Rules wording didn't give a logical result

[elysiumsolutions@fsmail.n]

The situation was as Phil summarised.

The charging BG could not drop a base as it was in a column (1x4). However, even if it hadn't been dropping a base wouldn't have helped as the target LH were only just infront of the projection of the left side of the BG and the base they are just infront of will always hit the friendly BG to their front before hitting the LH so dropping bases does no good.

[philqw78]

Cheers Phil,

The Christmas spirit extends even to you Hammy.

[frederic]

All would have been simplier if in the "green" turn the "red" LH move in a better situation, or if both auxilia BG charge the LH

[ottomanmjm]

I dont know if the initial diagrams give a good indication of the actual unit positions but if they do and the AUx in front of the LH are lined up with the LH then I dont believe the LH could have got around them.
I dont have the rules with me but I am fairly sure that if turning when evading you turn on the back of the unit and not the front. This would mean that a wheel after the turn would not allow a one base shift to avoid the Aux to the LH's front and therefore they could not get past said Aux and they would get caught in the rear.

My two cents worth
Martin

[hammy]

I dont know if the initial diagrams give a good indication of the actual unit positions but if they do and the AUx in front of the LH are lined up with the LH then I dont believe the LH could have got around them.
I dont have the rules with me but I am fairly sure that if turning when evading you turn on the back of the unit and not the front. This would mean that a wheel after the turn would not allow a one base shift to avoid the Aux to the LH's front and therefore they could not get past said Aux and they would get caught in the rear.

My two cents worth
Martin

You do indeed turn on the back but the initial diagram is IMO deceptive.

I will see if I can do a more accurate one from what I remember.

The evaders turned 90 such that their right flank became their rear then wheeled to the direction of evade and with a slide of about half a base slipped past the obstruction.

[Mehrunes]

A better diagram should be very useful. Perhaps draw the single bases in the battlegroup too. This way it is easier to show how much can be shifted. The initial diagram could lead to the assumption that one can shift as much as the red block is wide.

A tip: Easier than doing the work with some painting software is to use the DBA module of the Vassal online gaming software. You can arrange bases and easily measure distances and then export screenshots. See one of these sceenshot here: http://www.vassalengine.org/wiki/Module ... s_Vassalus

[philqw78]

Since no-one knows exactly where the pieces where such accurate pictures would be of less benefit

[bbotus]

Interesting discussion, so I went back and re-read the charging flank rule. Page 56, 2nd bullet "For a charge to qualify as a flank charge, it cannot include a wheel unless the charging battle group starts its move with its nearest point at least 1 MU away from the battle group being charged."

I typed it out because the key here is that the charging BG 'starts its move'. It does not say anything about being 1 MU away during the charge declaration. Now go to page 168 and look at the turn sequence. The evade move comes before the charge move. So when the charging BG starts its move, it has to be more than 1 MU from the evader or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Page 53, item 2 makes it is clear that the rules don't want wheels to reduce contact but rather to increase contact, and, it allows wheels to avoid friends. Page 108, 3rd bullet, allow pursuers to wheel and drop back bases to follow routers--I only mention this to get an idea of the intent of the rules. As to whether to allow the charger to wheel into contact with the evader, the problem seems to be in how we interpret the 1st bullet on page 68 which says that a charger can wheel if all target BGs evade out of the original path of the charge.

Some questions come to mind. Are the evaders still in the original path of the chargers even though an intervening friendly unit is blocking their straight ahead path? And,if so, isn't it funny how the evaders were able to wheel to avoid the blocking enemy unit, get around them, and still stay in the path of the charger? And, what does everyone think about the general intent of the rules? This is a very technical situation. Do the rules strive to allow players to get away with technicalities?

P.S. Page 67, 2nd *: no shifting or contracting is allowed to avoid any enemy BG in the path of an evader.

[petedalby]

It's tough being an umpire - and even tougher when you might occasionally get something wrong which is then dissected by players who didn't see the original scenario.

FWIW I think your ruling not to allow the charging BG to wheel after the evaders was a bit harsh. Any opportunity to catch evading skirmishers should be positively encouraged. I'm looking at the diagram on Page 65 of the Elephants wheeling after the LH. It's not the same scenario as the one under discussion but arguably the LH are still in the Elephants charge path after their evade, yet the Elephants are permitted to wheel. "The Elephants are allowed to alter their line of charge using a wheel to go toward the Light Horse running away."

This could be construed to be at odds with the paragraph on Page 68 that was previously posted - but only if you have a narrow definition of charge path.

You can't change what happened but hopefully you might give a different ruling next time around?

I'm now going down the pub - see you all on the other side of Xmas!

Have a good one,

[peteratjet]

Hammy's still looking better than Billy Doctrove. I wonder what HOTSPOT would have revealed?

[bbotus]

Umpiring FoG tournaments is like reffing a football game, the ref must make judgment calls on the spot. Once a Yellow Card is given, that is it; and the game goes on. Here we have the time to sit and read the rules over and over. A good umpire will 'attempt' to be fair. Can we really expect anymore than that? So this discussion is not really about a judgment call in the midst of action. It is about what we'd do next time if a similar situation comes up again.

For what it is worth, from reading lots of posts, I see Hammy as one of the people with a great interest in this game and a person who tries to get it right.

[graym]

Now I'm more confused.

My page 67 11 lines down says evading troops can shift one base to get past enemy troops.

In the second column of the same page 67 it states if this does not allow front rank bases to evade
THEN it must halt 1MU with no shifting or contracting at all.

[bbotus]

My page 67 11 lines down says evading troops can shift one base to get past enemy troops.

In the second column of the same page 67 it states if this does not allow front rank bases to evade
THEN it must halt 1MU with no shifting or contracting at all.

Oh, thanks. I've read that section a dozen times and still missed it. So evaders ARE allowed to shift up to 1 base width. Note the examples on pages 164 and 165 which show the evaders shifting 1 base width and dropping back bases. The second column simply says that if your shift of up to one base width does not allow you to avoid the obstruction (i.e. enemy troops, etc) then put the unit back the way it was and move with no shift allowed stopping 1 MU from any enemy BG.

Boy, I'd hate to be a ref in a tournament. And thanks for the page references, that helps a lot.

[dave_r]

My page 67 11 lines down says evading troops can shift one base to get past enemy troops.

In the second column of the same page 67 it states if this does not allow front rank bases to evade
THEN it must halt 1MU with no shifting or contracting at all.

Oh, thanks. I've read that section a dozen times and still missed it. So evaders ARE allowed to shift up to 1 base width. Note the examples on pages 164 and 165 which show the evaders shifting 1 base width and dropping back bases. The second column simply says that if your shift of up to one base width does not allow you to avoid the obstruction (i.e. enemy troops, etc) then put the unit back the way it was and move with no shift allowed stopping 1 MU from any enemy BG.

Boy, I'd hate to be a ref in a tournament. And thanks for the page references, that helps a lot.

The main problem with evades is that the rules are in several places. Start on page 108 as the guiding process and then move to page 67 if anything get's in your way!

The diagrams on page 164 and 165 do not show a BG shifting and dropping bases back - that is not possible, you can do one or the other. It is the evading players choice which he does. Don't get it wrong

As for the problems of umpiring - Hammy deserves it. He's always wrong anyway

[rbodleyscott]

a BG shifting and dropping bases back - that is not possible, you can do one or the other. It is the evading players choice which he does. Don't get it wrong

Well actually it can do both, provided that no base shifts more than 1 base width in total. (e.g. the whole BG shifts up to 1 base width to its left, but the left hand file drops back)

---------

Dave is wrong.

[zoltan]

Interesting discussion with several disparate things being confused together. ;->)

1. All roads lead to Graham Brigg's front door
A charger can have two charge paths.
- an "original" charge path (leading to all enemy BGs against whom the charge is declared), page 52, Declaration of Charges, para 2, left hand column
- a subsequent charge path (in the event that all targets evade out of the original path). Page 68, first bullet point, right hand column. Berthier indicated this in an earlier post but no one seemed to pick up on it at the time.

2. Does size really matter?
Page 56, bullet two, left column
For a declared flank charge to "actually count" as a flank charge, it cannot include a wheel unless the charger starts its move at least 1MU away from the charged. In the original example that started this post, the charged had evaded. Charge moves come after evade moves. So at the time the charger "starts its move", it is NOT within 1 MU of the charge. Therefore the so-called 1 MU rule (preventing wheeling by the flank charger) is completely spurious to the example given.

[hazelbark]

Boy, I'd hate to be a ref in a tournament. And thanks for the page references, that helps a lot.

Its actually pretty easy having done it an an itnernational event and having to adjudicate twice on a rules author.

The first thing, is the Ref should be in the habit of always seeing what is being asked and then looking up the specific rule. let each player characterize the rule question. Then read the text and rule. Every player I have seen accepts the ruling and then will re argue it at the pub afterwards.

FWIW I know I ruled 50% right in the rule author's game. The one i was wrong in, he took amicably, and its a very hard bit to catch. That I have only seen once since.

[dave_r]

Boy, I'd hate to be a ref in a tournament. And thanks for the page references, that helps a lot.

Its actually pretty easy having done it an an itnernational event and having to adjudicate twice on a rules author.

It can't have been that easy, because you got at least one of them wrong

The first thing, is the Ref should be in the habit of always seeing what is being asked and then looking up the specific rule. let each player characterize the rule question. Then read the text and rule. Every player I have seen accepts the ruling and then will re argue it at the pub afterwards.

FWIW I know I ruled 50% right in the rule author's game. The one i was wrong in, he took amicably, and its a very hard bit to catch. That I have only seen once since.

Was that the one that I was involved in? You got my umpiring call wrong as well Bottom line is that all players have to accept the umpire's ruling and then complain afterwards that he was wrong. The umpire has a short'ish time to make a judgement, so will not always get it right. Normally, the umpire is also playing, so is also keen to get back to his own game. Everybody can come up with the correct ruling given time, peace and quiet. At a Wargames tournament, none of those three aren't readily available.

It's only when they are Chicken that they don't play.

[hazelbark]

FWIW I know I ruled 50% right in the rule author's game. The one i was wrong in, he took amicably, and its a very hard bit to catch. That I have only seen once since.

Was that the one that I was involved in? You got my umpiring call wrong as well

It was that event, but not the one you complain about. The one you complain about you and the author both offered forth uncharted interprets. I know that one was correctly ruled. And the 5 of your countrymen watching agreed with me I would learn later. It was the flank bases off on the other side that I got wrong.

But as you say, as difficult a git as you are on the forums, you took your ruling like a man and played on. Which is what all refs have the right to expect.

Incidentally, what I did not know at the time of the ruling was the magnitude of the implications. Roughly it was top or nearly top table. And one side had an interpretation that would have cost the other side the game. I could see from the board that big things were afoot. But it was helpful to not know how heavily the loat AP if any would weigh in the outcome. It made it easier to analyze the text.

[dave_r]

FWIW I know I ruled 50% right in the rule author's game. The one i was wrong in, he took amicably, and its a very hard bit to catch. That I have only seen once since.

Was that the one that I was involved in? You got my umpiring call wrong as well

It was that event, but not the one you complain about. The one you complain about you and the author both offered forth uncharted interprets. I know that one was correctly ruled. And the 5 of your countrymen watching agreed with me I would learn later. It was the flank bases off on the other side that I got wrong.

I was talking about the fleeing LH BG on the edge of the world. I know you got that one wrong Can't remember about the other one though?