shoot & charge

[lionheartrjc]

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

[Hunter]

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.

[marshalney2000]

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.

[Jilu]

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.

[daveparish]

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.

[Hunter]

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! 

[LawrenceG]

"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

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.

[nikgaukroger]

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 

[nikgaukroger]

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.

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.

[marshalney2000]

Well we have had clarifications for other things that could probably be of less importance.

[Hunter]

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.

[nikgaukroger]

I would expect any umpire to rule it as RJC commented:

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.

[daveparish]

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.

[Hunter]

OK. I'm done.
HH

[marshalney2000]

I suspect that someone will return to this one when some cheesy situation arises in a game.