When you declare shoot & charge, you must be in charge range that is simple.
But from what distance are you shooting as they tactic as I understand it is shooting at the last moment to disrupt the target? ( a SK target is considered has shooting from one MU so stays till the charger are near )
Also do you have to shoot at the file to your front or within shooting range and still in a target UG ?
Shoot & Charge shooting occurs immediately on charge declaration, and at the distance when the charge is declared. Normal targeting priority rules apply, so if outside 1 BW any base in range/arc can be targeted - although I assume you have to shoot at what you are charging.
Quotealthough I assume you have to shoot at what you are charging
Assume is the problem ..it seems it is written nowhere 8)
IMHO the suggestion that a TuG with Shoot and Charge can target an enemy TuG with missle fire that is not the target of the charge stretches both the rule and reality beyond the max. The intent of the rule seems crystal clear to me.
Quote from: Pyrrhus on August 06, 2021, 06:37:51 PM
IMHO the suggestion that a TuG with Shoot and Charge can target an enemy TuG with missle fire that is not the target of the charge stretches both the rule and reality beyond the max. The intent of the rule seems crystal clear to me.
From the description for Shoot & Charge:
Quote
Shoot & Charge covers troops who were adept at firing a volley and following it with a charge to take immediate advantage of the effect of their shooting. The charge was still their primary fighting method, but with a softening up effect immediately beforehand.
If umpiring, I would happily rule that you must shoot at the unit you are charging, even if it's not written in the rules BECAUSE IT IS SO FREAKIN' OBVIOUS!!!
Sorry, back to my meds now...
Quote from: Francis Small on August 06, 2021, 06:46:31 PM
From the description for Shoot & Charge:
Quote
Shoot & Charge covers troops who were adept at firing a volley and following it with a charge to take immediate advantage of the effect of their shooting. The charge was still their primary fighting method, but with a softening up effect immediately beforehand.
If umpiring, I would happily rule that you must shoot at the unit you are charging, even if it's not written in the rules BECAUSE IT IS SO FREAKIN' OBVIOUS!!!
Sorry, back to my meds now...
The question is why would you shoot at a unit that you weren't charging? If there is sufficient tactical advantage in doing so, it seems reasonable to allow it.
Richard
Quote from: lionheartrjc on August 06, 2021, 07:42:41 PM
Quote from: Francis Small on August 06, 2021, 06:46:31 PM
From the description for Shoot & Charge:
Quote
Shoot & Charge covers troops who were adept at firing a volley and following it with a charge to take immediate advantage of the effect of their shooting. The charge was still their primary fighting method, but with a softening up effect immediately beforehand.
If umpiring, I would happily rule that you must shoot at the unit you are charging, even if it's not written in the rules BECAUSE IT IS SO FREAKIN' OBVIOUS!!!
Sorry, back to my meds now...
The question is why would you shoot at a unit that you weren't charging? If there is sufficient tactical advantage in doing so, it seems reasonable to allow it.
Richard
My initial question is much more simple : must the charger shoot at the base straigh to the front or may it shoot at the base on the side ?
The charger must shoot at the target of the charge but it might be more interesting to kill a base at one place for max effect and not the base just straigh forward .
The rules is the same for all types of shooting. It must only shoot at the base directly to front if within 1BW. At more than 1BW it may shoot to the file to the side (same as other shooting). There is nothing in the rules which says it must shoot at the target of the charge.
Richard
A clarification would be helpful here folks. I'm not sure that this was the intent of the characteristic - useful as it would be to get 5 shots on an UG in the charge phase immediately before charging it.
.... or not.
"firing a volley and following it with a charge to take immediate advantage of the effect of their shooting" suggests to me that the shooting must be at the target of their charge.
Like Richard, I see no reason to require that any or all of the shooting is at the charge target. As long as the shooting is at a target that is in arc and range of the charging/shooting base at the time of the charge declaration then all is good. There are many occasions where it would not be possible for all files of a charging unit to shoot at the target of the charge but could shoot at another target that they cannot contact: so why wouldn't they shoot?
I don't see any need for a clarification. The rules are as written - you cannot invent something that isn't written into the rules and then say it needs clarifying to remove it.
Richard
The definition of the characteristic is in the rules.
I'm dubious that the intent is an extra shooting bound for some UGs. It would appear to me that it might be to soften up the UG being charged.
Quote from: Hunter on August 08, 2021, 07:40:10 AM
I'm dubious that the intent is an extra shooting bound for some UGs. It would appear to me that it might be to soften up the UG being charged.
The rules quite clearly forbid shooting in both the charge phase and shooting phase. I can't see why you think anyone is getting an extra shooting bound. You only shoot in the charge phase either when responding to a charge or if you have "Shoot & Charge" (or Charge only) and declare a charge. In both cases, if a file shoots in the charge phase it cannot shoot in the shooting phase.
Richard
The issue is whether or not UGs with shoot and charge can shoot at one UG then charge another. I'm dubious that this is the intent having regard to the definition of the characteristic in the rules.
I am kind of with Hunter on this. It does seem a contradiction in terms. It also seems to me that the unit fires at the moment it declares its charge which would tend to suggest that there is some correlation between the two targets.
I struggle to see the commander shouting right lads charge the spear foot on the left but oh at the same time shoot at those guys way over there on the right.
Does not compute.
Also i guess the lads would want to shoot the guys they will charge...it is what i would do regarrdless of orders. Better have one less guy in front of you when you charge, that shoot further out just because that one is unprotected. Oh and in the heat of the moment the officer knows they are unprotected or knows there is a wound and that a forth rank of pike will dissapear.
Can't help feeling this is a storm in a teacup. Remember the chargers have to be within 3BW to shoot and charge. How often is a different target going to be both within 3BW and in arc and an advantage to shoot at? The use of the shooting flexibility as it stands is to concentrate fire on a single file of the charge target (if it is armoured or superior or some other reason why you would want to knock out that base before you arrive)... well at least that is the only way I've seen it used.
Quote from: marshalney2000 on August 08, 2021, 09:31:50 AM
I am kind of with Hunter on this. It does seem a contradiction in terms. It also seems to me that the unit fires at the moment it declares its charge which would tend to suggest that there is some correlation between the two targets.
I struggle to see the commander shouting right lads charge the spear foot on the left but oh at the same time shoot at those guys way over there on the right.
Does not compute.
Whoa, cut that out right now. Remember the club code - no agreeing! :)
Quote from: Hunter on August 07, 2021, 08:15:00 PM
"firing a volley and following it with a charge to take immediate advantage of the effect of their shooting" suggests to me that the shooting must be at the target of their charge.
Well, shooting at B to break it and cause a KAB test on A, then taking advantage of this to charge A would appear to be consistent with this.
The message I am understanding from "on high" is that shooting at other targets may not be what was originally envisaged, but the rules as written technically allow it and, as unintended consequences go, it is not egregious enough to warrant a clarification to ban it.
On the other hand, the document MeG-2019.1-Characteristics.pdf says
QuoteThe UG shoots immediately when they declare a charge, shooting from their current position at those they are charging only -‐ before any bases are moved or any reactions are made.
Quote from: daveparish on August 08, 2021, 09:58:20 AM
Can't help feeling this is a storm in a teacup. Remember the chargers have to be within 3BW to shoot and charge.
Or only 2BW if Javelins :P
Quote from: LawrenceG on August 09, 2021, 07:48:04 AM
Well, shooting at B to break it and cause a KAB test on A, then taking advantage of this to charge A would appear to be consistent with this.
Note that as discussed a bit back KaBs for routs do not happen until the end of the phase i.e. 2.8 in the Charge Phase and
not immediately.
Quote
The message I am understanding from "on high" is that shooting at other targets may not be what was originally envisaged, but the rules as written technically allow it and, as unintended consequences go, it is not egregious enough to warrant a clarification to ban it.
Indeed.
Well we have had clarifications for other things that could probably be of less importance.
i'm kinda with John on this. Lets nail it down and move on. My view is that - as far as i can make out - Si's intent is that
" the UG shoots immediately when they declare a charge, shooting from their current position at those they are charging only -‐ before any bases are moved or any reactions are made."
That's how i would play it but I'd like to know definitively if umpires will rule that they can shoot at any UG in arc and range. Even if it is - as posited - an unusual occurance. You know how it goes, it doesnt matter till it matters.
I would expect any umpire to rule it as RJC commented:
Quote from: RJC
The rules is the same for all types of shooting. It must only shoot at the base directly to front if within 1BW. At more than 1BW it may shoot to the file to the side (same as other shooting). There is nothing in the rules which says it must shoot at the target of the charge.
OK I know I said it is unlikely to happen on the table (and in general I stick by that) but I think the commonest situation where it would happen is a line of TUGs charging a line of enemy tugs. We seem to agree that if it is one Tug on one Tug the shooting bases can fire one over to concentrate their fire on a particular file. But if you have two TUGs (say A and B) charging two TUgs (say C and D) with everyone in nice battle lines ... then if you change the rules as Hunter and others suggest there will be a junction point where A can not fire one over to hit a file of C and B cannot fire one over to hit a file of D. Don't know if that matters but it feels like changing the rule will make things feel less realistic not more.
OK. I'm done.
HH
I suspect that someone will return to this one when some cheesy situation arises in a game.
I think LawrenceG's catch on the 2019 characteristics has to be addressed. To recap, the 2019.1 Characteristics Sheet, 12.2 for Shoot & Charge states:
Quote
The UG shoots immediately when they declare a charge, shooting from their current position at those they are charging only - before any bases are moved or any reactions are made.
All bolding and underlining as in the original.
Also note that the phrase "at those they are charging
only" is in blue, indicating that it is a change to the 2019 characteristics.
So in the 2019 characteristics, a change was made to explicitly specify that shooting for Shoot & Charge can only be at the target of the charge. After that change was made, was there an explicit decision to drop this requirement, or was it simply dropped inadvertently from the Compendium edition?
2019 characteristics were superseded by the Compendium Edition. They are no longer valid.
Unless any errata is issued, the rules are as written in the rulebook.
Richard
Ask Si? Looks like an unintentional omission.