Auteur |
Message |
SteveR
Prétorien
Inscrit le: 21 Mar 2018 Messages: 287
|
Posté le: Mar Déc 03, 2019 5:01 pm Sujet du message: A charging elephant |
|
An elephant charges a unit of Medium Cavalry located 1.5 UD away. Cost is one CP to declare the charge.
The cavalry evades.
The elephant now decides to stop after moving 2 UD as permitted on page 40.
Elephants are unmaneuverable units. Does this stop now require the owning player to expend an additional CP? |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
lionelrus
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 21 Mar 2009 Messages: 4713
Localisation: paris
|
Posté le: Mar Déc 03, 2019 6:19 pm Sujet du message: |
|
no _________________ "Quand on a pas de technique, faut y aller à la zob"
Perceval à Yvain et Gauvain. |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Ramses II
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 17 Juil 2015 Messages: 1160
Localisation: London
|
Posté le: Mer Déc 04, 2019 1:26 am Sujet du message: |
|
Agreed Lionel.Â
The extra 1CP cost is only needed to move an  unmanoeuverable unit less than its full distance when making a normal move. |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
SteveR
Prétorien
Inscrit le: 21 Mar 2018 Messages: 287
|
Posté le: Mer Déc 04, 2019 4:59 pm Sujet du message: |
|
This is why I enjoy posting questions like this. Even when I think the answer is obvious it seems others feel the same way in the opposite direction.
Page 32 first bullet of unmaneuverable unit (only) difficult maneuvers says that an advance of less than the full move distance requires the expenditure of an additional CP unless the unit "ends in contact with the enemy"
This is helpful, in that it shows that the extra CP expenditure could happen in moves which have the potential to contact the enemy or not, however it is not definitive as one may initiate contact the enemy as result of a charge or via a normal move if the enemy is already in melee.
Page 36 says that a charge "consists of an advance" and page 32 says advances do require extra CP if they stop short.
Why do you think charges are exempt from this extra charge?
I don't like the idea of retroactive CP expenditures as it feels artificial, however in practical game terms it does not seem to cause any problems. I charge you, you decide to evade or not. If you choose to evade and I then decide to stop short it seems reasonable to have to pay extra to not go the full distance. If you don't have the extra CP saved then you have to go the full distance like impetuous units do.
The question only applies to Levy and Elephants however as other unmaneuverable units are either impetuous or cannot charge. |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Snowhitsky
Prétorien
Inscrit le: 15 Juin 2015 Messages: 224
Localisation: Lancaster, UK
|
Posté le: Mer Déc 04, 2019 6:14 pm Sujet du message: |
|
A manoeuver is a manoeuver. A charge is a charge. Two different procedures, it’s as simple as that. Bear in mind that you can charge for 0PC if you start with an enemy at or within 1UD of the charger’s front (p22).
If the target unit of a charge decides to evade you follow the procedure on page 40, item 7 not the manoeuver procedure on p32. |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Ramses II
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 17 Juil 2015 Messages: 1160
Localisation: London
|
Posté le: Mer Déc 04, 2019 6:20 pm Sujet du message: |
|
Because of the circular error that ensues if we apply the process you described.Â
a) I pay 1CP (my last) to charge the elephantÂ
b) you declare your evade, and move the target out of reach
c) I decide to move short per the rule, but don’t have the CP, so don’t charge at all
d) that means you don’t need to evade, leaving your unit as it was in charge reach
e) that means I can charge - go back to a) and repeat. . . .Â
Put this apparent inconsistency down to either a mis-translation or just possibly a minor issue with the rules.Â
The point is that Lionel and I explained how the Rules are played.Â
(at least in Europe)
 |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
SteveR
Prétorien
Inscrit le: 21 Mar 2018 Messages: 287
|
Posté le: Jeu Déc 05, 2019 12:10 am Sujet du message: |
|
Hi Ramses,
There is no circular error problem - one declares a charge for either 1 or 0 CP as appropriate. The discrepancy is in your step C - any attempt to move short subsequent to this would require an additional CP, if that CP is not available the charge is not cancelled. Instead, the unit involved would then be required to move the full 3 UD.
I am not passionately attached to a particular result, and appreciate that others may play it differently. And have found before that the way people play is not what the rules necessarily say. This is on top of me making a rules mistake in the rules in just about every game I play.
The distinction between maneuvers and charges seems to me to be artificial. The rules break things down into Movement and Special Movements. But Special Movements still obey the principles included in Movement unless otherwise excepted - that section cannot stand on its own.
Page 40 does say one may stop short unless impetuous and that is a perfectly reasonable thing to hang one's hat on I suppose. |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Hazelbark
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 12 Nov 2014 Messages: 1544
|
Posté le: Ven Déc 06, 2019 7:43 pm Sujet du message: |
|
I get what you are thinking Steve, but that sort of CP management is not part of the game. So I side with the rules which are clear enough. A move is not a charge. People get confused as charges execute much like moves.
So for a charge stopping short there is no additional CP cost. |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Zoltan
Centurion
Inscrit le: 18 Jan 2015 Messages: 443
Localisation: Wellington, New Zealand
|
Posté le: Sam Déc 07, 2019 5:44 am Sujet du message: |
|
So to be clear, there is:
1. Movement P.27ff
2. Special Movements P.36ff
All the Movement rules also apply to the Special Movements unless there is an explicit SM rule that clearly overides the M rule.
So, for example, the Difficult Manoeuvre rules on P.32 apply to the charge Special Movement. Thus an elephant making a quarter turn to charge an enemy must pay 2CP as this is a difficult manoeuvre charge. |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
SteveR
Prétorien
Inscrit le: 21 Mar 2018 Messages: 287
|
Posté le: Dim Déc 08, 2019 1:54 am Sujet du message: |
|
Well Dan, we agree that a move is not a charge. However a charge is a move, and as Zoltan has pointed out charges obey movement rules unless specifically exempted.
Notice that his example regarding an elephant turning to charge comes from the same "difficult maneuvers" section on page 32 as the issue in question. People seem willing to exempt my precious pachyderms from the first bullet point but not the second.
The counter argument is that page 40 says non-impetuous units may stop after completing the minimum charge movement and that would seem to include unmaneuverable units. And the game plays cleaner.
Of course page 36 says that units about to charge may turn, perhaps we can use that to exempt them from the other difficult maneuver charge as well?
In any case King Porus is pleased knowing that his elephants may be difficult to restrain under normal maneuvers, but that if he ever feels that his control is slipping he may unleash them in a thundering charge thereby finding them much more obedient to the command to halt. |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
belinconnux
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 09 Sep 2009 Messages: 5443
Localisation: BORDEAUX, near Vana
|
Posté le: Dim Déc 08, 2019 12:48 pm Sujet du message: |
|
Strange ... why don't apply the rules? And the long years uses in turnaments ? _________________ Hasta la victoria Siempre!
Peter Lord dobeul impact |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
daveallen
Tribun
Inscrit le: 28 Jan 2016 Messages: 742
Localisation: Rugby & CLWC
|
Posté le: Mar Déc 10, 2019 11:15 pm Sujet du message: |
|
Sorry to butt in at this late stage, but I think the confusion is being caused by mixing up the terms used in the rules.
Taking "movement" to include "advances", "charges" and "difficult manoeuvres" as all the same kind of a thing ignores the way the rules are written.
Under the general heading of Movement there are several different parts:
Advances
Slides
Wheels
Turns
Extensions
Contractions
Extensions
Manoeuvrability which has a sub section for Difficult Manoeuvres
and then there's a completely separate section called Special Movements which has its own parts:
Charges
Evades
The "Difficult Manoeuvres" in question are:
Citation: | For unmanoeuvrable units only, the following are also considered difficult manoeuvres:
An advance of less than the unit’s full movement distance (excluding any road bonus) unless the unit ends in contact with the enemy. An advance of full movement distance, with a wheel and/or a slide is still an easy manoeuvre.
Any manoeuvre that includes a quarter-turn, a half-turn, an extension or a contraction, whether the unit ends in contact with the enemy or not.
page 32 |
Of the two instances where a difficult manoeuvre costs an extra pip (a short "advance" and "any manoeuvre" that includes a turn, etc) an "advance" is not the same thing as a "charge" so the short move cost doesn't arise. However, a charge is covered by the phrase "any manoeuvre" so a turn to charge will cost an unmanoeuvrable unit an extra pip.
All of which is to say I see where you're coming from Steve, but this isn't the set of rules you're thinking of
Dave _________________ Putting the ink into incompetence |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
SteveR
Prétorien
Inscrit le: 21 Mar 2018 Messages: 287
|
Posté le: Mer Déc 11, 2019 1:12 am Sujet du message: |
|
Dave, your message is very helpful. I had to think about it a bit to see if I was following your logic
I can see where the language of the two bullets on page 32 is different, and that gave me pause for a bit. Trying to see if the difference was a careful and deliberate distinction. Sometimes these things are significant, although I have been assured (and agree) that in general these rules do not rely on subtle distinctions of language to differentiate important points.
However you say "an "advance" is not the same thing as a "charge""
Page 36 under Charge Movement it says "a charge consists of an advance directly toward the enemy"
So why is this advance not costed extra if short? Especially if charge beginning with a maneuver is costed extra. (which we all agree is the case) |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Ballista
Légionaire
Inscrit le: 15 Jan 2018 Messages: 117
|
Posté le: Mer Déc 11, 2019 4:06 am Sujet du message: |
|
Perhaps the confusion lies in assuming the same definition for 'advance' in the movement and special movement sections.
'Advance' is defined in movement section.
The same word is then used in special movement, aka Charge - where it has a meaning different to that defined in the movement section
No that all sounds complication doesn't it -
|
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
daveallen
Tribun
Inscrit le: 28 Jan 2016 Messages: 742
Localisation: Rugby & CLWC
|
Posté le: Mer Déc 11, 2019 8:33 am Sujet du message: |
|
Hi Steve,
I think you need to differentiate between the definition of a charge and the commentary on the technical details of charging. Got to be said, this isn't made obvious or easy in the rules.
So the definition (p.52) is:
Citation: | A charge is a move in which a unit contacts an enemy, which is not already in melee, with its front edge (even by single corner). It stops once contact with the enemy is made. |
No mention of an "advance."
Then on the same page we have a discussion of a charge which seems nonsensical in terms of the definition, but makes sense as a how to guide:
Citation: | CHARGE MOVEMENT
A charge consists of an advance directly forward towards the enemy. At the beginning of a charge, it is also possible to wheel, slide (not both) or make a halfturn or quarter-turn followed by an optional wheel. An extension or contraction that brings the front of one or more units in contact with the enemy is also considered a charge. |
So "an advance directly forward" that can start with a wheel, slide, turn, or turn & wheel. It's clearly a different beast to the simple advance described in movement. It can also be done by an expansion or a contraction.
As to Gavin's point about the translation. I doubt the translator had much experience of what wargamers spent the last fifty years doing to the English language in order to gain an edge. If he had I don't think he'd have taken on the job.
Anyhow, v.4 should be out soon along with a whole new set of conundrums.
Dave _________________ Putting the ink into incompetence |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
|