Charge, evade, evade pursue

[hammy]

In a game at the club last night we had a slightly odd situation.

A BG of LH charged a BG of LF, the LF evaded out of the path of the charge revealing another LF BG that would also be contacted. The second LF BG also evaded again out of the path of the charge.

This left the quesion could the LH wheel to follow the first evading BG?

The reason this was odd was that if the LH followed the first evading BG it would not have hit the second BG so should the second BG thus have not evaded?

Looking at the wording of the rule I concluded that the LH could actually wheel to pursue the first BG and that the second BG just got nevous and evaded just in case.

Definitely seemed odd. OK chaps charge them, oh they dodged, well we will hit them instead, oh they dodged as well, no problem reverse and wheel to chase the first lot, we might catch them but there is no chance we will catch the second lot.

It is even weirder if the second BG of LF is more than the normal charge distance of the LH from the LH.

[babyshark]

Hmmm. I do not think that the second BG of LF would evade until and unless they become an actual target of the charging LH, as opposed to a merely potential target.

With no rulebook here in the office, I am reduced to reasoning by analogy; with that said: if the two BGs of LF were side by side when the LH declared its charge, the LH would indicate its charge path before either BG evaded. If the charge path only clipped one LF BG, would that BG not be the only one that could evade? And does not the same apply in your circumstance? That is to say, when the first LF BG evades out of the declared charge path, the LH must pick a new charge path and could choose to either follow their initial target or not.

Marc

[hazelbark]

I start on babyshark's side. I think that is the intent of the rules. I would be fine with either way, but intent would lead me that way. Also don't have rules at work.

[hammy]

OK, here is a rough diagram

The LH start top left, the two LF are next to each other. The LH charge on the path indicated by the lines. The left hand LF evades revealing the right one as a target, it too evades and then the LH wheel to chase the left hand LF and catch them all without ever actually going anywhere near where the right hand BG of LF actually were.

[ShrubMiK]

Good diagram!

It's made me change my mind...BGs will evade well before they could be contacted (if they have any sense) so the decision to evade would likely be as soon as they become aware that a charge is coming towards them and ther mates evade, exposing their flank. The chances are they would be already scarpering by the time it became clear the the chargers would wheel and miss their original position.

There will no doubt be cases where it looks a bit different...move the second BG further over to the right, for example, but I'm not sure how you would draft a rule to try to account for when the evader would make the decision and whether it is before or after the chargers path changes. Looks to me like it is simpler and more plausible in more situations to simply say as soon as they are exposed to the possibility of being hit by the original charge path, they decide to hoof it.

Incidentally, was that you I encountered the other day commenting on Warp War on IIRC the web-grognards site? Classic game, and coincidentally one which I just stumbled across buried deep in a cupboard a few days ago!

[hammy]

Good diagram!

It's made me change my mind...BGs will evade well before they could be contacted (if they have any sense) so the decision to evade would likely be as soon as they become aware that a charge is coming towards them and ther mates evade, exposing their flank. The chances are they would be already scarpering by the time it became clear the the chargers would wheel and miss their original position.

There will no doubt be cases where it looks a bit different...move the second BG further over to the right, for example, but I'm not sure how you would draft a rule to try to account for when the evader would make the decision and whether it is before or after the chargers path changes. Looks to me like it is simpler and more plausible in more situations to simply say as soon as they are exposed to the possibility of being hit by the original charge path, they decide to hoof it.

Now do a couple of changes. First put the LH further away so that they only contact the second BG of LF if they roll a + on their VMD does this change you r opinion? Then place the second BG of LF facing just about 180 degrees the other way so it is not flank charged but can evade up the page not down and have a think.

FWIW I think the rules effectively force the second BG to evade just on the 'threat' of a charge.

Incidentally, was that you I encountered the other day commenting on Warp War on IIRC the web-grognards site? Classic game, and coincidentally one which I just stumbled across buried deep in a cupboard a few days ago!

Quite possibly. I did post there in the past but have not done so for a fair while. Nowadays I main;y post on Boardgamegeek for boardgames stuff

[gozerius]

In any situation, if the original charge target evades and exposes another BG in the path within the normal charge range of the charging BG, the new BG becomes a target. If that second or subsequent BG also evades, leaving no target in the original charge path, the charger rolls a VMD. If no enemy BGs remain in the original charge path adjusted by the VMD, the charger may choose to wheel after any of the enemy BGs that were targeted by that charge. It may not wheel if a valid target remains in the original path.

[hammy]

I agree that is the case by the rules, it just seems rather odd that a BG that charges one target, causes it to evade and then essentially follows that evader also causes another target to evade even though it never really goes that near the second target.

[kevinj]

I think in this case the threat of the charge is very real. If they didn't evade you'd definitely hit them rather than chase a BG that might get away. So the LH set off, everyone legs it and they chase after the nearest ones.

[ShrubMiK]

>Now do a couple of changes. First put the LH further away so that they only contact the second BG of LF if they roll a + on their VMD does this change you r opinion?

Hmmmm...yes. It would seem odd to roll for a VMD to see if something is a valid target, since that's not how it works in the initial charge decision. I know that makes for an arbitrary hard threshold when combined with the possibility of VMD, but it seems a reasonable place to draw the line without complicating the rules unnecessarily. Kevin's summation seems to be right on the mark to me.

>Then place the second BG of LF facing just about 180 degrees the other way so it is not flank charged but can evade up the page not down and have a think.

The question of where it will be hit may well change the decision it makes on whether to stand or evade, but I don't think it should change whether or not that decision needs to be made in the first place.

>it just seems rather odd that a BG that charges one target, causes it to evade and then essentially follows that evader also causes another target to evade even though it never really goes that near the second target.

Yep. But that sort of thing can also arise in more normal evade scenarios...if the the charging HF roll 1 and end up 2MU short of their target LH, it does look very odd, especially when (as always seems to happen in such cases) the girlie LH roll a 6 I'm happy to put it all down to some sort of inherent randomness in morale and psychology factors: the LH were especially skittish on that occasion and started running away quicker than usual, so the HF realised it was pointless quicker than usual, and then stopped almost instantly.

[gozerius]

I agree that is the case by the rules, it just seems rather odd that a BG that charges one target, causes it to evade and then essentially follows that evader also causes another target to evade even though it never really goes that near the second target.

But if the second target did not evade, it would have been hit. The charger then follows one of the evading BGs.
What I find odd is the case when a BG that will only be contacted by a charger stepping forward must evade even if the original target evades, putting the second BG beyond charge range. Or does it then not have to evade as it is no longer a target?

[kevinj]

What I find odd is the case when a BG that will only be contacted by a charger stepping forward must evade even if the original target evades, putting the second BG beyond charge range. Or does it then not have to evade as it is no longer a target?

I don't think that's so strange. In that circumstance, the first target would be close to the maximum normal move from the charger, and the second would be stepped back less than 2 MUs, so is definitely a valid target as it would be contacted if the initial target does not evade. The second target does have the option of not evading, but then is taking the risk that the charger may add to their move via the VMD and hit them.

[GuglielmoMarlia]

OK, here is a rough diagram... The LH charge on the path indicated by the lines. The left hand LF evades revealing the right one as a target, it too evades and then

I think here we must just follow the sequence: after charge declaration first LFt evades, then LH roll, then second LFt, now a target, declares response and evades, then LH moves, with the possibility of following either since all targets evaded.
Not that odd to me.
Rgds/Gug

[IanB3406]

Can the charger choose to chase the second BG instead of the first? Say there is a positional reason he doesn't want to contact the first enemy LF after the evade.....so he continues his charge to the second LF and he decides to follow it instead.....

Also, you must delcare the direction of charge before the evade right? But the charger can CHANGE direction to follow an evader?

[kevinj]

Also, you must delcare the direction of charge before the evade right? But the charger can CHANGE direction to follow an evader?

Yes, you decare your direction in order to establish the targets, but you can change direction by wheeling to follow evaders, there's no reason why it couldn't be the second BG that you follow.

[hammy]

Can the charger choose to chase the second BG instead of the first? Say there is a positional reason he doesn't want to contact the first enemy LF after the evade.....so he continues his charge to the second LF and he decides to follow it instead.....

Also, you must delcare the direction of charge before the evade right? But the charger can CHANGE direction to follow an evader?

That is my reading of the rules

[hammy]

OK, here is a more extreme version of the same thing.

The same rules apply but in this case the LH have rolled a maximum VMD roll and thus just have the move to reach the second LF BG.

[gozerius]

Since both BGs have evaded out of the charge path, the charger still can choose which BG to follow.

[hammy]

Since both BGs have evaded out of the charge path, the charger still can choose which BG to follow.

Indeed that is what the rules say but the second BG was not in the normal charge reach of the charger and the charger doesn't go even remotely close to where the second BG was standing.

It is legal but looks a little odd.

[kevinj]

It is legal but looks a little odd.

Actually, I think the thing that's odd in this situation is that the second LF BG makes its decision based on the VMD. It would be more consistent if, having been exposed as a potential target, they should make the decision of how to respond before the VMD is rolled.