2026 Proposed Amendment #3 Moving a SuG to allow a charge

[lionheartrjc]

See here.

Change "C1 Extra restriction to C1 move in that it must move through the UG or UGs being allowed to charge."

The purpose of this change is to prevent players exploiting this action.  The move must now pass through the UG(s) that is being allowed to charge.

[tarnowski1]

could this be Changed to  "C1 Extra restriction to C1 move in that it must move through or end with its front edge entirely behind the front edge of the UG or UGs being allowed to charge."

this would allow cavalry skirmishers to 180/90 degree turn and wheel out of the way, while still enforcing a 'retreat'.

[nikgaukroger]

To be honest I think the real solution to the C1 issues is to just remove it. Means you'd just have to get your ducks in a row the move before you wanted to charge.

[badhabum]

Keep C1 otherwise SUG's might tend to disappear but the change might be a good one

[nikgaukroger]

I really realy don't see SUGs disappearing if the C1 move were to be removed. So many other uses other than as a meat screen.

[SteveO]

To be honest I think the real solution to the C1 issues is to just remove it. Means you'd just have to get your ducks in a row the move before you wanted to charge.

...and it would simplify the rules a bit.

[nikgaukroger]

And we could do with some simplification IMO.

[badhabum]

I really realy don't see SUGs disappearing if the C1 move were to be removed. So many other uses other than as a meat screen.

I  noticed that also few use their skirmishers to harass their opponents or hold terrain ( ask Marcin how I annoyed him )

[tarnowski1]

To be honest I think the real solution to the C1 issues is to just remove it. Means you'd just have to get your ducks in a row the move before you wanted to charge.

fair enough remove the C1 move but allow any tug to declare a paid for charge, at any distance, through their own skirmishers , auto destroying them. As much as I agree with the sentiment of ducks in a row, it will make the game longer, extra turns delay, and probably reduce peoples desire to use skirmishers. Which is a shame, meat shields or no.

[SteveO]

As much as I agree with the sentiment of ducks in a row, it will make the game longer, extra turns delay, and probably reduce peoples desire to use skirmishers. Which is a shame, meat shields or no.

That's one view. The contrary one is that it would reward players who think ahead and plan their moves.

[Count_bohemond]

Better to delete the c1 move entirely. Get skirmishers in the correct place in the first place.

[nikgaukroger]

As much as I agree with the sentiment of ducks in a row, it will make the game longer, extra turns delay, and probably reduce peoples desire to use skirmishers. Which is a shame, meat shields or no.

That's one view. The contrary one is that it would reward players who think ahead and plan their moves.

I'm not convinced by the idea that it would make the game longer - other than in the way any change can do until players get a couple of games under their belts and understand the new reality.

[Doomsmile]

NGL, I'll probably phase out skirmishers in tournament lists if they're just going to surrender points to my opponent when it's time for me to charge with the foot/EL they're screening. They'd just be more trouble than they're worth at that point.

[nikgaukroger]

I don't see how they would be "just going to surrender points".

[Geoff]

I like this proposal.
It could be made even more simple by saying that only an M10 move can be used.