Slitherine

How is this for weaving the various strands together?

CHARGE FAQ DRAFT [REVISED NOV 9 after comments - areas changed other than typo/format are italicized; asterisked line changed Nov 2 09]

ABOUT LEGAL CHARGE TARGETS: In one of many charge threads in the forums, the design team agreed that to declare a charge target you must be able to contact the target assuming no other BG moves. If when BGs do move, the intended target is no longer reachable (e.g., chargers block other chargers), then the charge is cancelled (p54). See extensive design team discussion of multiple charger issues in thread viewtopic.php?t=7273, July 2008.

Except by a legal flank or rear charge, a BG can’t declare a charge if it would hit the flank or rear of a base in the first two ranks of a file that is already (i.e., at the time of declaration) in position to fight in Impact or Melee combat.[/i] *

Shock troops do not CMT for charging without orders if failing would mean that to contact they would have to burst through friendly shock troops OR troops in position to fight in Impact or melee this turn (p58), and if they are charging without orders but due to other Impact phase events they would need to burst through friendly shock troops or troops in position to fight in Impact or Melee this turn, then their unordered charge is cancelled.


ABOUT CHARGE DIRECTION AND CHARGE PATH: Charge Direction is the intended direction of the charger after its intended wheel. Charge Path is the area of the path that will be covered by the BG as it makes its intended charge move based on the charge direction, so defining the intended charge path also automatically defines the charge direction and the place where the charger will wheel to the charge direction. Other events can later change the charge direction and path.

As I read the rules, technically charge direction needs to be declared for Evaders after they decide to Evade but before they decide on direction of evasion, and charge path needs to be declared for potential Interceptors to determine if they can successfully Intercept, which need not occur until Interceptions occur in the sequence of play. However, for simplicity and clarity, the Official FAQ states “you do need to declare the path of your charge at the time of [charge] declaration if there are potential interceptors around, in order to determine whether your chargers will cross their zone of interception.”

Charge Path and Charge Direction are both indicated physically by placing a measuring stick (or similar marker) at the outer corner of the completed intended wheel and laid along the edge of the continued path of the BG. Your wheel will be somewhere in the course of your charge move and there is no requirement it provide the shortest total path to your target. The specific rule is on page 66: “When troops who can evade are charged, their player must decide whether or not they will evade. If they are to evade, the charger then uses a measuring stick or tape to indicate the direction of the charge, which must be achievable by wheeling and which would 'legally' contact the evaders had they remained stationary.” This rule means you can’t specify a path/direction that relies on their evading out of the way, such as “wheeling through skirmishers,” and enemy skirmishers very close to your troops can limit their ability to wheel in a charge. Of course, if all targets do in fact evade out of the charge path, you can change your wheel to follow evaders (p68) or you may charge fresh targets revealed by the evade. For more on charge direction see the thread at viewtopic.php?t=6312.

In addition, the initially intended wheel must comply with what I call the “Base Hit Rule” on p53, which prohibits a wheel in the charge that would result in fewer bases being eligible to fight in Impact than moving directly ahead. Since it refers to Impact Phase eligibility, it is calculated after stepping forward and any enemy bases turning. Note that you don’t need to pick the wheel that hits the most enemy bases, just one that doesn’t reduce the bases hit below what you would get moving straight ahead.

DETAILED IMPACT PHASE SEQUENCE OF PLAY FOR CHARGES

1. Charge Declarations: For each declaration,
 Designate BG that will charge and at least one legal target.
 Declare on as many enemy as can be legally contacted within the charge distance, but an enemy BG is a target even if not declared if it can be legally contacted by the charge (including stepping forward), but not if friends intervene unless it later becomes a target because revealed by friends evading or routing.
 There must exist some possible Charge Path that hits all declared targets assuming they stand.

2. If an interception is possible for a charge declaration, Declare the Charge Path by marking it. It must comply with the Base Hit Rule. (FAQ practice)

3. Charger rolls any necessary CMTs for charges based on any legal targets (not counting ones that might be revealed by evaders later).

4. Charger rolls CMTs to charge without orders for any shock troops who have not declared a charge.
 NOTE: If they can’t contact ALL potential legal targets in charge range, then they charge all those straight ahead, or if that is not possible, the ones requiring the least wheel (p59). This may involve burst-throughs (pp48, 58-59).

5. Potential evaders now in turn declare any EVADE, and roll any required CMT to not Evade.

6. If any targets declare anEvade, Declare the Charge Direction if not already done (p66).

7. Resolve CTs for Fragmented troops being charged, then any tests triggered if they break, then any initial routs.

8. Non-charging player declares eligible INTERCEPTIONS based on declared Charge Paths.

9. Make INTERCEPTION MOVES (it is possible after charging is done that Interceptors don’t contact any Chargers). An interception that counts as a flank or rear charge cancels the target's charge (p63).

10. Make EVADE MOVES directly to “rear” or parallel to Charge Direction (p66). Evaders roll VMD (Variable Move Dice).

11. FRAGMENTED BGS which become a target because revealed by evasions now cohesion test and make an initial rout move if they fail.

For each charging BG, do steps 12 through 14 before continuing to the next charging BG::

12. IF, after Evades and after any other BG in the Charge Path becomes a target, is charged and responds as in (6)(7)(10), ALL targets have Evaded out of the Charge Path (note this means no Interceptors or revealed targets may remain are in the Charge Path), ONLY THEN

First, Charger rolls a charge VMD, and then

Second, Charger may choose to Declare new Charge Direction/Path by changing the timing and/or degree of the wheel in an attempt to catch a selected evader (p68) unless the Base Hit Rule prevents this because the change would mean fewer base contacts than by continuing the initial charge path. The changed wheel must bring the BG closer to the final position of the evader rather than farther away compared with continuing on the original charge path. Because the BG must attempt to catch evaders, it must select an evader the BG can catch in preference to one it can't and the changed charge path must be one that contacts an evader in preference to one that does not contact an evader or that contacts a new target.

13. Make all charge moves including contractions to avoid friends and stepping forward, but charges unable to make legal charge contact are cancelled.

14. Continue to Impact Phase combat resolution.

=====

* Official FAQ 4, III explaining "in melee" on p57 as the first 2 ranks.

MikeK wrote:If when BGs do move, the intended target is no longer reachable (e.g., chargers block other chargers), then your charge move is to get as close as possible to the target.

Incorrect - see p54 last sentance of first part.

Of course, if all targets do in fact evade out of the charge path, you can change your wheel to follow evaders (p68) or you may charge fresh targets revealed by the evade.

I think this needs rewording as you imply you can change direction to charge fresh targets, but you can't - your only options are to follow the evaders, or to continue the charge in the declared direction.

DETAILED IMPACT PHASE SEQUENCE OF PLAY FOR CHARGES

1. Charge Declarations: For each declaration,
 Designate BG that will charge and at least one legal target.
 Declare on as many enemy as can be legally contacted within the charge distance, but an enemy BG is a target even if not declared if it can be legally contacted by the charge (including stepping forward), but not if friends intervene unless it later becomes a target because revealed by friends evading or routing.
 There must exist some possible Charge Path that hits all declared targets as they stand.

2. If an interception is possible for a charge declaration, Declare the Charge Path by marking it. It must comply with the Base Hit Rule. (FAQ practice)

3. Charger rolls any necessary CMTs for charges based on any legal targets (not counting ones that might be revealed by evaders later).

4. Charger rolls CMTs for shock troops to charge without orders.
 NOTE: If they can’t contact ALL potential legal targets in charge range, then they charge all those straight ahead, or if that is not possible, the ones requiring the least wheel (p59). This may involve burst-throughs (pp48, 58-59).

5. Potential evaders now decide whether to EVADE, and roll any required CMT to stand.

6. If any targets evade, Declare the Charge Direction if not already done (p66).

7. Resolve CTs for Fragmented troops being charged, then any tests triggered if they break, then any initial routs.

8. Non-charging player declares eligible interceptions based on declared Charge Paths.

9. Make INTERCEPTION MOVES (it is possible after charging is done that Interceptors don’t contact any Chargers).

10. Make EVADE MOVES directly to “rear” or parallel to Charge Direction (p66). Evaders roll VMD (Variable Move Dice).

11. FRAGMENTED targets revealed by evasions now test and rout if applicable.

12. Roll VMD for Chargers if ALL (current) charge targets evaded.

13. Declare new Charge Direction/wheel IF not intercepted and if all targets evaded out of the original path of the charge. See rules on “wheel in an attempt” to follow an evader, meaning in direction more toward (not away from) the direction an evader evaded (or their final position) even if outside the original charge path and even if they can’t be reached. The Base Hit Rule also applies.

14. Make all charge moves including contractions to avoid friends and stepping forward.

15. Continue to Impact resolution.

This is wrong

1 - Declare all desired charges - show that there is a legal charge.

2 - For all shock troups that may charge without orders, and for all BGs that have declared a charge but might refuse (disrupted non shock, missile, skirmishers) in any order make a CMT to see if they charge.

NOTE: The legality of a charge is determined presuming that no other BG, of either side, moves.

3 - For each BG that has a declared charge, one at a time.

3.1 - state which BG you are resolving - if there is now no legal target the charge is cancelled, otherwise announce initial targets.
3.2 - test for fragmented BGs breaking - move BGs that fail
3.3 - declare interceptions - can result in BGs' path being announced
3.4 - declare intention to evade with current targets - make rolls to not evade if required
3.5 - declare charge path - if not already declared.
3.6 - move interceptors - if flank/rear contact charge is cancelled proceed to next BG, otherwise interceptor is a non-evading target.
3.7 - move evaders
3.8 - if all targets have evaded may choose to persue evaders - charge path changed
3.9 - test for revealed fragmented targets - move BGs that fail
3.10 - declare intention to evade with current targets (make rolls to not evade if required) - if so go back to 3.7
3.11 - roll charger's VMD if all targets evaded, and not already rooled.
3.12 - test for fragmented targets - move BGs that fail
3.13 - declare intention to evade with current targets (make rolls to not evade if required) - if so go back to 3.7
3.14 - move charger.
3.15 - go back to 3.1 for next BG

4 - resolve impact combat.

Notes:
You can only intercept if you can intercept before any BGs move as a result of that charge - i.e. you can't intercept the charge on a revealed target.
A BG may be prevented from intercepting by a charge it is the target of at the time of interception, but not be a target of that charge when it is resolved - but this can only be a result of a change of circumstances e.g. its path is now blocked or it now can't wheel.
A burst through can only occur if NO enemy BG can be contacted without bursting through.

Thanks Sagji for the detailed response. I'll update the initial post rather than repost.

sagji wrote:

MikeK wrote:If when BGs do move, the intended target is no longer reachable (e.g., chargers block other chargers), then your charge move is to get as close as possible to the target.

Incorrect - see p54 last sentance of first part.

You are right. The charge is cancelled. I went back to the original thread in which Simon Hall was discussing practice vs. the current rule, which has not been changed. Cancellation is simpler and advantageous to the charging player in that the BG may later move into overlap for melee or decide to do something else entirely after seeing the results of the preempting BG's impact.

I am going to make other changes to the first post above based on your comments, but ...

I disagree that you run through all the steps in the list for one charger before going to the next charger.

While this is often done in practice as a convenience for unrelated charges, p52 says the Impact Phase has 4 stages - declaration/involuntary charges. responses to charge by interception or evade, moving chargers, resolving combats.

I think this makes it clear you do each stage in full for all chargers before going to the next stage, and therefore if charges are related you finish each step of the sequence of play on p168 for ALL charges before going to the next step.

Thanks,

Mike

MikeK wrote:
If when BGs do move, the intended target is no longer reachable (e.g., chargers block other chargers), then your charge move is to get as close as possible to the target.

Incorrect - see p54 last sentance of first part.

You are right. The charge is cancelled. I went back to the original thread in which Simon Hall was discussing practice vs. the current rule, which has not been changed. Cancellation is simpler and advantageous to the charging player in that the BG may later move into overlap for melee or decide to do something else entirely after seeing the results of the preempting BG's impact.

Yes as good bunch of authors we had a longish dialogue about this and the option and decided cancellation was simpler and more consistent with the spirit of the rules, and technically was covered in the "formation changes allowed when charging section" when applied in order.

You are going to find sevearl streams which have us offering views and thoughts on topics prior to finalising a communal view - so the FAQ always overrides any prior individual dialogues. But such streams are important in informing and shaping our discussions. So keep them coming.

Si

Is there a real reason that you dont just declare direction at the time of declaring charges? I really can't find one, I believe it would make everything flow a little better during that phase of the game.




Clay

Primarch wrote:Is there a real reason that you dont just declare direction at the time of declaring charges? I really can't find one, I believe it would make everything flow a little better during that phase of the game.




Clay

It would give the inactive player an advantage I believe. If I know your cavalry are charging straight ahead, My Light horse will evade. If I know you'll wheel to hit the flank of the phalanx I'll try and stand (rather lose the LH than the phalanx). But if I don't know what you'll do I may make the wrong decision.

Is that better or worse than being required to tell your opponent that he is about to make a mistake? Right now the advantage lies with the attacker, because he can hide what he is doing, but if the defender has a surprise, or missed intercept, then he is obligated to call it to the attention of the attacker?

That just doesnt make sense. When you call a charge, you are comitting troops to engage the enemy. All targets that can be reached by the charger are legitimate targets. How can you possibly know that when the direction of the charge is some super secret thing meant to keep the defender honest? I can tell you, I'd love to have you hold with the LH so I could chew up those 2 points, and then slam into the phalanx in a future turn and get those points as well.

That is exactly why I like the fact that all units count the same, throwing 2 points away toward your break is all the same. I know the LH aren't holding the center of your line together or anything like that, but it's still 2 attrition points.

The fact that you go from a slight advantage to the attacker, to a slight advantage to the defender, is IMHO acceptable to keep the charge declarations nice and simple. I could be wrong, but those are just my thoughts.



Clay

Primarch wrote:Is that better or worse than being required to tell your opponent that he is about to make a mistake?

Intercept charges aren't supposed to be about tricking your opponent into making a mistake. They are meant to be about troops being in the right place to intervene to aid their friends or counter an enemy charge completely.

It isn't supposed to be a surprise to the intercepted troops. Rather the contrary, the effect of a flank intercept in cancelling a charge is supposed to represent the flanked troops being too aware of the flank threat even to obey the order to charge.

It's not as if the interceptors are in ambush. How, exactly, are the troops supposed to be tricked? Yes, you could trick an inexperienced player, who isn't fully conversant with the effects of the rules, but it doesn't represent anything historical, it ain't big and it ain't clever. It is not a play style we wish to encourage.

Its a philosophy thing. We are trying to get away from all that cheesy stuff that has been so prevalent under previous rule sets.

It's not as if the interceptors are in ambush. How, exactly, are the troops supposed to be tricked? Yes, you could trick an inexperienced player, who isn't fully conversant with the effects of the rules, but it doesn't represent anything historical, it ain't big and it ain't clever. It is not a play style we wish to encourage.

Its a philosophy thing. We are trying to get away from all that cheesy stuff that has been so prevalent under previous rule sets.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LOL, so you are implying that opponents should point out flank counter charges......Definitely gentlemen across the pond in the UK. I will attempt to match this degree of sportsmanship, while the rest of the Gulf South Bas*ards kick me squarely in the nutz.

You know, under a time limit game and in the heat of battle even an "experienced" player such as myself might forget or not check on a flank charge....like I did last tournament....

Ian of the swollen testies.

IanB3406 wrote:It's not as if the interceptors are in ambush. How, exactly, are the troops supposed to be tricked? Yes, you could trick an inexperienced player, who isn't fully conversant with the effects of the rules, but it doesn't represent anything historical, it ain't big and it ain't clever. It is not a play style we wish to encourage.

Its a philosophy thing. We are trying to get away from all that cheesy stuff that has been so prevalent under previous rule sets.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LOL, so you are implying that opponents should point out flank counter charges......Definitely gentlemen across the pond in the UK. I will attempt to match this degree of sportsmanship, while the rest of the Gulf South Bas*ards kick me squarely in the nutz.

You know, under a time limit game and in the heat of battle even an "experienced" player such as myself might forget or not check on a flank charge....like I did last tournament....

Ian of the swollen testies.

To be honest I try to play the game as designed. If an opponent forgets or does not know a rule, I won't take advantage of them that way. To me that is not the spirit of the game. But then again I am looking for a good fair fight. Perhaps in tournament play it might be different. We all forget things and its nice that if we forget something that our opponent remembers. Similar to missing POAs. So if my opponent misses for some reason a POA and I know he did, I should not say anything? I think that attitude is very cheesy. If I win I would rather win by better dice and or tactics. Interception charges are there IMO to give your opponent more tactical problems and to support your troops. If I am playing someone new I will point out before their move what my possible responses can be and what they can do. How else will they get better? If you beat the crap out of them in such a way they may never come back and we will lose a potential player.

Just my 2 cents

Brian

A copy of the sequence of play on the table works very well to keep a new player focused.

A sequence of play for the charging process would be particularly useful, so . . .

. . . any more substantive corrections to the draft FAQ language above?

BrianC wrote:

IanB3406 wrote:LOL, so you are implying that opponents should point out flank counter charges......Definitely gentlemen across the pond in the UK. I will attempt to match this degree of sportsmanship, while the rest of the Gulf South Bas*ards kick me squarely in the nutz.

You know, under a time limit game and in the heat of battle even an "experienced" player such as myself might forget or not check on a flank charge....like I did last tournament....

Ian of the swollen testies.

To be honest I try to play the game as designed. If an opponent forgets or does not know a rule, I won't take advantage of them that way. To me that is not the spirit of the game. But then again I am looking for a good fair fight. Perhaps in tournament play it might be different. We all forget things and its nice that if we forget something that our opponent remembers. Similar to missing POAs. So if my opponent misses for some reason a POA and I know he did, I should not say anything? I think that attitude is very cheesy. If I win I would rather win by better dice and or tactics. Interception charges are there IMO to give your opponent more tactical problems and to support your troops. If I am playing someone new I will point out before their move what my possible responses can be and what they can do. How else will they get better? If you beat the crap out of them in such a way they may never come back and we will lose a potential player.

Just my 2 cents

Brian

There is a major difference here IMHO. POAs are not optional, so if you are aware of one and do not count it you are cheating.

Intercept charges and direction of charge are at the option of the player. I think Richard's point is not that you should point out possible intercept charges. It's more that they are fairly obvious so they kind of point themselves out.

grahambriggs wrote:I think Richard's point is not that you should point out possible intercept charges. It's more that they are fairly obvious so they kind of point themselves out.

And that we would not wish to make any change to the rules to make it easier to exploit technical mistakes by beginners.

rbodleyscott wrote:

grahambriggs wrote:I think Richard's point is not that you should point out possible intercept charges. It's more that they are fairly obvious so they kind of point themselves out.

And that we would not wish to make any change to the rules to make it easier to exploit technical mistakes by beginners.

Thank you for that Richard, the sentiment is appreciated.

compiled into post below, didnt see a delete option.


Clay

Intercept charges and direction of charge are at the option of the player. I think Richard's point is not that you should point out possible intercept charges. It's more that they are fairly obvious so they kind of point themselves out.

But thats exactly what the rules say you must do. If they pointed themselves out, we wouldnt be talking about this right now.....




Clay[/quote]

Intercept charges aren't supposed to be about tricking your opponent into making a mistake. They are meant to be about troops being in the right place to intervene to aid their friends or counter an enemy charge completely.

Well, technically, they are supposed to be a deterrent I guess, but thats not how they work in the game. You actually do have times where you really do follow through on an intercept charge, even against experienced players.

It isn't supposed to be a surprise to the intercepted troops. Rather the contrary, the effect of a flank intercept in cancelling a charge is supposed to represent the flanked troops being too aware of the flank threat even to obey the order to charge.

What if its an intercept to the front? That does not cancel the charge. Really it isnt supposed to be a surprise? I am not sure how to answer that, I know you guys over there play much differently than we do in most cases, but seriously.

It's not as if the interceptors are in ambush. How, exactly, are the troops supposed to be tricked? Yes, you could trick an inexperienced player, who isn't fully conversant with the effects of the rules, but it doesn't represent anything historical, it ain't big and it ain't clever. It is not a play style we wish to encourage.

It isnt a trick RBS, I cant understand how you keep making this mistake. How indeed do I trick my opponent into not seeing the intercept. While there might be a few ways to do that, none are likely to happen. If you dont want to encourage a playstyle that uses the rules you wrote to intercept opponents, then please change the rules so we cant intercept.

Its a philosophy thing. We are trying to get away from all that cheesy stuff that has been so prevalent under previous rule sets

How is completing an intercept charge considered cheesy? It is a basic rule of the game is it not? It isn't some obscure rule in the back of some addendum. It's a basic concept of flank protection in the game that you wrote.



Lastly, this was not a game against a newbie, this was a game against a tested tournament player, John Martin to be exact. He has plenty of experience, and I dont appreciate the implication that I would "cheat" a newbie by witholding rules information. I admitted freely that we got things all out of order. The mechanic is in the game, and like it or not, people will miss the fact that they can be intercepted. When they do, after playing for months and months, I dont feel as though i should remind them and help them beat me. If they are a newer player, I will gladly point out the intercept to teach them the game.

On a side note, I would consider placing roads on side edges more cheesy than doing an intercept charge in a game. But hey, thats just me....

LOL, so you are implying that opponents should point out flank counter charges......Definitely gentlemen across the pond in the UK. I will attempt to match this degree of sportsmanship, while the rest of the Gulf South Bas*ards kick me squarely in the nutz.

and that.....



Clay

Has anyone ever seen an intercept hit the flank or rear of the charger, thereby canceling the charge that wasn't a result of an oversight made by the charger?

MkV wrote:Has anyone ever seen an intercept hit the flank or rear of the charger, thereby canceling the charge that wasn't a result of an oversight made by the charger?

Oh yes. Good maneuvering by one player to set up on the flank of shock troops, who then fail their CMT not to charge enemy to their front.

Marc

Oh yes. Good maneuvering by one player to set up on the flank of shock troops, who then fail their CMT not to charge enemy to their front. Twisted Evil

One could argue that it was still poor planning by the guy with the shock troops, as he didnt cover his flank, and allowed this to happen. Of course anything can happen.



For the record, love FoG, glad to have it, much better than any of those other games that shall not be mentioned.



Clay