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 

when do chargers fit

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules Forum Index -> Rules
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Mark Stone
Moderator
Moderator


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

PostPosted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:16 pm    Post subject: when do chargers fit

I've uploaded a powerpoint slide titled "charge_fit.ppt", under the topic "charge fit 2" to the files section. Here's the associated question:

Background: In charging, we go through three steps:
    * Making contact (the point at which to bodies meet)
    * Conforming (the line to which the front of both bodies must conform)
    * Lining up (how we slide along said line to get elements lined up with each other)


And now the question: In a frontal charge, when must the charger be able to fit: at contact, at conforming, or at lining up?

In 6.163E, the only word used is "contact". But the illustration, 6-13, seems to use lining up as the requirement.

The powerpoint slide I uploaded reflects the exact situation as it occurred at Cold Wars:
* Mounted Unit A could have lined up to first make contact in a charge with the flank of Unit 1, but didn't bother since in lining up Unit A would have been partially off the table, and it was presumed that this would therefore not be a legal flank charge. So I guess that's one question: could Unit A charge Unit 1 in the flank?
* Unit A clearly has all kinds of room to fit at contact, but Unit B would prevent it from fitting when either conforming or lining up. So can Unit A charge Unit 1?


-Mark Stone
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   MSN Messenger
joncleaves
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Posts: 16447

PostPosted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:30 pm    Post subject:

Mounted unit A does NOT look like it can flank charge unit 1. Now, this may be a problem with viewing the ppt, but it look like if A goes straight ahead or wheels to the right (it cannot wheel to the left) it will hit with part of the lead element overlapping the front of 1.

It can certainly charge 1 frontally - it will not be able to line up due to B. Unit 1 will line up with Unit A if Unit 1 is unsupported (which seems to be the case) and if it is, there will be no full lining up until space is created, but the hth will be fught as though it had occurred.

Note that the diagram 6-13 and your example are different cases. In 6-13 there is no way to make contact without involving the friendly unit. In your example, unit A can make contact with unit 1 without involving B.

_________________
Roll Up and Win!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Mark Stone
Moderator
Moderator


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

PostPosted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:37 pm    Post subject:

joncleaves wrote:
Mounted unit A does NOT look like it can flank charge unit 1. Now, this may be a problem with viewing the ppt, but it look like if A goes straight ahead or wheels to the right (it cannot wheel to the left) it will hit with part of the lead element overlapping the front of 1.


No, you're reading the diagram correctly, but not reading what I said correctly. The diagram shows where unit A did move to. However, unit A could have moved to contact a flank first. So that's a question: if unit A's first point of contact was a flank, what happens?

joncleaves wrote:
It can certainly charge 1 frontally - it will not be able to line up due to B. Unit 1 will line up with Unit A if Unit 1 is unsupported (which seems to be the case) and if it is, there will be no full lining up until space is created, but the hth will be fught as though it had occurred.

Note that the diagram 6-13 and your example are different cases. In 6-13 there is no way to make contact without involving the friendly unit. In your example, unit A can make contact with unit 1 without involving B.


Given that Scott used 6-13 to prohibit Unit A from charging at all, you and Scott may want to revisit the wording and associated diagrams here so that you are, as it were, on the same page. Given that this cost me the game, I'd really like to avoid this kind of confusion come the NICT.


-Mark Stone
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   MSN Messenger
joncleaves
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Posts: 16447

PostPosted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 5:00 pm    Post subject:

I can only see one diagram. it is called charge fit 2 and it does not show A in contact. Where it shows A does not appear - from the diagram - that a flank charge is legal. If you say it was legal, ok by me. The diagram isn't to scale and I am just going by what my eyes tell me.
Flank charges arena't about contacting the flank first, they are in cases. This would have been a case 2. If A could get to 1 with all of A's lead element behind the flank of 1, but once lined up could not stay on the table due to the proximity of the table edge, then the charge could not be made. is that what you're asking?

_________________
Roll Up and Win!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Mark Stone
Moderator
Moderator


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

PostPosted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 5:55 pm    Post subject:

joncleaves wrote:
If A could get to 1 with all of A's lead element behind the flank of 1, but once lined up could not stay on the table due to the proximity of the table edge, then the charge could not be made. is that what you're asking?


That's what I'm asking, and that's what I assumed during the game, hence the line up to charge frontally. I was stunned, to say the least, when the frontal charge was disallowed, but I'm confident you and Scott will work out whatever wording/clarlfication you need to this section so that Scott doesn't make that mistake again.


-Mark Stone
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   MSN Messenger
joncleaves
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Posts: 16447

PostPosted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 6:03 pm    Post subject:

Mistake? In the event, Scott only gives right answers.
_________________
Roll Up and Win!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
scott holder
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6035
Location: Bonnots Mill, MO

PostPosted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 6:04 pm    Post subject:

Quote:
...so that Scott doesn't make that mistake again.


Thanks for assuming I made a mistake.

Anybody want this job?

scott

PS: if I did make a mistake, always possible, I'll endeavor to not screw it up next time.

_________________
These Rules Suck, Let's Paint!
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: Mon Mar 26, 2007 6:40 pm    Post subject:

scott holder wrote:
Quote:
...so that Scott doesn't make that mistake again.


Thanks for assuming I made a mistake.

Anybody want this job?

scott

PS: if I did make a mistake, always possible, I'll endeavor to not screw it up next time.


OK, that was undiplomatically worded on my part, and I apologize.

Scott did the best he could with the need to make a quick decision about a complex situation, and found textual support that even I agreed with at the time. Calling that a "mistake" is a poor choice of words on my part.

The situation did not play out as Jon intended the rules to have it play out, and some correction needs to be made going forward, particularly since this is a crucial part of game play (the whole "contact - conform - line up - fit" section).

So a correction is needed, which is not the same as saying a mistake was made.


-Mark Stone
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   MSN Messenger
joncleaves
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Posts: 16447

PostPosted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 7:15 pm    Post subject:

Scott and I have been talking. Example 6-13 could be looked at to override 6.165 B and C (which it does not, but *could* be looked at to). Probably what I will do is a new 6-13 example and a replacement page.

6.165 B and C are the rules that matter so long as there is room to make *those* happen (that is contact can be made, and it is not a case II).

_________________
Roll Up and Win!
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
Page 1 of 1

 
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