To Charge ??

This forum is for any questions about the rules. Post here is you need feedback from the design team.

Moderators: hammy, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Moderators, Field of Glory Design

madcam2us
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 492
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 1:54 am
Location: Searching for the meaning of "Authors Intent"

To Charge ??

Post by madcam2us » Tue Jan 20, 2009 2:30 am

what would happen when a BG is charging a melee with a troop type eligible to evade if after doing so he can get his front corner to anther's side edge contact?

__.LFLF______
CVLFLFLHLHLH
CVLFLFLHLHLH
__CMCM_______
__CMCM______

________knkn
________knkn

If the kn BG wheels a bit on its left front corner after the LHLHLH BG flee's and they have enough movement to contact the LF's edge, what happens? Is the charge negated? Is the evade negated? Is only the wheel negated? Page 53 states:

"A charge canot be declared if it would contact only the flank or rear edge of an enemy base which is already in melee to its front, except by a "legal" flank or rear charge."

However, the declarged charge was vs the LH and the path would take it into the LF.

Madcam.
There goes another crossing the Rubicon!
W/D/L
2008
CoA - 3/0/0
C.I. - 1/1/1
2009
Ottoman - 6/0/1
Khurasian - 3/5/2
2010
Catalan - 4/0/0

gozerius
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1117
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 12:32 am

Post by gozerius » Tue Jan 20, 2009 3:25 am

Well, you would have to have planned your initial charge to wheel to the left, since you may only change your charge direction to follow evading targets of a charge. If the LH evades, your chargers can't wheel toward a new target. THe LF would not be an initial target of your charge unless you could reach the 3rd rank with your normal charge move. If after the LH evades and you have the movement to reach the third rank of the LF, he could be impacted.
Your diagram is a bit unclear. Are the knights directly to the right and behind the (CM)? If so you can't wheel left at all because you would then not be able to contact the LH with both of your front bases.

shall
Field of Glory Team
Field of Glory Team
Posts: 6137
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 9:52 am

Post by shall » Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:05 am

Very good!!

The spirit of the rules is that you move to overlap and fight in the melee in such situations and the LH need to evade away from the threat.

It's not covered, but FWIW I would rule that:

1. The charge is declared and forces the evade
2. The chargers contact the side edge but do not fight an impact phase
3. They conform and become an overlap for the melee phase

This then matches the intent on both issues.

Si
Simon Hall
"May your dice roll 6s (unless ye be poor)"

hammy
Field of Glory Team
Field of Glory Team
Posts: 5440
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:11 pm
Location: Stockport
Contact:

Post by hammy » Tue Jan 20, 2009 9:01 am

Surely the key word is only.

"A charge canot be declared if it would contact only the flank or rear edge of an enemy base ..."

In this case the charge will clearly contact more than the light foot. Infact it can only contact the light foot if the light horse evade and that is not a certaintly (highly likely but not certain).

As to getting the knights into an overlap possition I am not sure I would be quite as generous as Simon (accepting he is part of the Author team so is no doubt on pretty strong ground). If the knights could charge directly forwards such that after the LH evade they are in edge contact then an overlap is certainly possible. What happens if the knights hit the edge of the LF is more of an issue. I would have to think about it and could well end up with the sam opinion as Simon even if I couldn't justify it precisely.

shall
Field of Glory Team
Field of Glory Team
Posts: 6137
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 9:52 am

Post by shall » Tue Jan 20, 2009 9:53 am

My general principle in the thinking is that throughout we have aimed to stop skirmishers interfering unreasonably in the actions of much heavier troops. IMHO this is one of the breakthroughs that makes the game feel more like a real battle and much less artificial.

The general principle is that the heavier troops should be able to do what they would do if the skimrishers were not there, unless said skirmishers have the bottle to get in the way and obstruct them physically.

Thus "Only the skimisher prepared bravely to stand his ground if of help to my flank" .... would be a decent adage for the philosophy.

Hence my umpiring view ... albeit that is a personal perspective at present.

Si
Simon Hall
"May your dice roll 6s (unless ye be poor)"

madcam2us
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 492
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 1:54 am
Location: Searching for the meaning of "Authors Intent"

Post by madcam2us » Tue Jan 20, 2009 2:20 pm

If I may....

Declaring the charge and the actual movement to contact is two separate entities.

When I declared the charge, the LH could have been contacted. Its not the knights fault they (LH) decided to run away and open up the flank of the LF.

Stoping them from contacting the LF is just wrong and gives skirmishers too much power they didn't (IMO) have.

Not fighting in the impact is a game mechanic that I don't see a way around, but I then agree with Simon.

Madcam.
There goes another crossing the Rubicon!
W/D/L
2008
CoA - 3/0/0
C.I. - 1/1/1
2009
Ottoman - 6/0/1
Khurasian - 3/5/2
2010
Catalan - 4/0/0

rogerg
Captain - Bf 110D
Captain - Bf 110D
Posts: 855
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 1:02 pm
Location: Halifax, Yorkshire

Post by rogerg » Tue Jan 20, 2009 3:28 pm

I can see the reasoning behind Simon's ruling. However, it does change the game. If the bases in melee are not an eligible target, allowing them to be contacted does seem to contradict the rules. Getting a 'free' conform is also new. Conforming is something that applies to troops in melee.

If the charge cannot contact bases, then it ought not to be able to conform. In effect it is getting a charge move and a normal move in the same bound. It doesn't seem a partiularly bad argument to suggest that the chargers drive off the skirmishers in one bound but then have to effectively rally from the charge and join the melee int heir next movement phase.

Should the charge be parallel to, and touching, the melee, then it may end up as an overlap in the melee. This is contrary to the argument above. However, it does encourage well organised battle lines.

Further, the rules prevent a charge being declared at the ranks in melee. However, if we allow the chargers to contact such bases as a result of declaring on another target, I can see a possibility of getting into a melee via a charge. E.g. a two base frontage charge could arrange a wheel with one base contacting the target, the other touching the melee. It might then not be able to conform, as by Simon's logic it is obliged to conform to both the melee and the charge target. It would however get a choice of fighting bases in the melee.
I suspect Simon you have opened up some rather dodgy 'case law' here.

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10264
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Post by nikgaukroger » Tue Jan 20, 2009 3:36 pm

Like Roger I am not comfortable with being able to contact bases that are not an eligible target.

As for "case law" I'd note that Simon has carefully said it is a personal view and so it is not an official ruling or similar and nobody is bound by it.
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk

philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8603
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Post by philqw78 » Tue Jan 20, 2009 3:57 pm

The easier answer is angle the charge so the first point of contact is with the edge of the third rank of LF. They can be contacted. Otherwise as the rules stand it seems the LF cannot be contacted in a charge if the first point of contact is one of the front 2 bases. Seems a bit against the spirit of the rules though.

rogerg
Captain - Bf 110D
Captain - Bf 110D
Posts: 855
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 1:02 pm
Location: Halifax, Yorkshire

Post by rogerg » Tue Jan 20, 2009 4:51 pm

The 'spirit of the rules' is subjective. In the instance discussed, some would argue it is reasonable for the Kn charge to continue into the LF. Others might argue, reasonably, that the knights would not bother with the LF or would need to rally from their charge before diving into the fresh melee - a next bound move to overlap contact. What's more, the rule must deal with other troops. Drilled foot who are simply pushing back skirmishers might reasonably not get the extreme end of their line involved in a minor fight.

Many years of wargaming have shown us that what appear to be minor rule changes usually lead to big changes in play and a more complex game. Those who remember the 'DBM elbow' will understand this all too well. FoG has done very well in making a lot of rules clear cut and not opening up loop holes.

In the example being discussed, the interpretation of 'cannot declare a charge on' meaning 'cannot contact in the charge' keeps the situation clear. Add an exception, and players will make the exception happen. Novices who don't know how to exploit the exception will be beaten by it and feel aggrieved and quit FoG. The rest of us will have to learn one more loop hole in order to stay competitive. Been there, done that, with several previous rule sets. I am happy to accept that some rules occaionally give situations which look a bit odd. After two years of enjoying FoG, beta and live, I can still remember pre-FoG and I don't want to go back there.

grahambriggs
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2976
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am

Re: To Charge ??

Post by grahambriggs » Tue Jan 20, 2009 5:58 pm

madcam2us wrote:what would happen when a BG is charging a melee with a troop type eligible to evade if after doing so he can get his front corner to anther's side edge contact?

__.LFLF______
CVLFLFLHLHLH
CVLFLFLHLHLH
__CMCM_______
__CMCM______

________knkn
________knkn

If the kn BG wheels a bit on its left front corner after the LHLHLH BG flee's and they have enough movement to contact the LF's edge, what happens? Is the charge negated? Is the evade negated? Is only the wheel negated? Page 53 states:

"A charge canot be declared if it would contact only the flank or rear edge of an enemy base which is already in melee to its front, except by a "legal" flank or rear charge."

However, the declarged charge was vs the LH and the path would take it into the LF.

Madcam.
I would suggest that the key part of the rule is "would contact". If the LH aren't there, then the sense is "would contact if the LF are in range and engaged to their front". However, since the LH are there, the sense is surely "would contact if the LH evade".

So I would say that the direction of the charge cannot be to contact only the flank edge of the LF. However, if the direction is specified so as to not only contact the side edge but also the front corner that that would presumably be OK as the is not "only" the side edge.

All playing with words of course but if the authors intent is that the LH leg it and the Kn overlap the LF that would seem to be consitent both with letter and spirit of the rules.

shall
Field of Glory Team
Field of Glory Team
Posts: 6137
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 9:52 am

Post by shall » Tue Jan 20, 2009 7:13 pm

I'll bounce it off RBS and TS. Clearly not something that is covered and one would have to be sure that any view doesn't open a can of worms as Roger says. I still feel my view is the one msot consistent with the spirit but indeed one needs to be clear about ngative side effects. In the specifc example shown I must say withoutsome such view it would be hard to rule at present by the letter of law where the chargers would go.

Si
Simon Hall
"May your dice roll 6s (unless ye be poor)"

petedalby
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2969
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:23 pm
Location: Fareham, UK

Post by petedalby » Wed Jan 21, 2009 6:24 pm

I think you may be on dodgy ground Simon - sorry! But if not it changes a lot of things!

Just a question to Madcam - were the LH engaged frontally or just fighting as an overlap?

Pete

madcam2us
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 492
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 1:54 am
Location: Searching for the meaning of "Authors Intent"

Post by madcam2us » Wed Jan 21, 2009 11:03 pm

totally theoretical at the moment....

Stems from an episode from the team tournament where I got a rule incorrect due to not having the errata handy...

However, I had a back up plan if my opponent and I couldn't reach a satisfying (to me) decision.

This was the back up plan.....

(Gino, here is the request on the open forum.....Better be paying attention)

Madcam.
There goes another crossing the Rubicon!
W/D/L
2008
CoA - 3/0/0
C.I. - 1/1/1
2009
Ottoman - 6/0/1
Khurasian - 3/5/2
2010
Catalan - 4/0/0

kal5056
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Posts: 426
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 11:35 pm

Post by kal5056 » Wed Jan 21, 2009 11:49 pm

Eyes wide open Scott,

Gino
SMAC

kal5056
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Posts: 426
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 11:35 pm

Post by kal5056 » Wed Jan 21, 2009 11:58 pm

Thinking where you might be going with this
I have one question:

If the LH evade and you wheel to hit the 3rd rank of LF wouldn't you in essence be wheeling to get 1 base into combat instead of the 2 (LH) you would engage if you went straight ahead? I think you can only wheel to bring more bases into contact. Unless the evade means there are none to engage so the 1 LF is more than 0 LH.

I can see this point either way and am curious to hear what others (the authors) think.

Gino
SMAC

madcam2us
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 492
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 1:54 am
Location: Searching for the meaning of "Authors Intent"

Post by madcam2us » Thu Jan 22, 2009 3:44 am

Following Gino's point.... IIRC I declare the charge indicating path... As long as that path satisfys the bases in contact criteria I should be ok.... Meaning I just have to make sure I have the same amount of bases that could fight in impact...
Stepping forward helps in this regard...

Madcam.
There goes another crossing the Rubicon!
W/D/L
2008
CoA - 3/0/0
C.I. - 1/1/1
2009
Ottoman - 6/0/1
Khurasian - 3/5/2
2010
Catalan - 4/0/0

madcam2us
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 492
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 1:54 am
Location: Searching for the meaning of "Authors Intent"

Post by madcam2us » Thu Jan 22, 2009 3:48 am

petedalby wrote:I think you may be on dodgy ground Simon - sorry! But if not it changes a lot of things!

Just a question to Madcam - were the LH engaged frontally or just fighting as an overlap?

Pete
Just as an overlap....

You'd have to hop over the NAmericanFog yahoogroup to get the full gist...

Madcam.
There goes another crossing the Rubicon!
W/D/L
2008
CoA - 3/0/0
C.I. - 1/1/1
2009
Ottoman - 6/0/1
Khurasian - 3/5/2
2010
Catalan - 4/0/0

willb
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 210
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 4:26 am

Post by willb » Thu Jan 22, 2009 4:56 am

kal5056 wrote:Thinking where you might be going with this
I have one question:

If the LH evade and you wheel to hit the 3rd rank of LF wouldn't you in essence be wheeling to get 1 base into combat instead of the 2 (LH) you would engage if you went straight ahead? I think you can only wheel to bring more bases into contact. Unless the evade means there are none to engage so the 1 LF is more than 0 LH.

I can see this point either way and am curious to hear what others (the authors) think.

Gino
SMAC
The exact wording is on page 53 under item 2. Page 53 right column, page 55 charging a flank or rear, and page 68 right column would also apply. As it is worded the knights cannot attempt to contact the light foot whether the light horse evade or not. The only legal target of the charge is the light horse. The knights can wheel to pursue the light horse and if the vmd die rolls and initial separation are such there would be the possibility of contacting the rear of the light horse.

shall
Field of Glory Team
Field of Glory Team
Posts: 6137
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 9:52 am

Post by shall » Thu Jan 22, 2009 5:08 pm

I think you may be on dodgy ground Simon - sorry! But if not it changes a lot of things!

Just a question to Madcam - were the LH engaged frontally or just fighting as an overlap?

Pete
Quite possibly. :D Suffering from baby fatigue at the moment. :?

Just to alert me in my thinking, what would it change so dramatically? It seems to me it is only a matter for when chargers find themselves bumping into a flank of a BG without it being legal flank charge. This is rare enough that it hasn't happned in any game I have played.

Second question: with the rules at present where would the Knights in the example go in people's view? Its not one I see as covered at the moment. While you may disagree with my personal perspective (which is more about the originating spirit of skirmishers than anything technical), I would be interested to know what people think the Knights do do?

Si
Simon Hall
"May your dice roll 6s (unless ye be poor)"

Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions”