Slitherine

Hi all

Under troops who may charge without orders on P62 & P63 it says shock troops are not required to take a CMT to prevent charging if their move could end even partly in terrain that would disorder or severely disorder them.

Twice at Britcon I had a legal 3 inch charge with heavy foot to my front that was clear of terrain with skirmishers tempting me to charge. As the skirmishers were just inside 2 inch (handgunners) I argued that a very slight wheel would take me into an open field on my right edge thus I did not have to test not to charge.

It was ruled that I had to test not to charge as a charge straight forward would not end up with my heavy foot going into the terrain.

What are your thoughts? My argument was the word "could" in the rules meant if I "could" declare a charge that would enter the terrain with a wheel then I didn't have to test not to charge.

For the record I failed the tests and got intercept charged in the rear.

Rob

Sorry, I disagree with you (I think).

You're saying if you could orchestrate some obscure situation where you could charge straight ahead no problem, but if you didn't want to you could claim 'oh, no I can wheel around here to hit this terrain... that stops me?

Nope - don't buy that.

I had exactly the same situation some years ago at the Words against Peter Butler. The ruling was that he did NOT have to test not to charge.

titanu wrote:I had exactly the same situation some years ago at the Words against Peter Butler. The ruling was that he did NOT have to test not to charge.

Which is the correct decision!

However, it was rob so......

Whichever decision the umpire makes at the time is correct at the time. But since you, Pete and Graham wrote some clarifications one would hope you could agree.

Who'd be an umpire eh? It is especially tough when you are trying to play your own game as well.....

I don't recall making either ruling on your games Rob but I like to think I would have made the same call.

If shock troops have a charge target to their front, and the charge path will not take the BG into terrain - it seems reasonable to me that a CMT to avoid charging is required. If the path to the charge target could take the BG into terrain if the target then evades - then no CMT is required.

But to claim that a different charge path negates the need to pass a CMT to test not to charge feels like it is stretching the point (and to my mind cheesy) and I would rule against that on principle - sorry.

But since you, Pete and Graham wrote some clarifications one would hope you could agree.

Fortunately this one didn't come up Phil - and we may have struggled to reach a consensus if it had.

petedalby wrote:

But since you, Pete and Graham wrote some clarifications one would hope you could agree.

Fortunately this one didn't come up Phil - and we may have struggled to reach a consensus if it had.

At least you were right when you made the decision.

Pete, I'm in Rome but have to respond.
It was Martyn Simpson & I that asked you for a ruling & I went with your decision.
No hard feelings.
Rob

Excellent!

petedalby wrote:Excellent!

Let's just hope you don't need a ruling when Rob is umpiring

Let's just hope you don't need a ruling when Rob is umpiring

Have we ever let Rob umpire?

Sorry Rob! Hope you are having a wonderful time in Rome.

We are having a great time Pete.

Legs are very tired with all the walking.

Thunder & showers today but thankfully off to Vatican City.

Rob

Sounds fabulous! Make sure you get into the Sistine Chapel and the Vatican Museum.

Robert241167 wrote: off to Vatican City.

Rob

Are they going to let you in?

Of course they are. Old man accompanied by young boy. Just use the word 'son' in a pastoral sense

Its interesting how things change with time. Its been a while since I as on this forum. If you go to page 3 and look at the thread "losing a test not to charge" by harrykonst the completely opposite argument prevailed. That was to do with foot contacting mounted but the same principle applies, and the final post mentions that one of the authors had ruled that "if it is possible to contact by any move at all then the test isn't required" or words to that effect.

awesum4 wrote:Its interesting how things change with time. Its been a while since I as on this forum. If you go to page 3 and look at the thread "losing a test not to charge" by harrykonst the completely opposite argument prevailed. That was to do with foot contacting mounted but the same principle applies, and the final post mentions that one of the authors had ruled that "if it is possible to contact by any move at all then the test isn't required" or words to that effect.

The rule as written is clear that if your move could enter disordering terrain you don't need the test. However, it's easier to work that out when quietly reading through the rules than at the end of a long weekend when you've been both player and umpire. I'm sure I made at least one umpiring error at Britcon, together with the occasional snappiness with players who asked for an umpire call without even bothering to open their rule books to see if they could sort it out first.

Tables are 4 feet wide. Grahams reach is about three 11. I always shout "UMPIRE" over, sometimes just to say hi to him

grahambriggs wrote:

awesum4 wrote:Its interesting how things change with time. Its been a while since I as on this forum. If you go to page 3 and look at the thread "losing a test not to charge" by harrykonst the completely opposite argument prevailed. That was to do with foot contacting mounted but the same principle applies, and the final post mentions that one of the authors had ruled that "if it is possible to contact by any move at all then the test isn't required" or words to that effect.

The rule as written is clear that if your move could enter disordering terrain you don't need the test. However, it's easier to work that out when quietly reading through the rules than at the end of a long weekend when you've been both player and umpire. I'm sure I made at least one umpiring error at Britcon, together with the occasional snappiness with players who asked for an umpire call without even bothering to open their rule books to see if they could sort it out first.

If you read the whole section: 'Shock troops are eager to get stuck in and may charge enemy within reach even if their commander does not wish them to do so......'. So how can you allow them to deviate from straight ahead to end up in terrain and thus NOT contacting the enemy