The more I think about this, the more confused I get...
Grimolde wrote:Just use common sense, using real life as a guide.
Can the charger parry missile attacks with a shield? I say yes, probably at a penalty
Hm, maybe. But perhaps only when the shooter is the target of the charge? If the missile attack comes from another direction, I would not allow parrying it, since I would assume the charger is completely focused on his prey and accordingly have his shield towards the target.
Can the target get an arrow off before the charger closes? Sure, again at a penalty for a moving target
Yep, this I am allowing as per myc example with musket/pistol. Though perhaps the penalty wouldnt necessarily be as big as for normal moving target, because the target is moving straight towards the shooter?
Can the charger cancel his charge if the target moves out of range? Yes, why not?
Well, yes when thinking in common sense and real life terms, but within the turn structure, I dunno? I am assuming that the charge has to be declared at the first available strike rank for the character in that turn? Otherwise, if he uses the first action for something else, he's already used one CA, and this would disqualify him from the charge (which specifies only one CA + charge movement)? And as the charge occurs on that first strike rank, the defender can't really move out of range because it's not his turn yet, and because the rule allows only attack/evade? Unless you mean evade by moving out of range?
As I see it, there's problem with the definition of charge. It's a bit vague and problematic, especially as it is a an exception to the turn sequence. As Duncan mentions above, what happens when there are multiple characters nearby, some are charging/charged at, and some aren't? This is where it gets pretty hairy, it seems?
Common sense says this can't be true.
Imagine the situation where A and B are fighting. Both have 3 CA's.
A's mate C arrives on the scene at the start of the next round and declares a charge on B. (We'll asume he has a clear path that is not blocked by A). If being the target of a charge meant B could only act at the end of the round then merely by declaring the charge , C would be allowing A 2 unopposed attacks.
Yes, this is tricky. Assuming that the charge has to happen on the first available SR to C, A and B may have already exchanged a blow before the charge (depending on SRs?) Then when C charges, B may either turn towards C and attack, thus ignoring A, or he may Evade C, in which case I might rule he also tries to Evade A as well? In any case, if you're facing multiple opponents, you're bound to be in trouble in any case, ie. running out of CA to parry and so on. But that's beside the point, as far the charge rule is concerned.
Conversely if X and Y have identical stats, and are standing side by side, each armed with 2 loaded and primed flintlock pistols when Z declares a charge on X. If this prevented Z from acting miore than once you would have the situation where Y could shoot Z twice, but Z only once...
Assuming Z would actually use melee weapon? If Z had a long way to charge, then I think it would quite reasonable to allow both pistoliers discharging their weapons before the charge resolution took place, unless X and Y are very slow? I think they could shoot both pistols at the same time, if necessary, so X would have shoot more in haste, using a single attack for both pistols (if he wanted to shoot both barrels) taking a heavy penalty perhaps, and Y could shoot more leisurely fashion, knowing he's not about to get his head bashed in? Then with the charge resolution, Z would be free to hack away at X (who can't do anything, as he's attacked already as a response to the charge, plus possibly his pistols are spent), and Y would have used either one or two actions, depending on SR and charge distance. If the charge distance was relatively short, and the charger very quick (high SR), then I would allow Y to attack before the charge resolution only if his SR was before Z?
Does that make sense? I am not trying to make any definite claims or rulings, just trying to get my head around the concept write things up?
Anyways, it seems I am not alone in being confused about this matter?