charge question

[HobbitMiles]

Just to muddy the waters here, but surely the about face can be part of the move rahther than needing a separate move in its own right? A change of formation needs a move, but a change of facing does not (1st paragraph, pg 33).

[zedeyejoe]

Hence, I explained why not

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.

To follow up on your remark

A change of formation needs a move, but a change of facing does not

I suggest to you that you do need a move to change facing (p33 1st para as noted), it just occurs as part of a move. So without using a movement, a unit could not change its facing!

[Big Al]

Zedeye's right! Just to spell it out - The charging unit must be able to see the target unit at the beginning of its charge move. If it is facing the opposite way, then it can't see its intended enemy at the start of its move, so it must about face and then it can see its target. So, move one, about face. Move two, charge enemy that has suddenly come into view!

[HobbitMiles]

I thought BP was an anti rules lawyer game

My point was that the change of facing was part of a move, not that it could be done for free on its own. I think we all keep writing down half of what we actually mean to say!

[zedeyejoe]

That is why words should be precise to avoid confusion.

BP (or indeed any other game) could be played anyway the players like, up to them.

But the idea that a unit, facing away from the unit it wanted to charge, just flipped round and charged, all as part of one move does indeed sound strange. In fact I thought the reference to the idea that the turn around did not count as movement was a perfect example of rules lawyering (look it does not say it costs anything to turn, so its free!). Luckily seen it all before; from troops in 40K trying to count as not moving as they exit a vehicle, turning not counting as moving (does not cost any movement, sure but you had to move the figures to make it happen) and planes moving at double speed on a road (the rules said that everything moving on a road went at double speed but the airplane rule said that planes ignore terrain, so that did not work). So great, people have an idea, we discuss it and come out with the best answer, based on the two things we have to work with rules and common sense. Hopefully rules and common sense agree and no one feels the urge to mention rules lawyers.

But hopefully everyone now understands what is involved and how to do it.

[HobbitMiles]

I love the idea of aircraft moving a double speed on a road!!! Did someone really try that? I think I'd only allow it at VERY low altitude

Anyway, no, no I wasn't suggesting that a unit could turn and not count as moving, I was stating that a change of facing was free when moving, as per the rules. I think a lot of the confusion is due to the section "A few words about charge orders" on page 26. Personally I think it would very much depend on the exact situation - if the game were a confused street fight I might be inclined to allow it as an initiative move providing there wasn't something else more interesting that was in line of sight, providing all parties were happy - that is pretty much the golden rule when we play and unusual situations crop up.

I'm quite intrigued as to how 2 units got into that situation in the first place.

[zedeyejoe]

Yes indeed lots of people try lots of things, some of them in real life as well as in gaming. My favourite (in gaming) was a chap who said that as he had a degree in English, he understood the rule better than me. A degree in English may indeed be handy but not much use for wargaming.

But now we have it sorted that even though the turn in the move is for free, the first move cannot be a charge as the unit is not facing the right way to charge, so it needs to sort that out first. I doubt that it will make much difference to most peoples games but I could see a situation where you or the enemy had broken through the line and wanted to charge 'backwards'.

[Big Al]

I thought BP was an anti rules lawyer game

My point was that the change of facing was part of a move, not that it could be done for free on its own. I think we all keep writing down half of what we actually mean to say!

Generally, I agree with you (I'm not a rules lawyer, by the way. I absolutely hate that sort) but a unit can't charge something it can't see when it starts its move. That is actually in the rules.

[HobbitMiles]

Yup agree. On reflection I have no idea why I was pushing for alowing a single move when I said 2 moves at the begining of the discussion. I did play a game recently where there was lots of very confused melee and it ended up with pretty much anything being allowed on initiative (and someone with the initials RP was umpiring), but then this isn't a question about initiative.

[zedeyejoe]

Ah don't blame the rules writer. I get games wrong using my own rules. The problem is that you remember all the possible ways the rules were written before the public got to see them. It is a lot easier when you only have to deal with (someone else's) finished product.