Art De La Guerre

[Zoltan]

I agree with Dan  

You can’t declare a charge ONLY on a unit that is masked by an intervening (enemy) unit. By definition your charge is first against the intervening unit. Once the intervening unit’s charge response is known (in this case evade) you resolve the responses for any subsequently uncovered units.

All responses to a charge are resolved before the charge move is completed.

If after all charge responses are resolved there remains an enemy unit within the charger’s normal move distance, there is no need for the charger to roll for a VMD. The charger simply obeys the usual charge rules - move into contact/the minimum charge distance required for mounted/foot.

[madaxeman]

[Dickstick]

P36
The charge movement says
"Before charging, the player must indicate to his opponent the exact direction of his charge"
No mention of target or units just direction.
We do this sometimes to help out the opponent react quicker to save time but target identification is not required.

Later paragraph says
"Once the charge has started, the group advances straight ahead in the specified direction and only stops if it encounters an enemy, etc"

It's into the valley rode the 600 and if we hit some guns All to the good.

Where the confusion may be p38
1- charge direction
" the target and the exact path etc"
P40
7- charge movement
"All targets" and use of "can be" more than once.
"Can be" is a 'there is a possible situation', not a 'someone can chose' expression .

Once started a charge is a blundering into contact affair not a rapier type attack more of a cutless slash.
_________________
Player 747 don't call me Jumbo

[Ramses II]

I also agree with Dan, with one proviso; the chargers must nominate their target as well as the direction of charge.

Where there are several potential targets one behind the other (eg Light troops screening Heavier troops), and providing the chargers may stop before contacting the other troops, the charger may nominate only the nearest troops as their target. In this case, even if the target evades, the chargers must then stop before contacting the rear troops (and not "clatter" into the troops behind).

Basically the "charging" player explains to his opponent what he is attempting to do, and this allows the target(s) to decide how to respond. Where targets all evade, the chargers throw VMD which may cause them to contact further enemy units (which are then given the opportunity to evade).

[Zoltan]

@Ramses
Well I think the strict mechanic is:
- declare charge and nominate direction
- if the nearest target evades revealing a subsequent target, the charger decides whether to stop at its minimum move (2/1UD), or carry on to its full move/contact//VMD
- strictly speaking the charger doesn’t need to reveal its intentions in relation to all potential targets at the point of declaring the charge. This keeps the enemy guessing and having to decide on an evade/hold with the initial target, without knowing for certain what the charger may subsequently do (although often this may be obvious).

[Ramses II]

The idea behind nominating target(s) and charge direction is to help both players to understand what is happening and thus move all units (on both sides) only once.

This speeds up decision making, minimises unit ‘shuffling’ and generally speeds up play. 

Don’t forget the rules are less complex and more direct than other sets so I am not sure that “Keeping the enemy  guessing” is the intent here, even though these situations can be played that way. 

[Hazelbark]

[AlanCutner]

Looks like consensus!

One further question. Under the evade procedure (P40 7-Charge Movement) foot units only have to move 1UD, mounted units 2UD's. As this is part of the evade procedure does it mean chargers have to go full distance if not all targets (or revealed targets) evade?

[Zoltan]

I guess it depends on whether you favour:

1. A charge is a charge and must attempt to contact each and every enemy unit that presents itself in charger’s path, or

2. A charger is permitted to declare that it is ONLY charging the nearest enemy unit and does not intend to charge a subsequent unit should the nearest on evade.

The fact that there are some exception rules whereby certain chargers do not have to charge into certain enemy troop types (but can stop short) suggests to me that the author favours option 1 above - a charge is a charge!

[Zoltan]

[Hazelbark]

[Dickstick]

All targets evade to get the option to pull up.

Why do you think we have the LI charging LI just in front of heavy infantry rule?

All units in line of charge and in charge reach are targets.
That's how simple it is.
_________________
Player 747 don't call me Jumbo

[Korik]

There's a fairly significant change (currently only in the French version of the September 2018 amendments) to the final paragraph of the charge definition given on page 36 in the English version where it sets out circumstances in which an enemy unit may be contacted

Currently this states that a charger which contacts an enemy unit OTHER THAN it's 'primary' target, either by a corner or by 'sliding' along a flank or rear edge may conform to that new target IF it's 'primary' target evades

The amendment reads 'In the last paragraph, replace the first sentence by the following text: "If the unit charges at an enemy (including camp) and is obliged to contact corner to corner or drag along the flank or rear of another enemy unit that is already engaged in melee or with which she (?) was already in contact. ' Delete the second sentence "The charging unit can choose... to evade".' - Translation courtesy of Microsoft

There is also an illustration in the French language FAQ which indicates that a charging unit must stop and confirm if it contacts an enemy which is not already in melee, although I'm not sure if there is any consideration of evading primary targets (my French ain't that good)

To be honest, if you market a publication in multiple languages, then any amendments or FAQ should be issued in all appropriate languages, and not just in French with everyone else waiting for someone to do a translation
_________________
Korik

[AlanCutner]

Hazelbark, re-reading the rule your interpretation makes most sense. It would mean skirmishers can be driven off by a series of controlled charges.

[Commodore]