Art De La Guerre

[footslogger]

[babyshark]

I think I see the problem. Initially, the charge target has to be 1, because 2 cannot be "seen" by C when the charge is declared (as 1 might choose not to evade).

Herve's post can be read to say that if 1 evades, then C rolls to check for charge distance, because "all targets" would have evaded. Herve's post can also be read to take as implied that 2 becomes a target after 1 completes its evade move because 2 is in range and in charge path. If that is what Herve meant (and that is clearly how Dan reads it) then there is no roll for charge distance, because "all targets" have not evaded, and C simply piles into 2.

FWIW, I have been reading it the same way as Dan.

Marc

[footslogger]

I wonder if it would be helpful to try a different angle.

When I think about this I think about it in terms of the charger designating his targets, per step 1 on pg 38. That can include a unit behind a unit that can evade, but I don't see any language that makes me think it must include that other than a unit that would be contacted by a minimum charge constraint (within 1UD for foot, 2UD for mounted, or nomal move distance for impetuous troops). Once the charger has declared, then if all targets he declared evade, you make a roll.

[ethan]

[footslogger]

[footslogger]

So I've been pushing on this just for clarity in the rules. As the rules and FAQ are written now that in the situation Dan mentioned where
C 1 2

C is charging and 2 is on path and in range, C could declare a charge on 1 and not 2 is what I would rule if I were judging a tournament. With the people I game with referring to something on a forum or in a private conversation with the author, well, that wouldn't fly.

I don't think I care much in the end whether my interp or Dan's interp ends up being the way it gets clarified really, I just want it clarified and public.


I spent some time thinking about the situation and have come up with a couple of situations where it does make a difference though. We've had a lot of situations where C wanted to charge 2 and if it had to make a roll after 1 evaded and stopped short that would be an odd situation in the game.

I don't think I've ever had a situation where C wanted to charge 1 but not 2 but I thought of a couple of examples. These haven't come up in any of our games but they are somewhat conceivable.

Situation 1. C is a bowmen, 1 is a light infantry with bow, 2 is a cav. C would rather not be shot at by the light infantry with bow but can't move into it and force it to flee because he can't charge the cav.

Situation 2. C is a light horse that isn't impact and 1 is another light horse (perhaps in bad shape), 2 is heavy foot (within 5 UDs). C can't charge because it can't charge heavy foot.

I'm not sure if C being unable to charge in either of those situations is a bad thing from a way the game works perspective but both of them are conceivable and I imagine would strike the owner of C as odd.

FWIW.

[Nostrebor]

[ethan]

[Hazelbark]

Let me expound.
1) There was no Skype.

In the beginning. I too believed the rule was about the "target". I heaped opprobrium on those who disagreed. But I was repeatedly asked to get extra clarification.

In a series of exchanges with the author I am certain I have his intent. I then tried to work with him to get the FAQ to reflect that intent.

This understanding is how I have been trying to encourage people to play.

So when we were going through the FAQ, I asked for and he added the "example". HI vs HI at 2 UD. Intervening LI which evades. The HI does not need to roll an adjusted. That seems very clear and unambiguous explanation to me. Is it not?

[footslogger]

[footslogger]

[footslogger]

[ethan]

This would be where the bit in the FAQ "If all targets in charge range (i.e distance of movement) evade, then you must adjust your movement distance by rolling a dice."

You don't get to specify that your charge move distance is less than the normal move distance.

Are you suggesting that when I charge someone 1 UD away with HI that my "charge range" is now 1 UD and that when I roll I will then go either 0UD, 1UD or 2UD?

They way you are posing the issue, this is really the key questionas your interpretation will pretty significantly interact with P. 40 which lays out your charge options.

[Hazelbark]

[footslogger]