Art De La Guerre

[Mike Bennett]

[AlanCutner]

[lionelrus]

Parce qu'il est habituel de se reférer à la version originale d'un texte et non à la traduction. En l'occurrence, la version française n'a pas d'ambiguïté.
De plus, comme zlotan l'a trés bien écrit (et la Nouvelle Zélande est un pays de langue anglaise, n'est-il pas?) la structure du texte en anglais est suffisamment claire pour lever l'ambiguïté.
_________________
"Quand on a pas de technique, faut y aller à la zob"
Perceval à Yvain et Gauvain.

[AlanCutner]

Je sais que vous essayez d'être utile. Mais ce n'est pas une raison, juste être têtu.

La plupart des joueurs ADLG anglophones ne liront pas ce forum. Ils n'ont pas non plus accès à la version française du livre. Ils liront le livret de règles en anglais qui stipule très clairement que la charge est facultative, sans aucune ambiguïté susceptible de provoquer des interrogations. L'interprétation "correcte" doit donc être publiée officiellement.

L'argument selon lequel « par définition » une charge incontrôlée ne peut pas être facultative est fallacieux. Interpréter les règles par ce qu'un individu croit être historiquement exact créerait le chaos. Il faut se fier à ce qui est réellement indiqué.

I know you are trying to be helpful. But that's no reason, just being stubborn.

Most English speaking ADLG players will not read this forum. Nor do they have access to the French version of the book. They will read the rulebook in English which states very clearly that charging is optional, without any ambiguity that might cause questions. The "correct" interpretation must therefore be officially published.

The argument that “by definition” an uncontrolled load cannot be optional is fallacious. Interpreting the rules by what an individual believes to be historically accurate would create chaos. You have to trust what is actually written.

[lionelrus]

Il y a un post avec l'adresse de l'arbitre national pour l'Angleterre. Posez lui la question.
_________________
"Quand on a pas de technique, faut y aller à la zob"
Perceval à Yvain et Gauvain.

[Ramses II]

Guys, I tend to agree with Lioney and Zoltan on this. The rules seem clear enough to me. The thought process goes like this:

• Impetuous troops are within charge range of an enemy. So the player can choose to pay 1CP to order them to charge. 
  
• If the player uses all the CP elsewhere, the Impetuous troops must make an uncontrolled charge (P46) unless they are exempted by their situation (P47).

As Lionelrus says, the player always has the choice to override the exemption to an uncontrolled charge, if he “feels lucky”. 

[AlanCutner]

Raised this at my club tonight. Unanimous view, without any prompting, was the rules as written are clear the uncontrolled charge is optional for the exceptions on P46. This included from a member who is a practising solicitor. There was surprise any other view could be taken.

I don't doubt that other people read the rule a different way. But this just highlights why this is a matter requiring an entry in future errata.

I promise this is my last post on this issue.

[Zoltan]

[kevinj]

Anyone who questions the intent of this rule should look at the example at the bottom of P46, specifically Unit B:

"B does not charge Infantry 2 as this would cause it to also contact Elephant (3)...Therefore B remains immobile"

[SteveR]

I had considered this question before and came to the conclusion that an impetuous unit cannot make the voluntary choice to be uncontrolled.

It works the opposite way - if you are uncontrolled you must expend CP to choose to not be uncontrolled.

You can't decide that in selected cases I shall elect to be out of control.

[Commodore]

1) The uncontrolled charge is an involuntary movement. There's no choice to do it or not from the player.
2) The only circumstances in which uncontrolled charge does not occur are described on p 46.

Conclusion: There are no circumstances where the player has to decide whether to voluntarily make an uncontrolled charge or not. He can just decide the order in which they occur at the end of the corps movement phase. The rule is sufficiently explicit and does not need to be amended in the FAQ
_________________
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead"
Cdr Farragut,Mobile 1864

[lionelrus]

I completly agree with comodore. Howver, it's seems some guy, absolutly want the rule say what she doesn't say.
To avoid having 2 differents "arbitrage" , it may be useful including this point in the next faq.

It's not the first time we'll do it for "solicitors".
_________________
"Quand on a pas de technique, faut y aller à la zob"
Perceval à Yvain et Gauvain.

[Mike Bennett]

[AlanCutner]