of the charge and will therefore take any required tests once the evade or rout move has occurred.

So I think my interp is that if when you action the charge in question in the sequence you have opted to avoid the BG it is not in the path of the charge and thus not charged. Richard?

Point D
Since ZOI charges are conducted before charges. There will be charges that “could” go through a ZOI or could not. Because of distance the ZOI hits nothing. Then the charge moves? What are we missing here?

Each charge is done in order, decalres its intent than anyone who can intercept that intent does so. This is certainyl what we ahve done throughout. 95% of the time its obvious. In the other cases if you stick to this order then it becomes clear I think.

Point E
LH contacted during charge. Had an interesting situation. Macedonian shock cavalry were approaching som lance armed Roman subject LH. I move my spanish scutarii up to be able to ZOI into the Macedonian flank. Bad deployment and the Macedonian declare charge, then we realize my Lance LH have no restricted zone and can't ZOI against the Macedonians. OK on all that. But then the macedonian wheel is not sufficient to avoid contacting the LH as it contacts the scutarii. Since the LH was not charged, it could not evade bcause that sequence is passed? Now i didn't want to evade but should have. This seem like a bit of potential cheese that allows you to charge the non-skirmishers and then wheel into the skirmishers. I presume this is actually disallowed in the rules, but could someone point me to where to aid my understanding?

Again the time at which they evade is once the charger declare specifically what they are doing at that stage of the sequence. As they would be contacted by the decided action they are charged and should have evaded in my view. If I understand you correctly.

Hope that helps - I am sure it will generate some more questions

Si

Si

I see that Dan has beat me to the punch in asking these questions. Go Dan!

Anyway, here is the one that I thought of while driving home from Historicon. Say I have a BG of lancers that wants to charge a juicy target--some MF caught in the open--but there is another enemy Cav BG lurking nearby that could intercept my charge. Can I forestall the interception by declaring the Cav BG to also be a target of my charge? That would prevent the Cav from intercepting, and when I action my charge I wheel to hit the MF and not the Cav.

Potential cheese, or am I misreading something?

Marc

babyshark wrote:I see that Dan has beat me to the punch in asking these questions. Go Dan!

Anyway, here is the one that I thought of while driving home from Historicon. Say I have a BG of lancers that wants to charge a juicy target--some MF caught in the open--but there is another enemy Cav BG lurking nearby that could intercept my charge. Can I forestall the interception by declaring the Cav BG to also be a target of my charge? That would prevent the Cav from intercepting, and when I action my charge I wheel to hit the MF and not the Cav.

Potential cheese, or am I misreading something?

Marc

As long as the wheel does not result in less bases being eligible to fight in the impact combat than the straight ahead move, this cheese would be allowed as far as I can see.

In practice, probably difficult to do without stepping forward into the cavalry.

The rules state that if a BG would be contacted by a charge, even if this is only discovered once the charge comes to be executed, then it counts as being charged, even if not declared as a target.

The converse of this would be that a declared target does not count as being charged if it turns out that the charge will not contact it. In that case it could intercept. However, the converse is not necesarily true and it is not explicitly stated anywhere in the rules as far as I know.

lawrenceg wrote:

babyshark wrote:I see that Dan has beat me to the punch in asking these questions. Go Dan!

Anyway, here is the one that I thought of while driving home from Historicon. Say I have a BG of lancers that wants to charge a juicy target--some MF caught in the open--but there is another enemy Cav BG lurking nearby that could intercept my charge. Can I forestall the interception by declaring the Cav BG to also be a target of my charge? That would prevent the Cav from intercepting, and when I action my charge I wheel to hit the MF and not the Cav.

Potential cheese, or am I misreading something?

Marc

As long as the wheel does not result in less bases being eligible to fight in the impact combat than the straight ahead move, this cheese would be allowed as far as I can see.

In practice, probably difficult to do without stepping forward into the cavalry.

The rules state that if a BG would be contacted by a charge, even if this is only discovered once the charge comes to be executed, then it counts as being charged, even if not declared as a target.

The converse of this would be that a declared target does not count as being charged if it turns out that the charge will not contact it. In that case it could intercept. However, the converse is not necesarily true and it is not explicitly stated anywhere in the rules as far as I know.

Indeed, but the latter interpretation is in the spirit of the rules, and does not contradict the letter thereof. Moreover, it is (self-evidently) implicit (though not explicit) in the charging rules that you declare a charge on BGs you intend to charge, and therefore you attempt to do so, not deliberately avoid doing so! This is so self-evident that we did not deem it necessary to make it explicit. As has been said before we are trying to write rules that are easy to understand for normal people, and do not wish to complicate the wording by including additional rules to exclude every bizarre twist that the fevered minds of competition players can come up with. While we would all like the rules to be as clear as possible, in the final analysis it is not possible to legislate against every malicious reading of the rules - and certainly not possible to do so without making the rules less accessible to beginners.

Even if it was permitted to declare a charge on a BG and then deliberately try not to hit it, such a BG could then hardly be regarded as a "target" of the charge - as it clearly isn't a target of the charge. Hence it would be permitted to intercept.

As an umpire I would certainly rule this cheese illegal - with a few well chosen words of disapprobation. A slap (or at the very least a dousing in cold water) would also probably be appropriate.

Another one for the clarification page in due course methinks. Sad that it should be necessary, however.

As far as I am concerned when you declare a charge you declare the direction of the charge. Any BG's that would be contacted by this charge in this direction within it's normal charge distance count as being charged.

If you say that you can declare a charge on a BG and then not actually charge it just to stop an intercept then you might as well declare a charge on a BG on the other side of the table. Very silly IMO.

Hammy

rbodleyscott wrote:

lawrenceg wrote:

babyshark wrote:I see that Dan has beat me to the punch in asking these questions. Go Dan!

Anyway, here is the one that I thought of while driving home from Historicon. Say I have a BG of lancers that wants to charge a juicy target--some MF caught in the open--but there is another enemy Cav BG lurking nearby that could intercept my charge. Can I forestall the interception by declaring the Cav BG to also be a target of my charge? That would prevent the Cav from intercepting, and when I action my charge I wheel to hit the MF and not the Cav.

Potential cheese, or am I misreading something?

Marc

As long as the wheel does not result in less bases being eligible to fight in the impact combat than the straight ahead move, this cheese would be allowed as far as I can see.

In practice, probably difficult to do without stepping forward into the cavalry.

The rules state that if a BG would be contacted by a charge, even if this is only discovered once the charge comes to be executed, then it counts as being charged, even if not declared as a target.

The converse of this would be that a declared target does not count as being charged if it turns out that the charge will not contact it. In that case it could intercept. However, the converse is not necesarily true and it is not explicitly stated anywhere in the rules as far as I know.

Indeed, but the latter interpretation is in the spirit of the rules, and does not contradict the letter thereof. Moreover, it is (self-evidently) implicit (though not explicit) in the charging rules that you declare a charge on BGs you intend to charge, and therefore you attempt to do so, not deliberately avoid doing so! This is so self-evident that we did not deem it necessary to make it explicit. As has been said before we are trying to write rules that are easy to understand for normal people, and do not wish to complicate the wording by including additional rules to exclude every bizarre twist that the fevered minds of competition players can come up with. While we would all like the rules to be as clear as possible, in the final analysis it is not possible to legislate against every malicious reading of the rules - and certainly not possible to do so without making the rules less accessible to beginners.

Even if it was permitted to declare a charge on a BG and then deliberately try not to hit it, such a BG could then hardly be regarded as a "target" of the charge - as it clearly isn't a target of the charge. Hence it would be permitted to intercept.

As an umpire I would certainly rule this cheese illegal - with a few well chosen words of disapprobation. A slap (or at the very least a dousing in cold water) would also probably be appropriate.

Another one for the clarification page in due course methinks. Sad that it should be necessary, however.

As the above discussion shows, it is neither here nor there which BGs you declare your charge on. The only thing that matters is who the charge would contact. I suggest that the whole subject could be clarified and de-cheesified by getting rid of the idea that you declare a charge on specific target BGs.

Then you simply have

Any enemy battle group in the path of a charge counts as being charged....

which is all that is needed.[/i]

This applies to a few things Si and RBS wrote.

The sequence of the impact phase is:
1 Declare all charges
2 Various CMTs
3 Make interception chrages
4 Make Evade
5 Make Charge moves
6 Resolve etc

* I am fine with some of this being on a web clarifications page and I may be over analyzing the real wheeling capablities. But I can see a KN moving forward and either getting people approaching them or trying to get away and not being directly to the KN front. So the KN BG will have to wheel either left or right. Either it can or can't declare charges on both. Then since they are targets they can't ZOI. But the charge isn't resolved until afterwards.

So if we are entering a sentence or web clarification that says a target that was declared a target of charge that is not being moved into contact by a charger is permitted to use its ZOI.

I think in summary and intersting debate for a web calrry but from all game seen so far not the major issue.

When you declare a charge you say what they are going. Technically if you do the details in order the problems are solved anyway.

For my part I put the dice down and say - these are charging those 2, this on that one etc. Thsi fulfillinh Hammy spirit of the rules.

Then when we operatinalise it I do pick the one to do and do the specifics one by one and we do responses accordingly.

Following this simple sequence I have never yet had a problem working out what happened.

Si

Simon, I have been drinking and may be dense. But technically I can do what I suggested and the sequence doesn't protect the game. Unless you stipulate that if you have more than one eligible targets that cannot all be hit by the same charge then they all can't be targeted. I am fully prepared to be told I am dense, but I think your saying my issue is uncommon enough not to matter in practical terms.