"Anyone else confused about "+1 for Charging"?" Topic

As mentioned in another post, I want to get into 6mm mass battle fantasy, and have been looking into figures and rules.

One thing that a lot of rules (of many genres) offer is some kind of bonus to a Unit's fighting ability when first making contact with the enemy. I imagine this is to represent the momentum the moving unit brings with it's attack as it makes into the enemy line, but in gameplay terms this doesn't make any sense to me as both players units are ordered to close with each other and then the one that is lucky enough to start their turn within charge distance gets a bonus to their attack.

Craig Armstrong has developed a ruleset called Lord and Lands, which seems very cool. He's done some really good video tutorials. His rules do give the charging unit a +1, though. So I posted a comment to him asking about it, and he's been very engaging, but hasn't yet offered an explanation I have found satisfying. Here's the link to the video and our brief conversation:
YouTube link

Do you guys have thoughts of this issue?

The best explanation is to give an advantage to aggressive play. Fire and Fury gives a +1 to Confederates charging (part Rebel Yell, part to get Confederate players into contact).

Too often long lines will "stare" at each other. A +1 for charging can be just the spark to get players to close.

I imagine this is to represent the momentum the moving unit brings with it's attack as it makes into the enemy line, but in gameplay terms this doesn't make any sense to me as both players units are ordered to close with each other and then the one that is lucky enough to start their turn within charge distance gets a bonus

I think what is wrong here is the assumption that the bonus goes to the player lucky enough to get the charge; instead the player who has played the timing and manoeuvre game properly gets to charge and thus the bonus.

ButI feel like the +1 for charging does the opposite of that. If I know that moving towards you puts me in charging distance of you, giving you the bonus and not me, I'm incentivized to NOT move into you charge range. This kind of +1 seems to have no relation to the narrative of whats happening, and is just a game mechanism that needs to be considered and manipulated in these scenarios.

I feel like both players should be getting the +1 for charging or nothing and considering it a wash, unless of course there's a choice involved, like maybe some type of brace action or shooting action. Otherwise the assumption is I moved into your charge distance and then stood there doing nothing while you charged me and got a bonus. Right?

Yes – this is an oddity brought on by "turn" based rules. A couple ways around it.

1 – Order chits, every unit (or group,etc) is given order chits at the start of a turn and if both say charge…

2 – Allow units to stay "charging" even if they do not make contact. If another units charges into their front…

I've always had issues with it myself. Seems like some (not all) charging units should get a benefit in some situations and not in others.

It's always seemed like a lazy beer and pretzels type modifier to me. Even though it appears in some rulesets that I truly love.

In a game like Age of Readon, all charge declarations come before "normal" movement. There is no point to not moving into charge range or playing "will he won't he".

This is precisely what made me drop Warhammer Ancient Battles. The late Scott Hayes had me all fired up to start collecting – I had actually purchased a regiment (or whatever the units are called) and sat down and played a Carthage vs Rome game with him. When I moved into charge range, and found out there was no counter charge mechanism/rule/modifier – I finished the game, and sold the handful of figures I had bought.

It doesn't make any sense at all in an IGOUGO type game. If both sides charge straight across the table at each other, why should one side get an arbitary bonus just because contact is made on its turn? As you say it actually makes it less likely that players will want to move their units into charge range.
But it can make some sense in a game where there are alternate activations, or restricted activation of units. Especially if the charged unit gets a chance to countercharge (or at least attempt to) to gain the bonus itself.

As Marshal points out, for those who haven't looked at the videos, Craig's game is not strict IGOUGO, and uses a combination of command pips and alternating activations. In his response, Craig claims that there are so many variables, that it's a not as simple as just, I got into your charge range first, so I don't get the bonus. I haven't played it myself, so I can't really counter that point.

Being cool may not be realistic.
Charging vs counter charging or charging vs holding steady are different mechanics and the plus one bonus may be valid in some eras and not others.
In ancients and medieval the bonus often refers to a charger with impetus contacting a standing defender. It would not. Be valid. Against a counter charger or against a standing defender made up of close order troops like spear or pike.
When you get into the horse and musket era the bonus is supposed to represent the fear factor or morale. In the Napoleonics wars one study of wounds in a hospital surmised that a majority of bullet or shot wounds were to the front. On the other hand a majority of bayonet wounds were to the back of the body. A very interesting British study in Spain.

Stand still without a wall etc in front of you and have your fifteen stone mate run at you, that's what the plus one is.

But that's not what's happening "in the battle". The proper analogy would you AND your mate both running toward eachother full speed, but only he getting a +1.

I'm sure there are lots of examples of simultaneous charging, but most occasions someone receives a charge for whatever reason.
If you are both charging you would both get the modifier or no modifier at all, which would be the same thing. This is what happens with igo ugo rules.
I don't see what the problem is.

Robert, i appreciate you're point but believe you may have missed the point of the thread. We're discussing the merits of rules that do NOT offer the bonus to both sides, which many don't. I completely agree with you, if both sides received the bonus I would see no issue.

And that's just one of the reasons I like Armies of Arcana. No +1 for "charging". The charging unit is doing that: Moving into combat. The receiving unit can Stand and accept the charge, Flee, or Stand and Fire if they have ranged weapons.

There are provisions though for "Long Weapons" (which gain first strike on the opening round of combat) and an actual ability known as "First Strike" which operates all the time.
Normally combat is simultaneous, but first strike allows troops to kill before being attacked.

Long weapons can also fight from the second rank (at a -1 to skill level though)

I get all kind flyer miles for Charging so I like it.
Regards
Russ Dunaway

In older rule sets it never worked that way. Both sides would get the bonus just by claiming a counter charge. Then a very poor set of rules (that became successful) came along and changed it to what it is now. Unimaginative game designers copied those rules and that's what you have today.

I guess something like this you could always house rule if it isn't to your liking, since the house rule would effect all armies equally. You know, like rolling some sort of leadership test to counter-charge, or only giving the bonus to cavalry or some such.

Remember, you are talking about a game. Personally, no matter how one tries to create realism into a game, it is still a game played by someone who can see the whole battlefield in a glance.

Second, any rule in any given game, can be used to the advantage of the player commanding the troops. The use of that rule most likely will have nothing to do with historical reality, but whether or not the individual win the game.

To me, if you are questioning the +1 rule, then most likely you are a more cautious player, But, regardless of that or the +1 rule, all our game play is ultimately centered on how well we can roll dice. And, what the cautious player who likes to defend is hoping that by the time the aggressive person charges, the bonus factors are in their favor to off set bad die rolls.

Miniatureships, this issue should offend aggressive players even more so. If I run my troops toward your as fast as they can possibly go, and it places my units within charge range of yours, it means you "get to" charge me and receive a bonus that I, as the aggressive player, was not allowed to receive.

A +1 should be used in the first round of melee for some circumstances. For example, Romans throwing their Pila.
Barbarians were often reported to have a ferocious charge, but would break off if their initial contact was not successful. So maybe in the first round for them.
A significant factor at the Battle of Hastings was the fact that the Saxons were uphill & this broke the momentum of the chargers, an example that momentum against a stationary enemy is important. Shieldwalls would take a charge while slowly advancing or standing stationary. Should an opponent moving rapidly into contact with a stationary defender get a +1 for the first round?
One problem is most games assume the defender is stationary when they would actually countercharge. A defender would not countercharge if they had poor morale, were on blown horses, or if their tactical doctrine was to form shieldwall. Maybe a morale roll for the defender to see if the attacker gets the +1?

JPK

At the risk of showing my genuine antique status, that was one of the things that immediate charge-related morale tests (which ended up as perhaps too complex normally, but never mind…) were supposed to take care of. If you passed your test to be charged, then you could react "normally". That is, lights or skirmishers would attempt to evade, cavalry would countercharge anything, infantry would countercharge other foot unless fanatics or some kind of uncontrolled – in which case you might countercharge anyone with often disastrous consequences. If you failed while being charged, you might become somewhat disorganized or even try to run away/rout. It required careful design to avoid too many odd results, but did lend some added uncertainty to the game(s). And, most of the time, anyone with some degree of forward impetus got that +1.

Hi all, as tempting as it is I must be fair and let you know I'm the author of Lord and Lands, cheese sailor made a polite and valid point about the rules and the +1 charging bonus. This particular game is a fast paced wargame designed to reach a conclusion with 2-3 hours, it's been designed to use simply but function in a realistic manner. Play testing the game never revealed any problem with the +1 charge bonus, I'd considered it a small reward for engaging gameplay, and it really makes you think about your placement and tactics. I'm certainly open to constructive comments and I think there must be some exploration of this issue. You may not be aware but LAL has a pip system which allows for a little 'fog of war' and gives the player opportunity to take what chance gave him and employ it in the best tactical way. This game does have a defend order which you can pay for with pips which would nullify the charge bonus but there may be a way to demonstrate a counter charge. The game uses dips or a 4+ roll of a D6 to succeed at anything so I could include this rule "if a player receiving a charge wishes he can spend a pip (representing the use of a command and control opportunity) and dip or roll a D6, if successful the threat is perceived and the charge bonus ignored". I wouldn't go so far as to physically move the troops to an equidistant position or anything as I think it would detract from the speedy game play ( there's that where do you draw the line thing). I will play test this to bits over the weekend to see how it effects all the other mechanics. Thanks Brandon for the stimulus it's really worth looking into

The ancients seemed to think that getting in a good charge was really important, and a major advantage. But what the h*ll did they know about warfare?

If your idea of gaming is moving across the field in a line and then complaining that the opposition get to charge first, then you have significantly bigger issues than the +1 to chargers.

What about out-manouevring your enemy so that he can't charge (sensibly) but you can?

That your opponent may get a +1 to charge isn't much use if you have lined up your pike against his cavalry. Or if he charges your light infantry, who just pull back, leaving his line over-extended.

I've played lots of rules that give +1 to chargers (or much more in many cases) and I can't say that there has ever been an issue about it.

If you really worry about such things, then you need to get into using written orders. Troops then cannot stay in a line and only charge when approached – they are either committed to attacking, or are committed to defending.

Fire and Fury gives a +1 to Confederates charging..

Another reason I won't play F&F. Their is no historical basis for that rule. If you want to add a spark then look to the scenarios victory conditions. There needs to be a reason for one side to engage.

In Mayhem, charging allows you to roll an extra movement die to improve your chances of reaching the enemy. You still only get to keep a single die, but this increases the odds of getting there. Charging increases your chances of engaging a unit that is beyond your standard movement.

Movement [and other characteristics] for a unit in Mayhem is defined by a die type and not a particular number. Instead of rolling for a particular characteristic, a unit always has the option to take 'the default' which is equal to half the value of the die. For example, a unit with a d8 for movement could roll and possibly get a 5-8 inch result or could play it safe, take the default, and move 4 inches. Adding an extra die increases the odds of getting a better result and actually reaching the enemy.

Units can also 'ready' themselves to receive a charge or combat an enemy unit that engages them. This means that you can move into charge range of an enemy, ready the unit, and dare the enemy to charge you. This rewards the player that is able to maneuver into charge range and establish a defensive posture. Units armed with spears and fighting in ranks are very difficult to charge successfully when they are readied.

I'll add that charging is a specific action and not simply a bonus for moving into the enemy first.

I've play tested the nullifying charge rule' can't say it's been very much difference but for those who would like to apply it as a house rule it didn't break the system either, so not going to change a great deal for the print run.
I find the +1 promotes you selecting the right unit for the right job and rewards movement and planning, gave it a go and I hope findings help others when the rules are released

Craig

Craig, pet peeve aside, I'm definitely looking forward to picking up the book. Thanks for videos and for the open discussion as well!

Lol, no probs mate, enjoyed looking into it and it seems there's no mechanical harm including it so I hope you enjoy them

Not at all.