p. 120, PATH OF CHARGE - The description in the paragraph does not appear to match the diagram immediately below it. The paragraph states 'It is the area covered by the charging UG continuing past troops that are doing a run away or skirmish to the limit of the charger's move, but is blocked by enemy standing to receive.' However, the diagram appears to show the grey-shaded path of the charge stopping at the position of the Velites even though as a SUG, they must run away or skirmish. Have I missed something or was this just an unfortunately chosen example of an UG to be forward of the legionaries? This has a follow on effect on the SHOOTING AT CHARGERS rule on p. 130.
p. 130, SHOOTING AT CHARGERS, para 2 - It makes sense for shooters to be unable to shoot at chargers if skirmishers are between them and their target for much of the charge move. In this case it makes sense for the path of charge to stop at the SUG's position as outlined in the diagram on p. 120 because those standing to receive can only shoot at chargers if the path of charge comes within 1BW. However, the words on p. 120 state that the path of charge continues past UGs that do not stand, which appears to indicate that the shooters 'revealed' by the skirmishers running away could shoot and so is a significant contradiction.
I hope what I have asked is clear enough to get an answer.
Steve
Wondered when this one would crop up - its not entirely intuitive :)
The diagram on page 120 only has the part of the path of charge stop that "meets" the velites, the rest of the path is continuing past the velites. If the velites could stand to receive the charge (were in bad terrain for example) the whole path of charge would stop on the line of the front of the velites and none of it would continue past this.
This difference is important in respect of the page 130 rule that "revealed shooters" do not shoot. The part of the path of charge that is blocked in the diagram on page 130 is where any "revealed shooters" would be.
BTW this shows there is a slight issue with the diagram on page 130 that was not picked up in proofing - the path of charge should be blocked by the right hand Numidians. I think we missed it as it is not demonstrating the same thing.
Does that help?
Perhaps, let me check with you.
The definition in para G: PATH OF CHARGE says: 'It is the area covered by the charging UG continuing past troops that are doing a run away or skirmish to the limit of the chargers move, but is blocked by enemy standing to receive'.
First, when you say 'past' skirmishers I think you mean 'around' skirmishers. In other words, skirmishers in the open block that part of the path of charge covered by the front of their SuG while TuGs stop the entire path of charge level with their front edge. I read 'past' as 'through' or 'beyond', which didn't match the diagram and hence my confusion.
I also think that when you say 'blocked by enemy standing to receive', you mean 'blocked on the line of the front edge of enemy standing to receive'? That would mean if the Velite SuG was instead a Legionary TuG, the path of charge would stop level with the front of the TuG.
If I have interpreted you correctly, I can see that in the first case it was a misunderstanding on my part. However, in the second I would argue the reader is left to make a jump in logic - there is no mention of front edges. In both cases it demonstrates the difficulty of rules writing and so the need for thorough review.
Also, if I have interpreted you correctly, the 'revealed shooters' para on p. 130 now makes sense notwithstanding the unfortunate error in the accompanying diagram. That said, if a TuG is screened by a SuG that does not completely cover the front of the TuG, the latter might still be able to shoot at chargers with files that are not blocked by the skirmishers.
You were right - it was not intuitive 🤷♂️ but how was my read-back?
Looks to me like you've got it sorted 8)
Of course that's assuming I haven't ballsed up my understanding :o But I'm sure Si will give his yea or nay on that when he next visits the forum :)
Yes you've got it sorted.
Definitely one of the harder concepts to explain in words.
Diagram much easier.
Yes so the intent of 'Past' being going beyond them, as against 'through'.
So sort of around if you prefer.
But that implies a "surrounding' movement so avoided it.
It's quite important in its effect to sort out shooting out.
Further shooters beyond evaders and to their sides shoot, but not revealed shooters.
Vital as really abusable otherwise with multiple lines of shooters becoming a gamey trick.
Si
This is all in the charge phase though. Am I right that if skirmishers A evade through friendly shooters B and the charge doesn't contact B then B will get to shoot in the shooting phase (ie the revealed shooter classification doesn't carry over into the shooting phase)? I don't think it allows too much dodgy-ness because the charger can make sure he is within striking range of B before charging - and can push A around because it is a SUG
Dave P
Yes, this is all about shooting at chargers.
Thanks All.
Like I said, in the first case I can put that down to my misinterpretation of 'past', especially when combined with the diagram. However, it would help in the second to mention the P of C stopping on the line of the front edge of a non-evading UG. That would have helped prevent me from misinterpreting past too😁
Steve
Thanks Steve0.
Good to gather all these to find the best ways to explain.
Thankfully not many tricky concepts in Mortem et Gloriam.
Probably only this and close proximity zones.
Si
As a relatively new MEG player, I agree Simon. The concepts are pretty straight forward - the challenge is writing them down such that they are accurately explained. I do not underestimate how difficult this is, especially when you have to counter those who would game the system. In any case you have my separate comments.
Steve