Slitherine

An incident in a game yesterday prompted the following question.

Do shock mounted have to charge ( or test not to ) a target if thay can be intercepted by Elephants or Camels ?

Shock mounted have to test or charge if they could be intercepted by a Challenger tank or a snail. So yes.

They "will not charge without orders" if the move could contact elephants, fortifications or a river bank. (page 58)

Note, this includes friendly elephants.

I'm not sure if "could contact" takes into account possible enemy intercepts. The rules are explicit on accounting for possible evades and VMDs but silent on intercepts.

If I were an umpire I would rule that they don't take possible intercepts into account when deciding if they need to test or not. If they fail to test, and the enemy intercepts so that the charge could contact elephants, then the charge is cancelled as the wording in the rules is "will not charge without orders". If it was a flank or rear intercept then hard luck, remember not to get them into that situation next time.

Camels are not terrain, so I don't see any reason for them to affect un-ordered charges.

philqw78 wrote:Shock mounted have to test or charge if they could be intercepted by a Challenger tank or a snail. So yes.

Double check under when troops may charge without orders. I think there is a specific elephant exemption. Will try and find tonight.

Since on page 58, the bullet previous specifically excludes foot which could contact OR be intercepted by mounted, I would argue that shock mounted do not take possible intercepts into consideration. They are only exempted from testing if their own move could contact Elephants at the time the check is called for.

gozerius wrote:Since on page 58, the bullet previous specifically excludes foot which could contact OR be intercepted by mounted, I would argue that shock mounted do not take possible intercepts into consideration. They are only exempted from testing if their own move could contact Elephants at the time the check is called for.

This would be wrong - in previous replies "could contact" has been "could contact in any possible combination of events" Thus if the elephants could intercept and would consequently be contacted by the shock mounted then they don't need to test.
This applies even if the elephants are intercepting a different BG, or if the elephants require another BG to evade and roll a 2 on the VMD to get out of the way - and even if the owner would never choose for that BG to evade.

Interestingly it doesn't appear to apply if the elephants intercept with a flank/rear charge, as in this case the shock mounted don't contact the elephants, but are instead contacted by them. In this case their only chance of not fighting the elephants is by charging out of the way, and hoping that the elephants don't follow them.

FAQ wrote:What happens if charging skirmishers are themselves intercepted by non-skirmishers, can they evade?
An interception or evade is a response to a charge. It is not a response to an intercept charge. Troops therefore cannot
evade from interceptors. They cannot halt 1 MU away from the interceptors either.

Rationale: Once skirmishers are committed to an all out charge they are committed.

Making the analogy with this, shock mounted do need to test and if they fail would have to charge even if elephants did intercept.

I don't think the actual rules support the above either for skirmishers stopping short or shock mounted cancelling their charge, but I'm not an author.

lawrenceg wrote:

FAQ wrote:What happens if charging skirmishers are themselves intercepted by non-skirmishers, can they evade?
An interception or evade is a response to a charge. It is not a response to an intercept charge. Troops therefore cannot
evade from interceptors. They cannot halt 1 MU away from the interceptors either.

Rationale: Once skirmishers are committed to an all out charge they are committed.

Making the analogy with this, shock mounted do need to test and if they fail would have to charge even if elephants did intercept.

I don't think the actual rules support the above either for skirmishers stopping short or shock mounted cancelling their charge, but I'm not an author.

I don't see how you can think this is analogous.

In the case quoted the skirmishers are charging, interception is a response to a charge, but is not a charge. Evade is a response to a charge, therefor there is nothing in the rules that permits a charging to evade an interception. The FAQ clarifies this.

Shock mounted can't cancel their charge. The rule is that they don't have to test to charge without orders if their charge can contact elephants. If elephants are in a position to intercept the charge then they can contact elephants.

But there is something in the rules that allows skirmishers to stop 1 MU short of non skirmishers. So intrercepters move and skirmishers then don't, or stop short, as they cannot charge the intercepters unless they pass a CMT in normal circumstances. (If intercept BG is battle troops). There was nothing mentioned about evading.

However the FAQ says they must contact intercepters. So we obviously need an FAQ on this.

sagji wrote: Interestingly it doesn't appear to apply if the elephants intercept with a flank/rear charge, as in this case the shock mounted don't contact the elephants, but are instead contacted by them. In this case their only chance of not fighting the elephants is by charging out of the way, and hoping that the elephants don't follow them.

I think that basing difference on "contact" or "contacted by" is risky. I understand it being ruled either way. But practically that would mean you can't sponatenously charge to be flanked by an elephant the way you read it. I don't think the authors wrote it meaning that specific case. Whether that matters or not to them is a separate question.

On a related point, I assume that any 6s that Poor troops roll do not have to re-rolled when attempting not to charge ?

hazelbark wrote:

sagji wrote: Interestingly it doesn't appear to apply if the elephants intercept with a flank/rear charge, as in this case the shock mounted don't contact the elephants, but are instead contacted by them. In this case their only chance of not fighting the elephants is by charging out of the way, and hoping that the elephants don't follow them.

I think that basing difference on "contact" or "contacted by" is risky. I understand it being ruled either way. But practically that would mean you can't sponatenously charge to be flanked by an elephant the way you read it. I don't think the authors wrote it meaning that specific case. Whether that matters or not to them is a separate question.

The rule acatually says that shock troops are not required to take a CMT to prevent charging if their move "could end in contact (emphasis mine) with a fortification, elephants or a riverbank." So the distinction between 'contacting' or 'contacted by' would appear to be moot... i.e., it doesn't matter who initiated the contact. If the shock troops' charge could possibly end up (by whatever means) with their bases touching elephant bases, then they are not required to take the CMT. That is how the rule reads to me, anyway.

Naturally, if the authors' intent was to specifically exclude elephant interceptions from charges that "could end in contact," then a FAQ would indeed be helpful in clarifying the rules text.

Cheers,
Scott

Scrumpy wrote:On a related point, I assume that any 6s that Poor troops roll do not have to re-rolled when attempting not to charge ?

Yes, that is what "quality rerolls do not apply" means in this context.

could end in contact (emphasis mine) with a fortification, elephants or a riverbank." So the distinction between 'contacting' or 'contacted by' would appear to be moot... i.e., it doesn't matter who initiated the contact. If the shock troops' charge could possibly end up (by whatever means) with their bases touching elephant bases, then they are not required to take the CMT. That is how the rule reads to me, anyway.

its quite carefully worded and could means could.

So you don't test if you coul be ntercepted by ellies. hve ruled it twice in comps this way.

Si