Charges contacting flank edge

[mceochaidh]

page 62 states that "A charge that does not qualify as a flank charge can still contact the flank edge of an enemy base , provided that it was not already in melee to its front." I believe that this only applies to the first 2 ranks of enemy so charged.

A BG of 4 CV in 2 ranks has declared a charge and charged in front edge to front edge with enemy CV BG of 4. In manoeuvre phase second friendly CV move up to 4 MU. Melee phase causes no status change or casualties on either side. Enemy melee phase is the same. In the next friendly impact phase second friendly BG of 4 CV is 4 MU from enemy CV in melee. Since such enemy CV is already in melee to its front, and the only place that can be contacted is the side edge of the enemy CV, does second friendly CV have to test not to charge or is the requirement waived in this case? If it is waived, is the second friendly CV free to move normally?

[philqw78]

It only has to test if it is a shock BG.
It cannot charge the the enemy cav 4 MU away (unless in flank or rear) as they are providing dice in melee
If there is nobody else in charge range and eligible it does not test and can move normally*

IMO

*as any BG that passes a test not to charge can

[mceochaidh]

Assuming all BGs are shock CV, 2 friendly BGs are in charge range and the friendly BG directly opposite enemy BG declares charge. Other friendly BG can only reach enemy by charging front edge, so not flank charge. It seems that second BG must still test not to charge. BG fails and must charge. Charges can move in any order. Phasing player chooses to charge first with the BG directly opposite and moves into full frontal base to base contact with enemy. Then, second BG cannot make a legal charge, as the only place it can contact enemy is side edge and it is not a flank charge. So is the second charge cancelled?

[philqw78]

Nope. It hits the side counting as a frontal contact
If it hit the second rank the BG hit would have that base fighting in impact as well (as frontally contacted)
If it hit the Same as base as the first charge the charger could choose which base fought, having more in contact
It would conform to overlap in manoeuvre phase.
If there was no way of contacting after the first charge then it would be cancelled.

Subject to it being able to hit the flank. See Pete below

[petedalby]

In your 1st example, there is no legal charge target other than by bursting through friends - so the 2nd Cav BG do not have to test not to charge. Page 63 - 1st bullet RHS.

Assuming all BGs are shock CV, 2 friendly BGs are in charge range and the friendly BG directly opposite enemy BG declares charge. Other friendly BG can only reach enemy by charging front edge, so not flank charge. It seems that second BG must still test not to charge. BG fails and must charge. Charges can move in any order. Phasing player chooses to charge first with the BG directly opposite and moves into full frontal base to base contact with enemy. Then, second BG cannot make a legal charge, as the only place it can contact enemy is side edge and it is not a flank charge. So is the second charge cancelled?

I'm struggling to understand this scenario - sorry. It does not appear to make sense to me. On the one hand you seem to be saying the 2nd BG is only in range of the enemy BG's front edge but later you seem to be saying it is in range of the flank edge.

Which is it?

[mceochaidh]

Sorry for the confusion. Lets say BG A is directly opposite enemy BG C 3 Mu away and declares charge. BG B is 1 MU directly to the right of BG A. Before BG A actually moves, BG B can wheel 1 MU and move forward 3 MU and strike enemy on enemy front left edge. After BG A charges BG A would block BG B from hitting this front left edge. However, BG B can still reach enemy by wheeling 1/4 MU and then moving straight ahead, striking enemy on enemy front left flank. BG B is just able to get past BG A and has just enough move to do this. Before any charges it looks like:

BG C


BG A BG B

After BG A charges it looks like:

BG C
BG A

Bg B can reach flank of BG C right past the front corner. Based on what Phil said, the charge must go in.

Thanks!

[petedalby]

Thanks Mac - yes the 2nd charge can go in as it is not charging a BG already in an existing melee.

[philqw78]

Thanks Mac - yes the 2nd charge can go in as it is not charging a BG already in an existing melee.

bases already in melee

[grahambriggs]

Assuming A hits the front two bases of C and B also hits one of those bases, note that the player who charged then has a decision to make. Impact is alwas between equal numbers of bases. Butthe charger has 3 in contact vs 2. He then chooses which of his three bases will not fight. So, either he can have both from A, or 1 from A and 1 from B. The latter approach is often more sensible, to share out any pain. Plus people get a bit shirty if B doesn't throw any dice for some reason.

[dave_r]

Plus people get a bit shirty if B doesn't throw any dice for some reason.

There's also big arguments around the corner if B are lancers and A aren't for example...

[gozerius]

Why?
A and B Charged C. The player with more bases decides which throw dice in the impact phase.
If B were lancers and did not throw dice, he still charged, so C was charged by lancers. If you people weren't so caught up with base vs base combat, it's a no brainer. But because you can't visualize that those bases are actually bodies of men, you can't see that B is contributing to the impact even though he does not throw dice. Just like bases in rear ranks can provide POA even though they do not contribute dice. Start seeing the macro instead of just the micro!!!!!
This is why you totally blew the conforming rule!!!!

[petedalby]

Why?

Because although you understand it correctly - and this is how we play it over here too - some people get upset when you claim the 'lost to lancers' POA" when the lancers have thrown no dice. It happens - and they are wrong - but that doesn't stop them complaining about it or asking for an umpire's ruling.

I think you have misunderstood the point that Dave was making. But there is that saying isn't there - 2 Nations divided by a common language?

[gozerius]

Okay. I'll save my blowing my top for other threads.

[philqw78]

you claim the 'lost to lancers' POA" when the lancers have thrown no dice. It happens - and they are wrong - but that doesn't stop them complaining about it or asking for an umpire's ruling.

So what about if firearms throw no dice, they only have one base shooting but shooting is compulsory, and other BG hits cause a test?

[petedalby]

So what about if firearms throw no dice, they only have one base shooting but shooting is compulsory, and other BG hits cause a test?

The last time that came up on the forum the consensus was no. And I was the one doing the asking as I regularly use Firearms.

Now if they contribute a base and another skirmisher contributes a base to combine for 1 dice at the worst factor...? Still feels cheesy? Or not? Discuss

[spotteddog]

This'll never be "rationally" bottomed out. Surely one for the new "Masters of FOG" to pronounce upon - No?
Hunter

[philqw78]

The last time that came up on the forum the consensus was no.

Obvious double standards

[petedalby]

This'll never be "rationally" bottomed out. Surely one for the new "Masters of FOG" to pronounce upon - No?

Hi Hunter - hopefully not - no.

The BHGS clarifications attempted to address those issues which had caused most problems for players or were regularly questioned.

In x years of playing FoG I've never seen this or several other fanciful things that can be contrived / imagined that the rules do not fully cover. If we attempted to iron out every wrinkle I suspect the FAQs and clarifications would be longer than the rules. Not really where anyone wants to go - is it?

[gozerius]

I would award the penalty for being shot at by handguns. Shooting is compulsory, and there is no requirement that the handguns have to score a hit.
Isn't the overriding principle in these decisions "the more bloodshed, the better"? Not that it will come up often, considering the range of handguns.

[petedalby]

Yes - I thought I was the guilty party....see link.

viewtopic.php?f=43&t=49188&p=463700&hil ... ms#p463700