Neep
Prétorien
Inscrit le: 09 Jan 2023
Messages: 298
|
 Posté le: Mer Sep 20, 2023 10:30 pm Sujet du message: Continuing a charge at enemy who evade |
 |
A group charge makes contact with the initial target. A unit in the group, is unable to engage the initial target, but can reach a secondary target in front. The active player announces their intention to make contact; Their opponent decides to evade.
QUESTION how far must the charging unit go? Can it stop where it is (that is in line with contact on the initial target) or must it at least reach the original location of the evading enemy? |
|
Hazelbark
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 12 Nov 2014
Messages: 1669
|
| Posté le: Jeu Sep 21, 2023 12:32 pm Sujet du message: |
|
| p43-44. Particularly look at diagram on p 44 |
|
Neep
Prétorien
Inscrit le: 09 Jan 2023
Messages: 298
|
| Posté le: Ven Sep 22, 2023 3:11 am Sujet du message: |
|
Good advice, and what I did, of course. Okay, I looked at it one more time.
Per the example on page 44, if the secondary target STANDS then there is minimal obligation on part of the attackers - they can move any amount, do not have to make contact, nor (per text) have to support if their neighbor makes contact.
Therefore if the secondary target EVADES there would presumably be minimal obligation as well. There is no indication they need to make a 1UD/2UD minimal advance (from the original start line).
It does lead to the situation where the attacker declares their intention to continue the charge, the secondary target evades, the now exposed tertiary target evades. Then the attacker doesn't move at all. Feels a little odd. |
|
KevinD
Légat
Inscrit le: 23 Aoû 2021
Messages: 647
Localisation: Texas
|
| Posté le: Ven Sep 22, 2023 4:27 am Sujet du message: |
|
| I don’t think any of this overrides the obligation to go their full move if Impetuous or, if non-Impetuous, at least 1 UD if foot or 2 UD if mounted. |
|
Hazelbark
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 12 Nov 2014
Messages: 1669
|
| Posté le: Ven Sep 22, 2023 1:32 pm Sujet du message: |
|
| Neep a écrit: |
It does lead to the situation where the attacker declares their intention to continue the charge, the secondary target evades, the now exposed tertiary target evades. Then the attacker doesn't move at all. Feels a little odd. |
You certainly invent odd situations and approach things obtusely.
Like the shadowy sith you are usually trying to come up with something rather than ask clearly. So we are left guessing at your point.
Charge of group.
Some hit or in support
Other are not in support.
They choose to continue the charge to threaten potential evaders. A la C4/C3 in p44 diagram.
Instead you suppose the B troops evade.
If your question is what obligations are C3/C4 in, then restart the sequence. So 4-6 apply. Therefore the minimum charge distance is required from their starting positions. |
|
Ramses II
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 17 Juil 2015
Messages: 1236
Localisation: London
|
| Posté le: Ven Sep 22, 2023 7:12 pm Sujet du message: |
|
| Neep a écrit: | Good advice, and what I did, of course. Okay, I looked at it one more time.
Per the example on page 44, if the secondary target STANDS then there is minimal obligation on part of the attackers - they can move any amount, do not have to make contact, nor (per text) have to support if their neighbour makes contact.
Therefore if the secondary target EVADES there would presumably be minimal obligation as well. There is no indication they need to make a 1UD/2UD minimal advance (from the original start line).
It does lead to the situation where the attacker declares their intention to continue the charge, the secondary target evades, the now exposed tertiary target evades. Then the attacker doesn't move at all. Feels a little odd. |
No. The text is written from the perspective of the 'original start line'. If some part of the group continues charging into contact with a secondary target which in turn evades, unless they are impetuous, these chargers may stop once they have made their minimal movement (1U or 2U) from their starting position. |
|
Neep
Prétorien
Inscrit le: 09 Jan 2023
Messages: 298
|
| Posté le: Ven Sep 22, 2023 8:02 pm Sujet du message: |
|
Thankyou Gavin. That answers the question, as Kevin anticipated. It's my preference too; I just don't see it clearly stated so in the text.
The distance is likely less important than the ability to chase off the evaders while keeping the group together. Of course, that depends on quickly winning the melee against the standing initial target. Well, enough of this. |
|
FAQ
Rechercher
Liste des Membres
Groupes d'utilisateurs
S'enregistrer
Profil
Se connecter pour vérifier ses messages privés
Connexion
