Art De La Guerre

[hcaille]

I have read all questions and comments here

An uncontrolled charge is considered as a charge move with all restrictions

It can happen that a unit can move to a support position but cannot charge to get the same position.
In this case, the unit will not charge (or charge another target).

This will prevent to have some "free" CP to move impetuous units.

I will add it on the next FAQ

[vexillia]

Sorted. Thanks.
_________________
Martin Stephenson

Subscribe via email or rss.

[AlanCutner]

My apologies for asking another question on uncontrolled charge.

Consider an impetuous cavaly unit (CC) with an enemy HI (HH) directly in front of it , and a MI off to one side. The Cv are within charge reach of both the HI and MI.

HH........MM

CC

The cavalry unit is given no orders so is subject to possible uncontrolled charge.
P45 Resolution of uncontrolled charges determines the target unit. In this case the 2nd bullet applies making the HI the target.
P46 specifies the cavalry are not required to make an uncontrolled charge if any of the exceptions apply. The 9th bullet applies stating there is no charge against the front of undisordered HI.

As I read this it means the cavalry not only don't charge the HI, there is no requirement or mechanism for them to re-direct a charge against anything else, in this example the MI. They simply stay where they are.

Is this correct?

[Ramses II]

Unfortunately not Alan. 

The diagram on P46 is your guide here, specifically unit C which has several potential targets.  

However, the nearest targets are excluded because they would result in contacting the elephant. So it must charge the nearest eligible target, unit 4. 

[AlanCutner]

So the opening sentence on P46 should be that exceptions are ignored as potential targets, rather than there is no uncontrolled charge as a result of the exception.

[Neep]

It goes back to the second sentence on page 45. The Cv has no _potential_ to charge the HI because of the exception. Therefore it's target must be the MI.
This is a constant source of confusion, and hopefully it will be added to the errata as (IIRC) was promised some time ago.

[Zoltan]