Warrior Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules
A Four Horsemen Enterprises Rules Set
 
  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups AlbumAlbum   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Charge path and Evaders
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules Forum Index -> Rules
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Richard
Recruit
Recruit


Joined: 07 Jan 2007
Posts: 1
Location: Sydney

PostPosted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 6:48 am    Post subject: Charge path and Evaders

Hello Jon,

Useing diagram 6-12 pg 42 as an example.
Unit X declares a charge, against Unit A. Unit A evades taking it out of Units X Charge path.
As I understand Chargers against Evaders, Unit X has the option of continuing straight ahead (or down its charge path) and contacting Unit B, which would get the normal charge responses.
If Unit X is Impetous then it must contact Unit A if it can. If how ever Unit A is able to move outside Unit X total charge move, would Unit X be able to Contact unit B instead?

_________________
Richard
Better Lucky than Good?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
joncleaves
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Posts: 16447

PostPosted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 3:47 am    Post subject:

Richard, welcome.

The operative case is from 6.166C, top right of page 50:

"An impetuous charger must choose the method described
above that makes it most likely it will contact the evader. An
impetuous charger cannot contact an uncovered target if
this would prevent it from contacting an evader."

So, if the evader moves such that the impetuous charger cannot contact the evader, then yes the charger can contact the uncovered target.

Jon

_________________
Roll Up and Win!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Adrian Williams
Recruit
Recruit


Joined: 19 Apr 2006
Posts: 51
Location: Sydney, Australia

PostPosted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 7:05 am    Post subject:

I was the person playing Richard on Sunday that led him to ask the question. The evading unit did not change direction or drop back ranks in its evade. My argument was that there was no uncovered target and that the chargers were simply attempting to have a go at two units with a single charge by a single element wide cavalry unit.

Is it still the case that the alternative charge target needs to be "uncovered" to be a permissible target for the charger?

ANW

_________________
Kill them all, God knows his own
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   Visit poster's website
Mark Stone
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 2102
Location: Buckley, WA

PostPosted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 3:33 pm    Post subject:

Adrian Williams wrote:
I was the person playing Richard on Sunday that led him to ask the question. The evading unit did not change direction or drop back ranks in its evade. My argument was that there was no uncovered target and that the chargers were simply attempting to have a go at two units with a single charge by a single element wide cavalry unit.

Is it still the case that the alternative charge target needs to be "uncovered" to be a permissible target for the charger?

ANW


Jon will speak to this I'm sure, but it sounds like you are confusing a converted charge with an uncovered charge. In a converted charge it is true that the new charge target must be revealed by the body breaking/breaking off either diverting around or dropping elements to pass (converted charges can also sometimes happen in a follow up move, but that's not pertinent here). Uncovered charges are different.

An uncovered charge is one in which the body uncovered was within tactical move distance of the charger at the time of charge declarations, but occluded by an intervening body. If the intervening body ceases to intervene (by evading, for example), then the uncovered body is... well, uncovered. Like Jon says.


-Mark Stone
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   MSN Messenger
Adrian Williams
Recruit
Recruit


Joined: 19 Apr 2006
Posts: 51
Location: Sydney, Australia

PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 2:42 am    Post subject:

Mark, I thought that it was the other way around - that the test for a converted charge was merely whether its position could be reached by a follow up, pursuit or break through move, but that for a charge on a target other than the declared target there needed to be an "uncovering" and that "uncovering" had to consist of the evading unit either changing direction or dropping back ranks around the unit in question.

I will have another look - unfortunately I don't have a copy of rules in the office with me! It is bad enough that I spend a lot of time playing DBA on line with people all over the world.

Adrian

_________________
Kill them all, God knows his own
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   Visit poster's website
joncleaves
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Posts: 16447

PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 4:45 am    Post subject:

I answered the question using the diagram on page 42 as instructed...lol If there is some other situation you want me to answer, I'd need to see it.

That said, my answer doesn't have anything specifically to do with uncovered (it did only because that is the case in the diagram). But the answer is, the impetuous guy must take the option that is most likely to contact the evader. As long as it does that, then yes, it can hit another target.

The rule that matters is:
An impetuous charger must choose the method described
above that makes it most likely it will contact the evader.

So long as that rule is obeyed, whatever else happens is ok, and isn't necessarily tied to uncovered.

_________________
Roll Up and Win!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Steve
Recruit
Recruit


Joined: 18 Apr 2006
Posts: 62
Location: S.E. London (U.K)

PostPosted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 3:52 pm    Post subject:

In a converted charge it is true that the new charge target must be revealed by the body breaking/breaking off either diverting around or dropping elements to pass (converted charges can also sometimes happen in a follow up move, but that's not pertinent here).

-Mark Stone[/quote]

Hello Mark,

Apologies for raking up an old post, and I hope I'm not quoting you out of context, but rather than just bombard the forum with yet more questions, Embarassed I was searching for the answer to a question I had regarding the validity of converted charges. This post seemed to answer it at first, but the actual wording of the Converted Charge definition (6.167), Example 6-26 on P51 and the converted charge diagram in the Rules Question section don't appear to back it up, unless I am misinterpreting the definition of 'must be revealed by' which is highly likely.

I understand that Jon alone remains able to answer rules questions, I was just wondering where you got your definition of a converted charge from?

Again, apologies for any inadvertent offence I might have caused, or be causing,

Steve
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
joncleaves
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Posts: 16447

PostPosted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 2:39 pm    Post subject:

[[In a converted charge it is true that the new charge target must be revealed by the body breaking/breaking off either diverting around or dropping elements to pass ]]

The above statement is indeed incorrect.

Steve, don't worry over much about how many questions you ask. All I was saying is, my promise to get to a question within one day does not hold up under such circumstances. But I will get to them eventually! Smile

_________________
Roll Up and Win!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Steve
Recruit
Recruit


Joined: 18 Apr 2006
Posts: 62
Location: S.E. London (U.K)

PostPosted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 9:50 pm    Post subject:

Hello Jon,

Thanks for both you continued patience and still managing to answer all my questions, however inane, so promptly. Smile

The reason I asked this question was because I am still trying to work out exactly why the charge in the Official Rules converted charge diagram is invalid.

I don't want the answer (yet), and I hope I'm not pulling this post off topic, but I thought Mark's answer might have given me the reason why. It doesn't, so I will keep on reading until I do find out why. it will probably come as no surprise that it's taken me much longer than a day so far! Rolling Eyes

Thanks Again, Steve
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
joncleaves
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Posts: 16447

PostPosted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 10:02 pm    Post subject:

When you get a minute, Steve, would you please tell me what this means...

[[I am still trying to work out exactly why the charge in the Official Rules converted charge diagram is invalid. ]]

I am not aware of any invalid diagrams, but if there is a mistake somewhere I want to correct it.

_________________
Roll Up and Win!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Steve
Recruit
Recruit


Joined: 18 Apr 2006
Posts: 62
Location: S.E. London (U.K)

PostPosted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 11:27 pm    Post subject:

Hello Jon,

Sorry perhaps, some inadvertent confusion here. The diagram actually serves to demonstrate an example of an invalid converted charge.

I then asked myself why it was invalid as to me, on first glance it all appears O.K. (Thinking this was part of the exercise as the reason isn't given in the diagram.)

It is me that still hasn't yet worked out exactly WHY it is an example of an invalid charge. Not that the diagram itself is invalid.

I had hoped that because unit B wasn't actually uncovered by the recoil of unit A Mark's statement would answer it. This not being so, there is obviously more here than meets my untrained eye!

As I say, I'm not actually asking for the answer to the question I have perhaps inadvertently posed myself Confused

I hope this is now clear

Steve
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Steve
Recruit
Recruit


Joined: 18 Apr 2006
Posts: 62
Location: S.E. London (U.K)

PostPosted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 11:33 pm    Post subject:

Oops!!

What I should have said was that I was actually looking at the pivoting charge diagram and trying to work out why it couldn't become a converted charge in a later bound.

DOH

I'll just shut up now

Steve
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
joncleaves
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Posts: 16447

PostPosted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 5:21 pm    Post subject:

Is there a diagram you think is wrong, Steve? If so, could you give me its number and tell me what you think is wrong?
_________________
Roll Up and Win!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Steve
Recruit
Recruit


Joined: 18 Apr 2006
Posts: 62
Location: S.E. London (U.K)

PostPosted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 6:27 pm    Post subject:

Hello Jon,

As I tried to point out the error was mine. I mis-identified the document I was originally looking at.

However, you might want to take a look at 'Exercise' in the Warrior Academy section. The letters used to identify the actual units in the diagram don't match those used in any of the questions posed beneath it.

Thats really all I can find wrong in any of the diagrams Very Happy

Steve
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
OGS-Vintage
Recruit
Recruit


Joined: 03 Oct 2008
Posts: 34

PostPosted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 9:00 pm    Post subject: Charges and evaders

Fun for all the family.

Many players declare charges to contact flanks of other not yet seen units <obvious exploitation> - please remind them that a charge is directed at a TARGET unit, not in a vague possibly ummm maybe hopefully (snigger thi will beat him, oops time for my 3rd grade social science test) manner.

I read comments from one player "Always charge at an angle, that way you'll stand a better chance at hitting other units in the flank" - Hmmm - nice philosophy until you are corrected - then the tantrums start.

When you charge something, you charge it, not a GPS designated location on the table (surveyors anyone?).

Be good and have fun.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules Forum Index -> Rules All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group