charge question

[alopex]

no no

[zedeyejoe]

As I understood from all the answers, it doesn't matter, they can be with their back to the enemy, as long as they have enough movement they can charge, opening for some interesting new tactics

Not the way I would play it but it is a game where you choose the style that suits you best.

For me it is; one move to face the enemy, one (or more) moves to contact (charge) the enemy. So at least 2 movements to make contact if you start facing the wrong way.

[Big Al]

As I understood from all the answers, it doesn't matter, they can be with their back to the enemy, as long as they have enough movement they can charge, opening for some interesting new tactics

Not the way I would play it but it is a game where you choose the style that suits you best.

For me it is; one move to face the enemy, one (or more) moves to contact (charge) the enemy. So at least 2 movements to make contact if you start facing the wrong way.

Exactly!

[jazbo]

oooh interesting.

On page 26 it says:

"it is not necessary that the intended opponent is in sight when the order is given"

It then says on page 57:

"the units leader must be able to see the unit being charged..."


So, for me, the unit can be ordered to about face and charge as a single order that turn quite legitimately, even though it cannot contact with just one move because it cannot see its intended target using one move. However, with multiple moves it does become visible before a charge move is made (ie the final move of 12" or less). You could about face and move towards the unit within 8" using one move, and if you get two or more moves, you can use the second move as your charge move. The physical distance of the charge move to be made is irrelevant (as long as it is no more than 12").

So no need for two orders, which would require two different turns as a unit can only receive on order per turn. You must be able to see the enemy at the start of your charge move, which if you get two or three moves allows you to claim the second move as your charge move.

As Big Al says, the distinction is between a TURN, and the up to three MOVES for a unit within each turn.

Rick, Rick...?

No, you only need one order, but you need to include the charge, or full extent of what you want to do in the order. Then you roll for it. If you roll a single move, your unit can about face. If you roll two moves, then your unit will about face for the first move and then charge for the second. It doesn't matter if you would normally allow an about face as part of a normal move, you would need two because the target unit is not in LoS when the order is given and needs to be when the unit starts its charge. Don't get it confused with the proximity rule, which was designed to stop players "jinking" units from the front of a target unit onto its flank or rear so that it can charge said flank or rear, rather than the front.

Dont understand the reply Al.

I said:

"So, for me, the unit can be ordered to about face and charge as a single order that turn quite legitimately,"

You replied:

"No, you only need one order, but you need to include the charge".

So we totally agree? You can declare the about facew and charge as a single order, but need two moves to turn adn then be facing the target for the start of the second (charge) move.

[jazbo]

Do you mean two moves, or that you would require two seperate orders to be given over two turns?

As I understood from all the answers, it doesn't matter, they can be with their back to the enemy, as long as they have enough movement they can charge, opening for some interesting new tactics

Not the way I would play it but it is a game where you choose the style that suits you best.

For me it is; one move to face the enemy, one (or more) moves to contact (charge) the enemy. So at least 2 movements to make contact if you start facing the wrong way.

[zedeyejoe]

As from the previous posts, you can make 3 moves in a turn, covered by a single order roll.

[jazbo]

Thats what I thought. Which is why I was confused when you disagreed with alopex earlier. He said:

"as I understood from all the answers, it doesn't matter, they can be with their back to the enemy, as long as they have enough movement they can charge"

So he is saying yes you can charge if you have the moves (ie more than 1) to do so when facing away.

You then say:

"Not the way I would play it"

And then go on to describe exactly what he already said!


No wonder its so confusing around here.

As from the previous posts, you can make 3 moves in a turn, covered by a single order roll.

[zedeyejoe]

If I had said exactly what he had said, then I would not have bothered saying it. See below as to the differences.

To me it was important to clarify that you need at least 2 movements to make the charge. And I was able to clarify for you that those 2 movements can be covered by a single order - seemed an obvious point but perhaps not to everyone.

as I understood from all the answers, it doesn't matter, they can be with their back to the enemy, as long as they have enough movement they can charge

Could be read as; one move would be sufficient to get a charge in, if the distance between the two units allowed it. Obviously such a view would make the requirement to see the enemy when charging, redundant and so not compatible with the existing rules.

In a game like Warmaster, each new move would require a separate order to be given and a new roll made for each order. But in Black Powder you can make up to 3 moves if you get lucky enough with the dice.

[Big Al]

So no need for two orders, which would require two different turns as a unit can only receive on order per turn. You must be able to see the enemy at the start of your charge move, which if you get two or three moves allows you to claim the second move as your charge move.

As Big Al says, the distinction is between a TURN, and the up to three MOVES for a unit within each turn.

Rick, Rick...?

No, you only need one order, but you need to include the charge, or full extent of what you want to do in the order. Then you roll for it. If you roll a single move, your unit can about face. If you roll two moves, then your unit will about face for the first move and then charge for the second. It doesn't matter if you would normally allow an about face as part of a normal move, you would need two because the target unit is not in LoS when the order is given and needs to be when the unit starts its charge. Don't get it confused with the proximity rule, which was designed to stop players "jinking" units from the front of a target unit onto its flank or rear so that it can charge said flank or rear, rather than the front.

Dont understand the reply Al.

I said:

"So, for me, the unit can be ordered to about face and charge as a single order that turn quite legitimately,"

You replied:

"No, you only need one order, but you need to include the charge".

So we totally agree? You can declare the about facew and charge as a single order, but need two moves to turn adn then be facing the target for the start of the second (charge) move.

Sorry I was responding to this bit

"So no need for two orders, which would require two different turns as a unit can only receive on order per turn. You must be able to see the enemy at the start of your charge move, which if you get two or three moves allows you to claim the second move as your charge move."

Should have made it clearer. I was only trying to emphasise that you only need one order and the appropriate dice rolls to make two moves. Again, it's that thing about "moves" as opposed to "Turns". You give a single order to a unit per turn, which can result in up to three moves. When you're typing things out they can become confused. I should have deleted parts of the text and only kept in the relevant part.

[Cubster]

What if he's got a bunch?