Art De La Guerre
Bienvenue sur le forum de discussion de la règle de jeu l'Art De La Guerre
 
FAQFAQ RechercherRechercher Liste des MembresListe des Membres Groupes d'utilisateursGroupes d'utilisateurs S'enregistrerS'enregistrer
ProfilProfil Se connecter pour vérifier ses messages privésSe connecter pour vérifier ses messages privés ConnexionConnexion
Does a pre-charge turn reduce the minimum required distance?
Page 1 sur 2 Aller à la page 1, 2  Suivante
Poster un nouveau sujet   Répondre au sujet
 Art De La Guerre Index du Forum > Rules question V4
Auteur Message
KevinD
Signifer


Inscrit le: 23 Aoû 2021
Messages: 302
Localisation: Texas
MessagePosté le: Jeu Aoû 04, 2022 6:22 am    Sujet du message: Does a pre-charge turn reduce the minimum required distance? Répondre en citant
Does a pre-charge turn reduce the minimum required charge distance (for non-impetuous chargers)?

For example, if a non-impetuous mounted unit turns and then charges, does it need to advance 1 or 2 UDs after turning?
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
SteveR
Vétéran


Inscrit le: 21 Mar 2018
Messages: 178
MessagePosté le: Jeu Aoû 04, 2022 2:12 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Page 43 under "If all initial targets evade" 5th bullet specifies that non-impetuous units must "advance" for 1 or 2 UD.

A turn is not an advance. Nor is a wheel.
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
AlanCutner
Légat


Inscrit le: 03 Nov 2014
Messages: 633
Localisation: Scotland
MessagePosté le: Jeu Aoû 04, 2022 4:00 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
SteveR a écrit:
Page 43 under "If all initial targets evade" 5th bullet specifies that non-impetuous units must "advance" for 1 or 2 UD.

A turn is not an advance. Nor is a wheel.

I disagree. If a unit turns or wheels the movement cost of each of those is counted toward the 1 or 2UD movement. Thats certainly how I've always seen it played.
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
Za Otlichiye
Signifer


Inscrit le: 07 Sep 2021
Messages: 307
Localisation: Lovecraft country
MessagePosté le: Jeu Aoû 04, 2022 5:25 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
"Advance" is also used when discussing HI 3UD move in the Operational Zone. Concensus there is that it is any kind of move.
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
SteveR
Vétéran


Inscrit le: 21 Mar 2018
Messages: 178
MessagePosté le: Jeu Aoû 04, 2022 9:49 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Look at page 43 again.

Step 4 - First bullet - "at the beginning of the charge" You start with a slide or a wheel or a turn and an optional wheel.

Second bullet - you then "advance" straight ahead.

"The charge continues and may stop" depending on what happens in steps 5 to 8

However in step 6 if all initial targets evade the amount of the required advance is specified as 1 or 2 UD.

One does not use the cost of any turn (or wheel I believe) in step 4 to reduce the advance distance required in step 6.

Notes - 1. However the cost of the turn and the wheel IS counted as specified on page 42 under "charge range" to determine if the enemy is in range in the first place.

2. Advance is not precisely defined in V4. It was in V3 as "during an advance a unit moves straight forward" In V4 on page 30 there are two types of movement. Maneuvers and "Simple Movement" defined as "a straight forward advance". Slides and wheels and turns fall under "Maneuvers" and not "Simple movement" So it seems pretty clear that an advance is still intended to be a straight forward movement.

3. The HI 3 UD move in the operational zone is a red herring. It appears to me to indicate a maximum allowable movement distance and not a restriction on the HI performing a turn or a wheel or a slide.
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
Longtooth
Signifer


Inscrit le: 14 Oct 2014
Messages: 328
Localisation: Oxford
MessagePosté le: Jeu Aoû 04, 2022 9:52 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
.....Ive always played it in accordance with Steve's interpretation.

Jesse
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
lionelrus
Magister Militum


Inscrit le: 21 Mar 2009
Messages: 4410
Localisation: paris
MessagePosté le: Jeu Aoû 04, 2022 11:21 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Longtooth a écrit:
.....Ive always played it in accordance with Steve's interpretation.

Jesse


In France we play in accordance with Alan's interpretation.
_________________
"Quand on a pas de technique, faut y aller à la zob"
Perceval à Yvain et Gauvain.
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
Longtooth
Signifer


Inscrit le: 14 Oct 2014
Messages: 328
Localisation: Oxford
MessagePosté le: Ven Aoû 05, 2022 7:50 am    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
lionelrus a écrit:


In France we play in accordance with Alan's interpretation.


Although I am not suggesting that you are wrong, Lionelrus, this interpretation can lead to some manipulative game play.

Take, for example, a lone cavalry who is not in ZOC. It can do a quarter turn, wheel 90 degrees (in order to return to his original facing), and 'charge'. The enemy runs away and the cavalry then claims to have moved 2.5 base widths and does not advance any further. Had the cavalry done the exact same charge with a slide, it would have to advance 2.0 base widths.

Although some would argue that this scenario demonstrates use of 'tactics', it feels dirty to me.

Jesse
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
SteveR
Vétéran


Inscrit le: 21 Mar 2018
Messages: 178
MessagePosté le: Ven Aoû 05, 2022 1:42 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Jesse, no matter what the issue, they way a given person has previously played it will seem intuitive and "right" to them.

So setting that aside, the language still seems pretty clear to me.

If the author's intent is that prior turns and optional wheel maneuvers in step 4 to reduce the minimum required advance distance in step 6 then the fifth bullet needs to say so.
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
Dickstick
Légat


Inscrit le: 17 Juil 2016
Messages: 636
Localisation: West Bromwich
MessagePosté le: Ven Aoû 05, 2022 4:33 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Longtooth a écrit:
lionelrus a écrit:


In France we play in accordance with Alan's interpretation.


Although I am not suggesting that you are wrong, Lionelrus, this interpretation can lead to some manipulative game play.

Take, for example, a lone cavalry who is not in ZOC. It can do a quarter turn, wheel 90 degrees (in order to return to his original facing), and 'charge'. The enemy runs away and the cavalry then claims to have moved 2.5 base widths and does not advance any further. Had the cavalry done the exact same charge with a slide, it would have to advance 2.0 base widths.

Although some would argue that this scenario demonstrates use of 'tactics', it feels dirty to me.

Jesse


Maybe so, but it restricts their charge reach to a "normal " charge of 1.5 UD for a unit 1plus away from the target. Pretty desperate non-group move. Opponents should of zoced in first place maybe.

As for wheeling not an advancing?, look at p31 wheel bullet 4, for those who want a definition. Wheeling is advancing.

Perhaps it's a good time to remind people the rules are written in French. Our copy is only as good as the translator's ability. Cut a bit of stack and less of the nitty-gritty over variations of exact English.
_________________
Player 747 don't call me Jumbo
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
Hazelbark
Magister Militum


Inscrit le: 12 Nov 2014
Messages: 1326
MessagePosté le: Ven Aoû 05, 2022 4:48 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Longtooth a écrit:

Although I am not suggesting that you are wrong, Lionelrus, this interpretation can lead to some manipulative game play.

Take, for example, a lone cavalry who is not in ZOC. It can do a quarter turn, wheel 90 degrees (in order to return to his original facing), and 'charge'. The enemy runs away and the cavalry then claims to have moved 2.5 base widths and does not advance any further. Had the cavalry done the exact same charge with a slide, it would have to advance 2.0 base widths.

Although some would argue that this scenario demonstrates use of 'tactics', it feels dirty to me.

Jesse


This angle of the charge must be declared before anyone rolls to evade or even decides to evade. This is why charges must be specified including angle. Usually there are multiple ways to charge often even the same target.
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
lionelrus
Magister Militum


Inscrit le: 21 Mar 2009
Messages: 4410
Localisation: paris
MessagePosté le: Ven Aoû 05, 2022 6:06 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Longtooth a écrit:
lionelrus a écrit:


In France we play in accordance with Alan's interpretation.


Although I am not suggesting that you are wrong, Lionelrus, this interpretation can lead to some manipulative game play.

Take, for example, a lone cavalry who is not in ZOC. It can do a quarter turn, wheel 90 degrees (in order to return to his original facing), and 'charge'. The enemy runs away and the cavalry then claims to have moved 2.5 base widths and does not advance any further. Had the cavalry done the exact same charge with a slide, it would have to advance 2.0 base widths.

Although some would argue that this scenario demonstrates use of 'tactics', it feels dirty to me.

Jesse


Another exemple
A Cv impetuous has a target somewere on his own flank, not in contact.
For charging, he makes a quarter turn,and go happyly forwards.

The target evades and the cv rolls 1 : move reduced, move capacity downed to 3.
Question: how can CV makes 2 UD forward after using 2UD for the quarter turn?
_________________
"Quand on a pas de technique, faut y aller à la zob"
Perceval à Yvain et Gauvain.
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
lionelrus
Magister Militum


Inscrit le: 21 Mar 2009
Messages: 4410
Localisation: paris
MessagePosté le: Ven Aoû 05, 2022 6:10 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Longtooth a écrit:
lionelrus a écrit:


In France we play in accordance with Alan's interpretation.


Although I am not suggesting that you are wrong, Lionelrus, this interpretation can lead to some manipulative game play.

Take, for example, a lone cavalry who is not in ZOC. It can do a quarter turn, wheel 90 degrees (in order to return to his original facing), and 'charge'. The enemy runs away and the cavalry then claims to have moved 2.5 base widths and does not advance any further. Had the cavalry done the exact same charge with a slide, it would have to advance 2.0 base widths.

Although some would argue that this scenario demonstrates use of 'tactics', it feels dirty to me.

Jesse



I would be happy if my opponent use his CP with so stupid way....
_________________
"Quand on a pas de technique, faut y aller à la zob"
Perceval à Yvain et Gauvain.
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
Za Otlichiye
Signifer


Inscrit le: 07 Sep 2021
Messages: 307
Localisation: Lovecraft country
MessagePosté le: Ven Aoû 05, 2022 6:31 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
I find it interesting that some of the folks so intent on explaining how uninterested they are in answering uninteresting questions find this question so interesting when I find it a rather uninteresting ambiguity.

But a question I do find interesting Very Happy - does anyone think that if there are no evasions of the charge, then there is no minimum charge distance (once the initial target(s) have been struck)? It appears to be what the rules say.
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
lionelrus
Magister Militum


Inscrit le: 21 Mar 2009
Messages: 4410
Localisation: paris
MessagePosté le: Ven Aoû 05, 2022 6:39 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Za Otlichiye a écrit:

But a question I do find interesting Very Happy - does anyone think that if there are no evasions of the charge, then there is no minimum charge distance (once the initial target(s) have been struck)? It appears to be what the rules say.


Interessing! No evading, no minimum move.
If not charging, no minimum move too....
_________________
"Quand on a pas de technique, faut y aller à la zob"
Perceval à Yvain et Gauvain.
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
  
 Art De La Guerre Index du Forum > Rules question V4
Page 1 sur 2 Aller à la page 1, 2  Suivante
Poster un nouveau sujet   Répondre au sujet Toutes les heures sont au format GMT

 
Sauter vers:  
Vous ne pouvez pas poster de nouveaux sujets dans ce forum
Vous ne pouvez pas répondre aux sujets dans ce forum
Vous ne pouvez pas éditer vos messages dans ce forum
Vous ne pouvez pas supprimer vos messages dans ce forum
Vous ne pouvez pas voter dans les sondages de ce forum