Charging Issues

[duncan_disorderly]

Grimolde, I assume you mean this all happening in 1 round over 4 CA's.

IMO: C can't charge because charging allows the use of only 1 CA per round and he has already spent 3 of his CA watching the fight. That is why, when declaring a charge it can only be done on your first CA.

He can however, move up to his movement on his 4th CA and attack gaining a minimum of 1 CM which is going to leave A up the proverbial creek.

On the other hand, if he had elected to charge A on his 1st CA, A would be in deep, deep trouble. A is facing off with B, therefore he is unaware of the charge. As charging takes up C's 1st, 2nd and 3rd CA his attack goes "off on his 4th CA. A can't defend, suffers the increased damage from the charge and a minimum of 1 CM. Nice knowing ya, A!

This is why the timing becomes quite important.
If C's charge uses up all his CA's for the round and the attack occurs on his last one, then A&B spend 3 CA's fighting each other, and then A gets hit at the end of the round. If he knew the charge was coming he could try and save a CA to parry/evade it.

If C's charge uses up all his CA's for the round and the attack occurs on his first CA then A & B have spent each acted once (they have a higher SR than C) - say they both hit and parried then they have 1CA each left. A can parry C, but B then gets an unopposed attack on A.

If C's charge uses up all his CA's for the round, and forces A to spend all his CA's in facing the charge then B gets three unopposed attacks on A.

 

[danskmacabre]

Personally I'll be keeping my combats fairly abstract.
I will be using figures, but not counting squares, measuring etc.

PAthfinder does a great job of tactical combat, but MRQ2 does a great job with the maneuvers, and all the special attacks etc, I can't be bothered tracking precise movements etc, so hopefully this will circumvent some of the issues with charging.

I'm gonna have a play with some test combats over this weekend anyway, will discuss it here if people are interested.

 

[Verderer]

I did a search on charge, and found this rather revealing post containing Pete's answers:

The charging doesn't make any sense to me either.

Okay, first off, there's an error on p90, bullet point 4. It should say "Evading the charge permits the recipient to make an Opposed Test of his Evade skill versus the opponent's attack skill". The combat example is correct.

Do you spend one CA to charge and another one to attack, or just one CA for both actions?

The combined movement and attack of a charge only takes 1 CA.

Movement is measured per round, not per CA. So, if two characters are separated 20 metres between them, and both have spears and want to charge each other, for exemple, how do you treat this round?

The amount of distance you need to move for a charge has deliberately been left nebulous. The rules are designed for abstract play. It depends on the scene and what the GM thinks is reasonable.

If a short weapon user charges against a long weapon user, can the defender use a CA to attack the charger before receiving the impact? Should the defender declare it during his turn?

Yes, its mentioned on p90, bullet point 3. During a charge, whomever has the longer reach weapon should strike first. If they are both the same length, the just rely on initiative.

Charging only lets you take 1 CA but then you talk later about charging multiple opponents. In the example the player charges on his last combat action giving him a full 3.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here? Formations of defenders is mentioned, but only as an example of where a charge may be staggered or hindered.

Being restricted to 1 CA in a round is for situations where the charger can do a ride by attack, i.e. you don't stop and therefor contact is inherently brief. If however you charge into contact with the express desire to remain embroiled, then don't use the rules mentioned in the final two bullet points. :wink:

I bolded the last bit which seems crucial to me. So if you are doing a 'regular' charge by one infantry man against other, then do not use the last two bullet points of the cahrge rule! This changes it quite a lot, I think.

So reading the rule again, now dropping the last two points out, it seems that charge is one CA, and you can do whatever you like with the remaining CA for that round? And the same for the defender?

However, the bit about defender's reaction to the charge still remains, you can either stand firm or evade. I wonder if this bit about the defenders choice has more to do with cavalry charge than man vs. man charge? I mean, if the defender keeps his CA after all, then it wouldn't make sense to allow him an attack out of SR order, right? So would I be correct in thinking that this option as well would be better reserved for the charge and run-through option, like that last two points?

One real problem remaining with this solution is movement and the number of charge CA one can take in a round. As the normal Move action seems to limit movement without penalty to the base move (8 normally), it would seem rather odd to allow multiple charges in a round using the sprint movement? So how to go about limiting this? Some answers in that other thread seemed to indicate allowing multiple charges in a round.

 

[Grimolde]

I hate to say it, but I'm almost sure the charge rules are broken when it comes to using a battle mat. I've done enough mock combats now to know there's definitely a few issues. I cannot get my head around them, as they stand. Nor can I find a resolution, without it throwing up another issue.

I'm just waiting and hoping for some official response.

 

[Verderer]

Well, how about treating charge as regular CA which gives the attacker the increased damage bonus? Handle everything else as per regular rules?

As to movement with charge or otherwise, you can walk 8 meters (normally) or sprint 8x5 meters minus armour penalty? You can do multiple charges in a round, if your sprint is enough to cover all the charge distances? And provided you manage to take out all your opponents with one blow etc.

 

[Grimolde]

Well, how about treating charge as regular CA which gives the attacker the increased damage bonus? Handle everything else as per regular rules?

As to movement with charge or otherwise, you can walk 8 meters (normally) or sprint 8x5 meters minus armour penalty? You can do multiple charges in a round, if your sprint is enough to cover all the charge distances? And provided you manage to take out all your opponents with one blow etc.

I was looking at doing almost exactly this earlier in the week. But something about unrealistic move rates in a combat round came up. Can't remember now.

What about this?

You can declare a charge once a combat round, as long as you have at least 4 metres of move left. A charge trebles whatever movement you have left, and the charge can be declared on any CA.

If you declare a charge, you cannot sprint..

That's it.

 

[Deleriad]

I hate to say it, but I'm almost sure the charge rules are broken when it comes to using a battle mat. I've done enough mock combats now to know there's definitely a few issues. I cannot get my head around them, as they stand. Nor can I find a resolution, without it throwing up another issue.

I'm just waiting and hoping for some official response.

The charge rules don't work with a gridded battle map. In general the movement rules don't work very well on a gird with action by action movement.

Movement in RQ is more like zone movement in Fate or WFRP 3e. If you come at it from a system like d20 it won't work.

I did work up an action-by-action movement system using a grid on my wiki.

If you want to stick with RAW you simply have to handwave when the charge happens on a case-by-case basis. If you try to use the movement rules RAW as a strict timing system that is integrated with CAs it won't work. This is because CAs are not time-dependent.

For example, a character might parry 3 times on SR 17 against a horde of fast mook and use all their CAs on the opening SR. CAs don't work as a measure of chronology, only as a measure of actions.

 

[Verderer]

Of course they don't, the SRs are for that.

With my limited experience on RQII combat, I don't see why the rules can't work on the grid? The movement and charge are the only big an issue (assuming I have now worked out charge), because they have been poorly defined, to be honest. If you give a rule, it must have clear and concise definition, otherwise it's no rule at all. It's no good saying 'this is meant to be abstract' or 'just wing it', especially when the system is otherwise so detailed.

 

[DamonJynx]

Being restricted to 1 CA in a round is for situations where the charger can do a ride by attack, i.e. you don't stop and therefor contact is inherently brief. If however you charge into contact with the express desire to remain embroiled, then don't use the rules mentioned in the final two bullet points.

I mentioned that in Grimolde's Movement issues thread. I thought I was right. But you everyone knows what thought did...

We use a battlemat in our game and don't seem to have too many issues. Maybe because we're not doing it "right". I can't remember now exactly how I ruled it, but it was nowhere near as complicated or confusing as this thread and the other movement thread make it.

 

[Grimolde]

Being restricted to 1 CA in a round is for situations where the charger can do a ride by attack, i.e. you don't stop and therefor contact is inherently brief. If however you charge into contact with the express desire to remain embroiled, then don't use the rules mentioned in the final two bullet points.

I mentioned that in Grimolde's Movement issues thread. I thought I was right. But you everyone knows what thought did...

We use a battlemat in our game and don't seem to have too many issues. Maybe because we're not doing it "right". I can't remember now exactly how I ruled it, but it was nowhere near as complicated or confusing as this thread and the other movement thread make it.

Perhaps because you aren't doing it right

Seriously though, I just tried my homebrew rule out for charging and it 'seemed' to work just fine. Too early to say for definite though

 

[Verderer]

Being restricted to 1 CA in a round is for situations where the charger can do a ride by attack, i.e. you don't stop and therefor contact is inherently brief. If however you charge into contact with the express desire to remain embroiled, then don't use the rules mentioned in the final two bullet points.

I mentioned that in Grimolde's Movement issues thread. I thought I was right. But you everyone knows what thought did...

We use a battlemat in our game and don't seem to have too many issues. Maybe because we're not doing it "right". I can't remember now exactly how I ruled it, but it was nowhere near as complicated or confusing as this thread and the other movement thread make it.

Yes, you did. But it has to be said that the rules only support this, if you choose to disregard some of them. And now it looks like most of the charge rules refer to a very specific type of mounted charge, don't they? So I would say the rules are to blame for many people making this matter much too complex, simply because the rules are so vague/lacking in the movement/charge department?

 

[DamonJynx]

Perhaps because you aren't doing it right

Seriously though, I just tried my homebrew rule out for charging and it 'seemed' to work just fine. Too early to say for definite though

You're probably right about us not doing it right. :lol:
At the end of the day, do whatever is right for you and your group. Remember, your Runequest will vary!

 

[DamonJynx]

Yes, you did. But it has to be said that the rules only support this, if you choose to disregard some of them. And now it looks like most of the charge rules refer to a very specific type of mounted charge, don't they? So I would say the rules are to blame for many people making this matter much too complex, simply because the rules are so vague/lacking in the movement/charge department?

I don't think they're necessarily vague, certainly they don't cater for every situation. I like the fact that the designers and authors give us the credit to be able to think for ourselves and make judgements based on what's best for our individual games and groups, rather than spoon feed us with a 320 page epic that covers PC's, followed by another 320 page masterpiece that covers how to run a game, followed by another 320 pages of monsters for our amusement.

 

[Grimolde]

Perhaps because you aren't doing it right

Seriously though, I just tried my homebrew rule out for charging and it 'seemed' to work just fine. Too early to say for definite though

You're probably right about us not doing it right. :lol:
At the end of the day, do whatever is right for you and your group. Remember, your Runequest will vary!

I wouldn't be surprised if a load of people are reading the charge rules incorrectly. I did for a long time.

"Your RuneQuest will vary!" - This is the very first thing I said to the group when we were tackling the charge rules. It was refreshing to have to say, 'we'll just make it up'. After playing 3.5 for the last few months, it was like the shackles came off.

For the record, I think MRQ2 is a brilliant game, it's just the charge rules that get me. Everything else is great.

 

[Grimolde]

Yes, you did. But it has to be said that the rules only support this, if you choose to disregard some of them. And now it looks like most of the charge rules refer to a very specific type of mounted charge, don't they? So I would say the rules are to blame for many people making this matter much too complex, simply because the rules are so vague/lacking in the movement/charge department?

I don't think they're necessarily vague, certainly they don't cater for every situation. I like the fact that the designers and authors give us the credit to be able to think for ourselves and make judgements based on what's best for our individual games and groups, rather than spoon feed us with a 320 page epic that covers PC's, followed by another 320 page masterpiece that covers how to run a game, followed by another 320 pages of monsters for our amusement.

I understand what you are saying Damon, but even 4 of us thinking for oursleves (and one of them being a GURPS expert), we are still flumoxed by the charge rules.

 

[Verderer]

Yes, you did. But it has to be said that the rules only support this, if you choose to disregard some of them. And now it looks like most of the charge rules refer to a very specific type of mounted charge, don't they? So I would say the rules are to blame for many people making this matter much too complex, simply because the rules are so vague/lacking in the movement/charge department?

I don't think they're necessarily vague, certainly they don't cater for every situation. I like the fact that the designers and authors give us the credit to be able to think for ourselves and make judgements based on what's best for our individual games and groups, rather than spoon feed us with a 320 page epic that covers PC's, followed by another 320 page masterpiece that covers how to run a game, followed by another 320 pages of monsters for our amusement.

To me they don't cater any situation at the moment, because movement hasn't been defined precisely enough, so that even a blockhead like me understood them. As we have seen already, many of us (or some, me certainly) have misunderstood the rules on movement/charge, because they were not stated clearly enough. It has nothing to do with the system handling combat in abstract manner to me. It is simply a case of vague or even misleading rule. It wouldn't take many rows of text to be absolutely clear on this issue, would it? As a GM I get to make judgements on special circumstances and improvise often enough as it it, a basic thing like movement in combat should be crystal clear, in my humble opinion.

 

[Grimolde]

To me they don't cater any situation at the moment, because movement hasn't been defined precisely enough, so that even a blockhead like me understood them. As we have seen already, many of us (or some, me certainly) have misunderstood the rules on movement/charge, because they were not stated clearly enough. It has nothing to do with the system handling combat in abstract manner to me. It is simply a case of vague or even misleading rule. It wouldn't take many rows of text to be absolutely clear on this issue, would it? As a GM I get to make judgements on special circumstances and improvise often enough as it it, a basic thing like movement in combat should be crystal clear, in my humble opinion.

Agree with this sentiment 100%

It's not that the game is abstract, for me, and I hate to say this, I think the charge rules are borked to some extent

 

[Redcrow]

It would be nice to have a sticky at the top of this page with links to threads in which the Authors of MRQ2 have made rules clarifications like this.

 

[Grimolde]

I'll post this again because I've tested it a few times now, and it seems to work pretty good.

Charging:

- You can declare a charge once a combat round, as long as you have at least 4 metres of move left.

- A charge trebles whatever movement you have left, and the charge can be declared on any CA.

- You have to be 'disengaged' from melee combat to actually perform a charge.

- If you declare a charge, you cannot sprint, if you sprint, you cannot charge.

This for example, means it’s feasible to move up to 3 metres on your first CA and attack, spend a second CA to conduct a parry, then move up to 5 metres x3 on your third CA to charge and attack.

This has the result of making combat a little less predictable, and a little more dangerous, but I've not encountered any problems with it after 3 mock battles. I'll be doing more today though.

 

[Verderer]

Maybe also mention that you need to be disengaged to charge? So you can't just dash from one melee into another with it?