New Evade Rules as gamey as DBMM 'Buttocks of Death'(TM)?

keyth · Post by **keyth** » Thu Apr 22, 2010 1:42 pm

I think they are. If you place anything one hex to the rear of LF, they will stand and fight anything that charges them. IMHO this is worse than tag-and-bag/rope-a-dope or whatever you want to call it.

RyanDG · Post by **RyanDG** » Thu Apr 22, 2010 1:49 pm

Can you describe the layout a little better? I tried to recreate this in a scenario editor and each time the LF was evading. What units were involved? What terrain?

keyth · Post by **keyth** » Thu Apr 22, 2010 2:00 pm

I used a velite vs. a velite and principes.

P2
v

^
V1

^
V2

Velite 1 (V1) is facing the principes (P2) with an enemy velite to its rear (V2). When P2 attacks, the presence of the enemy velite behind V1 prevents it evading, so it stands and takes the charge.

Post by **IainMcNeil** » Thu Apr 22, 2010 2:29 pm

Evades have to be away from the charge - they cannot be to the side. If you are behind someone and charge them from the front... they have nowhere to run. I'm not seeing this as gamey!

batesmotel · Post by **batesmotel** » Thu Apr 22, 2010 3:36 pm

iainmcneil wrote:Evades have to be away from the charge - they cannot be to the side. If you are behind someone and charge them from the front... they have nowhere to run. I'm not seeing this as gamey!

The change is that evade paths will no longer go adjacent to an enemy unit. It also applies to routs so far more often routers stand and die in place now. Also means that pursuers are often spared from a pursuit that might take them into an exposed position. I assume this is part of the change in the rout/evade/break off path logic but it's not one that I'm completely convinced by. If paths are going to be restricted from going adjacent to enemy units, I think it would be better if it was only a restriction from hexes adjacent to enemy frontal hexes and not all hexes adjacent to them. I think rout, evade and break off moves should be less restricted in this respect than normal voluntary movement.

Chris

keyth · Post by **keyth** » Thu Apr 22, 2010 3:41 pm

I guess my main point is that it is exploitable and leads to a pattern of play that is unrealistic/ahistorical.

Gunjin · Post by **Gunjin** » Thu Apr 22, 2010 3:42 pm

iainmcneil wrote:Evades have to be away from the charge - they cannot be to the side. If you are behind someone and charge them from the front... they have nowhere to run. I'm not seeing this as gamey!

I agree with the new rule. If you have enemy to your rear then you have no where to run irrespective of there facing.

Gunjin · Post by **Gunjin** » Thu Apr 22, 2010 3:44 pm

keyth wrote:I guess my main point is that it is exploitable and leads to a pattern of play that is unrealistic/ahistorical.

I disagree. If you allow the enemy to get to your rear then you have to face the consequences. That is not unrealistic or ahistorical!

deeter · Post by **deeter** » Thu Apr 22, 2010 4:09 pm

Please clarify this: a skirmisher will not evade if there is a friendly unit to tis rear? So, having velite in front of hastati guarantees the velite will stand? Against anything? Does this make sense?

Deeter

TheGrayMouser · Post by **TheGrayMouser** » Thu Apr 22, 2010 4:17 pm

deeter wrote:Please clarify this: a skirmisher will not evade if there is a friendly unit to tis rear? So, having velite in front of hastati guarantees the velite will stand? Against anything? Does this make sense?

Deeter

My understnding from the diagram is the velite that couldnt evade was sandwiched between 2 enemy units (please correct me if Im wrong about that) If so i think it is working as intended.....

Post by **IainMcNeil** » Thu Apr 22, 2010 4:30 pm

Also note that non light troops can evade through hexes adjacent to light troops so if it had been cavalry they would have evaded right past the LF behind them unless all their evade path tiles were physcally blocked.

RyanDG · Post by **RyanDG** » Thu Apr 22, 2010 4:41 pm

deeter wrote:Please clarify this: a skirmisher will not evade if there is a friendly unit to tis rear? So, having velite in front of hastati guarantees the velite will stand? Against anything? Does this make sense?

Deeter

The reason why I couldn't recreate it is that I was expecting the above scenario. If you have a friendly unit to your rear, the velite will evade as normal. What they are describing here is a situation where your velite has a velite unit behind it (enemy) and is charged from the front by an enemy unit.

keyth · Post by **keyth** » Thu Apr 22, 2010 4:48 pm

Gunjin wrote:
keyth wrote:I guess my main point is that it is exploitable and leads to a pattern of play that is unrealistic/ahistorical.
I disagree. If you allow the enemy to get to your rear then you have to face the consequences. That is not unrealistic or ahistorical!

That wasn't my point

"leads to a pattern of play that is unrealistic/ahistorical"

TheGrayMouser · Post by **TheGrayMouser** » Thu Apr 22, 2010 5:25 pm

keyth wrote:
Gunjin wrote:
keyth wrote:I guess my main point is that it is exploitable and leads to a pattern of play that is unrealistic/ahistorical.
I disagree. If you allow the enemy to get to your rear then you have to face the consequences. That is not unrealistic or ahistorical!
That wasn't my point

"leads to a pattern of play that is unrealistic/ahistorical"

Hey Keyth, I guess I am just not seeing how this would lead to a gamey pattern of playing.. I fail to see how having a unit basically surrounded shouldnt have to accept the consequences... If the concern is that this will happen in mass scale instead of isolated incidents, and players will alway attempt to go for surrounding the enemy, i dont think will be an issue due to the new facing rules of undrilleds and lights...
I dont think it would be very easy to have an entire frontage of velites that are skirmishing w the enemy battle line to suddenly get surrounded by a swarm of lights in the rear.... If so then you really really messed up!

Skanvak · Post by **Skanvak** » Fri Apr 23, 2010 5:56 am

Though I agree that a unit surrounded shouldn't be able to evade. I think your discution is linked to the turn by turn system. In a realm time system the velite could evade before being surrounded. Here you can use a light cav to go around the evading unit you want to prevent fleeing. The unit won't evade because it is not engaged. The you can freely charge with a heavy unit.

What the people opposing the rules feels is that the first move is a try to engage and that the velite should react to this move. The Velite in a real time system will try to avoid being surrounded. Here they are prevented to do that which some person here consider as gamey/non-historical.

BUT on the other hand, if the velite has ended its previous turn in this position. Then the rules make a lot of sense as the Velites has no room to evade as the unit to its rear can attack it.

For routing unit I wonder if the men will really care passing near an ennemy unit if they are pursued. This is a mob move, so not very rationnal. May be consider that passing near an ennemy unit will count as ended the turn adjacent to an ennemy unit? Though the routing unit rule seems less bothering imo.

Morbio · Post by **Morbio** » Fri Apr 23, 2010 11:40 am

Skanvak wrote:For routing unit I wonder if the men will really care passing near an ennemy unit if they are pursued. This is a mob move, so not very rationnal. May be consider that passing near an ennemy unit will count as ended the turn adjacent to an ennemy unit? Though the routing unit rule seems less bothering imo.

They may not care, but could they do it with impunity? Would the enemy unit allow them to pass through, in reality it may block them and attack them, or it may just take a few pops at the fleeing unit as it passes.

I'm not saying the current system is perfect, but it seems better than the previous system which meant it was very difficult for LF to be attacked. Indeed, the poor LF were almost invulnerable!

Skanvak · Post by **Skanvak** » Fri Apr 23, 2010 4:28 pm

Moirbio, I think we share the same evaluation of the situation. You have noticed that I said that though a routed unit should be alloud to pass near an ennemy unit, it will take 25% of damage (count as ending adjacent to an ennemy unit).

For the LF, I agree that I was very surprised they can avoid a med or light cav.

Morbio · Post by **Morbio** » Fri Apr 23, 2010 8:33 pm

Skanvak wrote:Moirbio, I think we share the same evaluation of the situation. You have noticed that I said that though a routed unit should be alloud to pass near an ennemy unit, it will take 25% of damage (count as ending adjacent to an ennemy unit).

For the LF, I agree that I was very surprised they can avoid a med or light cav.

If a routing unit passing nearby an enemy unit takes 25% damage then I'd have no problem with this.

deadtorius · Post by **deadtorius** » Sat Apr 24, 2010 3:10 am

In the TT rules if your broken unit would hit an enemy unit in initial rout they are removed. Other routers cant run towards an enemy so are forced to rout towards their table edge but away from the enemy but still using the shortest path to the friendly table edge. The PC game used to let them run amok amongst friends and enemies. Personally I like to see a broken unit disappear if they contact enemy. Thats it for any cohesion they had left as the unit has broken up and its every man for himself.