Legal charge target?

[LordNytram]

Yesterday I had a set of armoured knights declare a charge on some light horse. The charge path of the knights was aimed to hit some cataphracts that were well in range (without any VMD adj) but only once the light horse evaded out the way. All of this is in open terrain.

My opponent wanted to do an intercept charge with the cataphracts. Not against the knights but against another charge by a different unit.

As the light horse had to evade my understanding was that the cataphracts were a legitimate charge target and as such could not make an intercept move against anyone.

My opponent argued that at the time my knights declared their charge his cata's could make an intercept move elsewhere because of the wording on page 67 which states:
A battle group that is itself charged cannot intercept. This applies even if a charge was not declared on it, if it is in the path of a charge and would be contacted (including by bases stepping forward) if no friendly battle group evaded.

He argued that because "a friendly battle group evaded" ( viz the light horse) then the rule preventing the cata's intercepting didn't apply. Please advise if he is correct or if I was well and truly done!

[HarryKonst]

I think your friend is correct. The Cat. have the right to intercept. But all interceptions happen first, then all evades and then you do all charges in the order you like (see Full turn sequence in page 178) . So, depending on the relative position of the BGroups on the table you may be able to land on the Cataphracts anyway, or not.-Harry

[pyruse]

Intercepts happen before evades - check the full turn sequence. So looks like the cats could intercept.

[zoltan]

At the time the knights declare a charge the cataphracts are not a target of the charge because the light horse are in the way. It is only once the light horse evade that the cataphracts become a subsequent target of the knight's charge. Because intercept charges occur before evades, the cataphracts are free to intercept another enemy charge (by a BG other than the knights.)

[bbotus]

Agree, the Cats can intercept.

Another question comes up from your original post

Yesterday I had a set of armoured knights declare a charge on some light horse. The charge path of the knights was aimed to hit some cataphracts

Top of page 58, V2, says you cannot wheel beyond the position at which an enemy who could evade would be contacted if they did not evade. If you placed your line of charge marker beyond this point then that would have be "illegal". Can't tell from your post.

[dave_r]

Agree, the Cats can intercept.

Another question comes up from your original post

Yesterday I had a set of armoured knights declare a charge on some light horse. The charge path of the knights was aimed to hit some cataphracts

Top of page 58, V2, says you cannot wheel beyond the position at which an enemy who could evade would be contacted if they did not evade. If you placed your line of charge marker beyond this point then that would have be "illegal". Can't tell from your post.

Except you can always wheel an inch irrelevant of where the enemy are.

[bbotus]

Except you can always wheel an inch irrelevant of where the enemy are.

Yes, but only after the skirmishers evade. When indicating the direction of charge verses troops capable of evading, you can only wheel, if necessary, to the point at which the enemy would be contacted if they didn't evade--contact, therefore, being the proverbial 'Gnat's Todger'. I've always had a little trouble with that sentence but I guess it doesn't matter because the skirmishers have to evade anyway.

[dave_r]

Except you can always wheel an inch irrelevant of where the enemy are.

Yes, but only after the skirmishers evade. When indicating the direction of charge verses troops capable of evading, you can only wheel, if necessary, to the point at which the enemy would be contacted if they didn't evade--contact, therefore, being the proverbial 'Gnat's Todger'. I've always had a little trouble with that sentence but I guess it doesn't matter because the skirmishers have to evade anyway.

You would still need to declare the inch wheel prior to the evade occurring. It's not only skirmishers that can evade.

[bbotus]

You would still need to declare the inch wheel prior to the evade occurring. It's not only skirmishers that can evade.

That is not how I read it. The text says the 1 MU wheel is permitted if all targets evade. Doesn't say anything about declaring the 1 MU wheel before the evade happens.

[HarryKonst]

Hi bbotus. You always declare the direction of your charge whether you wheel 1 MU, or not.If you don't declare it (the I MU) before the charge, then you always follow the declared path (usually straight ahead because we often place skirmishers in no contact position to a BG that we wouldn't like to let it wheel much during a charge).(Unless of course the evaders have evaded out of your charge path, in which case tou can wheel to their direction in order to catch them, etc, etc).That's how we understand the rule and play it here in Athens. If there is a misunderstanding about it please inform us.Thanks-Harry

[dave_r]

Hi bbotus. You always declare the direction of your charge whether you wheel 1 MU, or not.If you don't declare it (the I MU) before the charge, then you always follow the declared path (usually straight ahead because we often place skirmishers in no contact position to a BG that we wouldn't like to let it wheel much during a charge).(Unless of course the evaders have evaded out of your charge path, in which case tou can wheel to their direction in order to catch them, etc, etc).That's how we understand the rule and play it here in Athens. If there is a misunderstanding about it please inform us.Thanks-Harry

This is backed up by the rules - pg 57.

"A charge move can include a single wheel of up to 90 degrees. The following restrictions apply: Any wheel must be specified before any charge responses are declared"

This is then clarified further on pg 58

"If charging enemy who could evade, the charging battle group cannot wheel beyond the position at which thge enemy would be contacted if they did not evade. Exception: If all targets evade, the charging battle group can wheel one front corner up to 1 MU at the start of its charge move even if this is further than the above rule would permit"

[bbotus]

Hi bbotus. You always declare the direction of your charge whether you wheel 1 MU, or not.If you don't declare it (the I MU) before the charge, then you always follow the declared path (usually straight ahead because we often place skirmishers in no contact position to a BG that we wouldn't like to let it wheel much during a charge).(Unless of course the evaders have evaded out of your charge path, in which case tou can wheel to their direction in order to catch them, etc, etc).That's how we understand the rule and play it here in Athens. If there is a misunderstanding about it please inform us.Thanks-Harry

This is backed up by the rules - pg 57.

"A charge move can include a single wheel of up to 90 degrees. The following restrictions apply: Any wheel must be specified before any charge responses are declared"

This is then clarified further on pg 58

"If charging enemy who could evade, the charging battle group cannot wheel beyond the position at which thge enemy would be contacted if they did not evade. Exception: If all targets evade, the charging battle group can wheel one front corner up to 1 MU at the start of its charge move even if this is further than the above rule would permit"

Now I'm getting confused.
Yes, we declare the direction of the charge before the evade.
Yes, you can wheel up to 90 unless the enemy is capable of evading.
If evade capable, then you can only wheel up to the point (the gnat's todger) where the evade capable BG would be contacted. Mark line of charge according.
However, if your declared original wheel is less than 1 MU and the target does in fact evade. Then you are allowed, per the page 58 exception Dave quoted, to wheel up to 1 MU at the start of the charge. This applies even if the evader does not evade out of the original line of charge.
If the evader does in fact evade out of the line of charge, then the page 57 and page 73 exception applies and the charger may wheel more than 1 MU in an attempt to catch the evaders.

Do we agree?

[HarryKonst]

Ok, I understand what you say bbotus.You declare charge with the maximum possible wheel against evaders, and then when they evade you increase that wheel up to 1 MU. To tell the truth if I had to judge I would say no to that tactic.I believe that the rule in page 57 that says;"Any wheel must be specified before any responses are declared" is a restriction that can't be ignored and moreover makes the play more fair. We like not to surprise the opponent.We just declare our intention to wheel the whole 1MU before the charge. Moreover this way you can check whether the rest restrictions of charging are fulfiled and I'm refering to the rule in page 57 that says ;"...a Wheel cannot be made if it would result in less combat dice being thrown by the charging BG in the impact phase combat than if it charged straight ahead." I'm not sure, but I hope we both agree that the rule of increasing the wheel during charge against evaders, doesn't overrule all the restrictions of wheeling during charge, but just the one in page 58 we are talking about.-Harry

[bbotus]

I agree with you on page 57. It is page 58 that I'm struggling with. It doesn't make much sense to me. I'd love to see an example of just what the authors are talking about on top of page 58.

Top of 58 does say that there is an exception which allows a BG to wheel 1 MU after the enemy evades. That would supersede page 57, don't you think? P.S. They don't get to increase the total wheel by 1 MU. They only get that 1 MU wheel if and only if their stated wheel was less than 1 MU. So it isn't much.

[HarryKonst]

No, it doesn't supersede any restrictions in page 57.It only supersedes the rule in page 58 that says that the charging Bg cannot wheel beyond the position at which the enemy would be contacted if they did not evade.All the other rules-restrictions are valid.That's how I understand the rule.
By the way, what is your name? -Harry

[bbotus]

It's Todd (take off the 'us' and look at 'bbot' in the mirror.

[dave_r]

I agree with you on page 57. It is page 58 that I'm struggling with. It doesn't make much sense to me. I'd love to see an example of just what the authors are talking about on top of page 58.

Top of 58 does say that there is an exception which allows a BG to wheel 1 MU after the enemy evades. That would supersede page 57, don't you think? P.S. They don't get to increase the total wheel by 1 MU. They only get that 1 MU wheel if and only if their stated wheel was less than 1 MU. So it isn't much.

This is how I believe the rules are written (and indeed how it's played). I'm charging, here's my angle. If everybody evades (as per pg 58) then I can wheel an inch if I wasn't able to wheel an inch because the skirmishers were very close.

Getting skirmishers extremely close to the enemy so they can't wheel may have been a tactic I introduced in v1. Now countered by the damned authors in v2. I'll find another way to foil them

[petedalby]

It doesn't make much sense to me.

Hopefully it does now - plus you've seen Graham's comments on the similar thread.

If it's still unclear - look back at V1 wording and the FAQs - which is where the V2 wording came from.

[bbotus]

This is how I believe the rules are written (and indeed how it's played). I'm charging, here's my angle. If everybody evades (as per pg 58) then I can wheel an inch if I wasn't able to wheel an inch because the skirmishers were very close.

Getting skirmishers extremely close to the enemy so they can't wheel may have been a tactic I introduced in v1. Now countered by the damned authors in v2. I'll find another way to foil them

So that's the reason for that exception on page 58. Now it is finally making sense. I hadn't thought of that and I couldn't figure out why they'd put that exception in there. So I mis-read it trying to make it all work together. Thanks for your help.

[HarryKonst]

So, Todd is right and exception in page 58 surpasses the restrictions of wheeling in page 57.(Are you all sure about that?)
Skirmishing becomes more and more ineffective.