Chargers changing direction to follow evaders - official clarification required

[jasonbroomer]

Simon,

The situation:

a charger declares a charge direction straight ahead to maximise the number of bases that would make contact with an enemy.

The enemy is at an angle to the charger and evades. Unfortunately he throws a 1 and evades short.

The charger can make contact with the enemy, but now only one base is in the original 'charge zone'

RJC informs me that the charger cannot change the charge direction (to impact both bases) since he can make contact. Hence only one base is contacted

Bizarrely, if the evader had rolled a 2, the evader would have been completely out of arc of the 'charge zone' therefore the charger would be able to wheel to follow the evader and make contact with both bases

This feels weird, and my little brain is struggling with this interpretation. (thinking about it, the changing direction of charge rule may be worded so that it only applies if the unit moves out of the charge zone and not the base).

Could we have a clarification (or better still a correction to permit two bases to contact)

[lionheartrjc]

The rule says (9.4 F 6)  "Changes of direction are only allowed where the target of charge has moved.  This must be in an attempt to catch them and may not exceed the limit of a 90o wheel at the beginning of the charge." 

The logic I took in making the ruling was that as the UG was already being caught, no change of direction is permitted.
If you allow a change of direction even if the UG is being caught this opens up the rule to cheesiness. You could, for example, change your direction to deliberately miss another UG which was the original target of your charge or to contact another UG that wasn't originally the target of the charge.  I do however understand that it is odd the way it worked out in your situation.

Richard

[daveparish]

There is also the supplementary question. If the evader moves out of the charge path is the charger allowed to make any wheel they like - or must they just make the minimum wheel to catch one base (because that brings the evader into the charge path so now the charger can't make any further changes)?

[lionheartrjc]

There is also the supplementary question. If the evader moves out of the charge path is the charger allowed to make any wheel they like - or must they just make the minimum wheel to catch one base (because that brings the evader into the charge path so now the charger can't make any further changes)?

This certainly isn't clear.  It might help if it said "Changes of direction are only allowed where the target of charge has moved outside the charge path.  This must be by the minimum necessary in an attempt to catch them and may not exceed the limit of a 90o wheel at the beginning of the charge.".

[Simon Meg-Meister]

A good one that needs a little tightening.

It might play better to say:

"Changes of direction are allowed where the target of charge has moved.  If the charging player chooses to change direction this must be the wheel that creates the maximum number of contacts (charge combat dice) up to a maximum of 90 degrees."

I deliberately didn't say minimum in the original as the above is more my intent.  Making it clear you can go on the original line or change probably sorts it.  Without knowing the detailed situation I suspect that solves it.  The restrictions in there I hope stop any RJC cheese scenarios.  To be fair you could deliberately miss an original target in the original version.

Si

[jasonbroomer]

The rule says (9.4 F 6)  "Changes of direction are only allowed where the target of charge has moved.  This must be in an attempt to catch them and may not exceed the limit of a 90o wheel at the beginning of the charge." 

The logic I took in making the ruling was that as the UG was already being caught, no change of direction is permitted.
If you allow a change of direction even if the UG is being caught this opens up the rule to cheesiness. You could, for example, change your direction to deliberately miss another UG which was the original target of your charge or to contact another UG that wasn't originally the target of the charge.  I do however understand that it is odd the way it worked out in your situation.

Richard

I have problem with the cheesiness of the ruling  It might upset some hence a request for clarification just in case a problem emerges later

[Jilu]

"Changes of direction are allowed where the target of charge has moved.  If the charging player chooses to change direction this must be the wheel that creates the maximum number of contacts (charge combat dice) up to a maximum of 90 degrees."

Is that maximum number of contacts with the evading unit? or whatever encountered unit?

[marshalney2000]

I find it difficult to imagine a charge that has been launched being too manouverable. Certainly deviate to follow evading troops it was charging but to become an Exocet of target choice concerns me.

[lionheartrjc]

"Changes of direction are allowed where the target of charge has moved.  If the charging player chooses to change direction this must be the wheel that creates the maximum number of contacts (charge combat dice) up to a maximum of 90 degrees."

Is that maximum number of contacts with the evading unit? or whatever encountered unit?

My view it should defintely be to maximise the number of contacts with the charge target(s).  Otherwise it would be open to cheesiness.  Shame there isn't an emoticon for cheesiness!   

[nikgaukroger]

[Hunter]

or ........ minimum move required to make contact with evaders.
HH

[nikgaukroger]

"Changes of direction are allowed where the target of charge has moved.  If the charging player chooses to change direction this must be the wheel that creates the maximum number of contacts (charge combat dice) up to a maximum of 90 degrees."

Is that maximum number of contacts with the evading unit? or whatever encountered unit?

My view it should defintely be to maximise the number of contacts with the charge target(s).  Otherwise it would be open to cheesiness.  Shame there isn't an emoticon for cheesiness!   

I concur, definitely the maximum amount of contact.

[Simon Meg-Meister]

Added to official clarries

First of new stream as everything to date has been consolidated by RJC into an update on the website.

S

[steads]

It seems a bit strange that I can set up a charge to  just hit something with part of a base (to avoid being flanked for instance) but if they evade I have to change my path, not to achieve the same amount of contact I originally intended but to acheive the maximum contact possible.

[Simon Meg-Meister]

Is it worth added complexity though.
Only means it is harder to pick a spot on an evader - which has a certain correctness to it.

I rationalise it as:

"Chaps charge the end of the line" = easy and doable when its stationary
"Chaps charge the end of the line" = impossible if the dman thing moves and changes shape

Not against making more complex but think the KISS version is sufficient.

S