Testing Not to Charge (or not)?

[pbrandon]

Player A has MF BG partly within rough going and partly outside.

Player B has a group of kinghtly lancers (shock troops) in good going lined up so that a charge straigh ahead will contact the MF in the open. However, due to Player B having some friendly troops in the way, he would like to fail a CMT in order to burst through the friends ahead and charge the MF in the open.

However, with a tiny wheel, the KN _could_ (also bursting through friends) contact the MF in the disordering terrain.

Do the KN test not to charge?

Paul

[Polkovnik]

Yes, because a charge straight ahead would not enter difficult terrain.
When the rules say that you don't test if the charge could enter difficult terrain the "could" refers to the variable move distance.

[hammy]

Yes, because a charge straight ahead would not enter difficult terrain.
When the rules say that you don't test if the charge could enter difficult terrain the "could" refers to the variable move distance.

That is my initial feeling as well but I think I may need to double check the actual wording as there may well be something odd there.

[pbrandon]

Won't charge without orders and don't test:

"If their move could end even partly in terrain that would disorder or severely disorder them"

Paul

[hammy]

Won't charge without orders and don't test:

"If their move could end even partly in terrain that would disorder or severely disorder them"

Paul

I am sure that the reason for the 'could' is related to their target evading and the chargers as a result ending in terrain.

If you play that a BG that has enemy in charge reach that can't evade and would be hit without entering terrain 'could' enter terrain if it wanted to by charging in a different direction then I think you may well open up a number of very odd situations. I do take the point but I am really nervous that if it is correct we may get some very silly results.

[pbrandon]

To expand a bit then...

The fact that the KN could have charged straight ahead to contact the MF could be a red herring as whether it is straight ahead or not is neither here nor there (I think).

Are we saying then that whether the KN need to test is determined by the charge they would do if they fail the test? So, in effect, the KN player chooses a charge path and says that is "their move". If so, then in the on table situation I outlined, you are, I think, giving the KN player the freedom to chooses whether or not to have to test, because that KN player could choose so that the charge path for "their move" was to be into the terrain. I don't particularly have a view on whether that is a good or bad thing, but I think it follows.

Paul

[rbodleyscott]

This is silly nit-picking. It fails the laugh test. If someone tried to claim that when I was umpiring, they would get a sharp verbal slap.

I will not dignify it by discussing it in detail.

Let's not let the angels-on-a-pinhead RAW lobby drag us down this sort of silly route.

[pbrandon]

"This is silly nit-picking."

OK. I disagree but I suspect we won't agree on that and even I can accept that a debate about whether something is nit-picking is pretty pointless

What though about the initial question?

What is a "RAW lobby" - "rules as written"?

Paul

[lawrenceg]

Either:

They could do a charge that could end in disordering terrain, therefore they don't need to test.

or

They can do a charge that could not end in disordering terrain, therefore they do need to test.


Only one of these two expresses the intended meaning of the rule, the player does not get a choice.

From RBS's comment, I think the second interpretation was intended.

[nikgaukroger]

Either:

They could do a charge that could end in disordering terrain, therefore they don't need to test.

or

They can do a charge that could not end in disordering terrain, therefore they do need to test.


Only one of these two expresses the intended meaning of the rule, the player does not get a choice.

From RBS's comment, I think the second interpretation was intended.

But is there enough in the rules wording to justify it? Umpiring should include a degree of the spirit of the rules, however, IMO the rules wording has to be such that it can be so interpreted - otherwise we get "I know it says X but I know that the writers meant Y and so that is how I'll rule it.". That isn't somewhere I want to go.

If the rules allow an undeclared charge to be in the direction the player chooses (and my understanding is that they do) then I think Paul has a very valid point.

In fact I have a vague recollection of a game about a year ago where I agreed with my opponent (no nit-picker) that as they could choose a direction that could end in terrain that they didn't have to charge. The caveat here is that it was a very early game for both of us, but we didn't think it unreasonable ay the time so it clearly passed our "laugh test".

[rbodleyscott]

Either:

They could do a charge that could end in disordering terrain, therefore they don't need to test.

or

They can do a charge that could not end in disordering terrain, therefore they do need to test.


Only one of these two expresses the intended meaning of the rule, the player does not get a choice.

From RBS's comment, I think the second interpretation was intended.

But is there enough in the rules wording to justify it? Umpiring should include a degree of the spirit of the rules, however, IMO the rules wording has to be such that it can be so interpreted - otherwise we get "I know it says X but I know that the writers meant Y and so that is how I'll rule it.". That isn't somewhere I want to go.

If the rules allow an undeclared charge to be in the direction the player chooses (and my understanding is that they do) then I think Paul has a very valid point.

In fact I have a vague recollection of a game about a year ago where I agreed with my opponent (no nit-picker) that as they could choose a direction that could end in terrain that they didn't have to charge. The caveat here is that it was a very early game for both of us, but we didn't think it unreasonable ay the time so it clearly passed our "laugh test".

Indeed the second interpretation was intended.

The reason the alternative fails the laugh test is because the rule is clearly intended (solely) to prevent shock troops being forced to charge into disordering terrain against their general's (player's) wishes.

The fact that the general (player) can, by wheeling the shock troops, engineer a charge into disordering terrain does not mean that the troops are being forced to do so.

This is a situation where the spirit of the rule is so obvious that the first wording interpretation is clearly malicious. If we are going to FAQ items like this, the FAQ is going to wind up very long indeed, and if we roll over for it, we are just allowing "creative" interpretation of the wording to permit cheese.

[Polkovnik]

Thinking more on this : what if a straight ahead move would enter the terrain, but part of the target BG is out of the terrain and could be contacted with a wheel by the charging BG.
Would the BG have to test and charge with the wheel if it failed ?
What if the wheel would mean that less bases fight than if the move was straight ahead ?

[stenic]

Thinking more on this : what if a straight ahead move would enter the terrain, but part of the target BG is out of the terrain and could be contacted with a wheel by the charging BG.
Would the BG have to test and charge with the wheel if it failed ?
What if the wheel would mean that less bases fight than if the move was straight ahead ?

Well, you cannot wheel to bring less bases to the fight in a charge so that resolves that question.

[rogerg]

As the owner of the knights in question last night, I might as well join in here. If Richard had been the umpire I would have been OK

The problem is really one of getting a precise definition without an entire paragraph. Paul and I were more or less agreed (he is a convincing lawyer) that "could" means "it is possible that a situation may occur". In this case Paul's interpretation would, in my opinion, be correct. Whether that situation is caused by a 5 or 6 on a VMD roll, or by wheeling, is not literally expressed.

The intention of the rules is reasonably clear. I would express it as "shock troops do not test if a failure would inevitably lead them into disordering terrain". Perhaps the expression is "must test to charge, if they can do so without entering disordering terrain, even with a maximum VMD".

In reply to the previous questioner, wheeling to charge to avoid the terrain means they must test, unless that would reduce the number of bases in contact, that would not be a legal charge.

(Just to get my picky bit in, it is 'fewer bases' not 'less bases' despite the number of times this occurs in the rules)

[nikgaukroger]

Indeed the second interpretation was intended.

The reason the alternative fails the laugh test is because the rule is clearly intended (solely) to prevent shock troops being forced to charge into disordering terrain against their general's (player's) wishes.

The fact that the general (player) can, by wheeling the shock troops, engineer a charge into disordering terrain does not mean that the troops are being forced to do so.

This is a situation where the spirit of the rule is so obvious that the first wording interpretation is clearly malicious. If we are going to FAQ items like this, the FAQ is going to wind up very long indeed, and if we roll over for it, we are just allowing "creative" interpretation of the wording to permit cheese.

There, wasn't hard to make a useful comment was it

Having had a good read of the relevant bits on the train home - and to pick up on my own question as to whether there is enough in the wording of the rules to sensibly rule on the spirit - I agree with Richard that the spirit is clear and that you cannot say you are going to wheel into terrain to avoid the test.

[MkV]

As a further question, if the knights are forced to charge the MF that is partially out of the terrain, are they forced to conform to them in the Movement phase if that conformation would put them inside of said terrain?


Mark

[nikgaukroger]

Yes.

[stenic]

Yes.

And yet the spirit of the rules is still such that shock shouldn't have to charge if they end up in disadvantageous terrain terrain?

So I stick a base out of terrain by a gnat's todger and suck the knights in?

Doesn't that reek of stilton?

SteveP

[hammy]

Yes.

And yet the spirit of the rules is still such that shock shouldn't have to charge if they end up in disadvantageous terrain terrain?

So I stick a base out of terrain by a gnat's todger and suck the knights in?

Doesn't that reek of stilton?

SteveP

Well as the knights will hit the MF in the open and all the nasty MF in the open penalties will apply and then when the knights conform only one base is going to be in the terrain which if it is anything other than difficult going will just dissorder one base and have no effect I don't see it as a major issue for the knights. The MF are actually in fairly serious trouble.

I have seen knights hack down longbowmen in a wood and it wasn't fluke. The longbow went into a single rank to get more shooting so the knights charged them. Once it got to melee the dice were even and the knights had a POA and better grading.

[stenic]

Well as the knights will hit the MF in the open and all the nasty MF in the open penalties will apply and then when the knights conform only one base is going to be in the terrain which if it is anything other than difficult going will just dissorder one base and have no effect I don't see it as a major issue for the knights.

Err... why only one base? If the MF are at squiffy angle to the knights (or indeed shock cavalry) so thta only a front corner is sticking out then the chargers will a) step forward and get more bases in and b) conform as you say, and then they'll have to all swing round to conform to the front and will then as likely have 2 if not more bases in the dissoredring terrain.

Or have I missed the point and if you would step forward into dissordering terrain then the charge is not tested for?

steve P