Evasion Question

[imanfasil]

KN are 4 wide charging up. CV evades upwards and get caught. LH are facing down withing a legal step forward for the knights but were more than 6MU from where the KN charge began.

LHLH
LHLH
KNKNCVCVCVCV
_____KNKN


The rules for stepping forward say that they would step forward 2" beyond the total of their move + VMD to contact another unit. Would the LH get a chance to Evade now? It seems like according to the sequence we are past evading at this point. The LH would not have been a declared target of the charge and were outside of the KN move + possible +2MU VMD so they could only be reached via the step forward after contacting another unit.

[zoltan]

Page 52 Declaration of Charges
"Any enemy battle group in the path of a charge counts as being charged if it can be "legally" contacted, even if it was not one of the originally declared tragets od the charge. This applies even if it can only be contacted by bases stepping forward..."

So I say yes the LH can evade.

As you illustrate, in practice you may not know whether or not the Kn can actually reach the LH until the charge sequence of play when the Kn throw their VMD to chase the evading Cav. Strictly speaking at this point the game has moved past the evade sequence and some may argue that the LH can no longer evade and will get caught. I think this is a silly outcome and, if umpiring, would allow an "out of sequence" evade by the LH.

[imanfasil]

Thanks I missed that sentence in the rules. I guess technically then they'd have to evade before I even roll my VMD or make a CMT NOT to Evade since they count as a target of the charge and skirmishers charged by anyone not wearing a diaper has to evade!

Is that an accurate interpretation?

[petedalby]

Thanks I missed that sentence in the rules. I guess technically then they'd have to evade before I even roll my VMD or make a CMT NOT to Evade since they count as a target of the charge and skirmishers charged by anyone not wearing a diaper has to evade!

Is that an accurate interpretation?

No - the LH only become a target once the VMD has been thrown. At the start of the charge they are beyond 6MU? So they are not a target. Only once the evading Cav are caught, and it becomes apparent that the step forward will take the Knights into the LH, do the LH choose to evade or CMT not to evade.

[spikemesq]

Yes. This is the "outlier" scenario in which the RAW suggest that the LH get tagged, but the CW says that they can evade even though that creates a logic loop within the play sequence -- VMD rolled once and if all targets evaded, but the VMD result creates a new target who can/must evade out of sequence. Note that even though this "outlier" rule extends the charge path, other troops that might intercept the extended path cannot intercept because (for reasons unknown) the CW is not inclined to go that far back into the sequence of play.

[zoltan]

So just to be clear, since a couple of posts start with apparent (but not actual) contradictory yes/no answers which may confuse.

All 3 respondents to your question agree that:
1. the LH should be able to evade
2. you don't know whether or not the LH have the evade option until after you have rolled the VMD for the charging Kn
3. this is a permissible "out of sequence" evade (caused by a quirk in the way the rules are written and which will hopefully eventually be tidied up)

[ShrubMiK]

Leaving aside over-interpretation of rule legalese for a moment...

Isn't your point 1) that the only remotely sensible outcome? Or you would have situations in which troops move closer to the enemy to reduce to go from a 33% chance of being caught (including LH currently at 3.1 MU from HF), to 0%.

And then following on from that, 2) is only sensible as well.

And then you must accept 3) also.

The rules could perhaps be a bit clearer n the subject, but I don't think there is actually a problem in them is there? Looking at turn sequence , it basically comes down to Declare charges - do some stuff - make evade moves. Sorted. It doesn't say at which points in the sequence VMD rolls are made

[zoltan]

The rules could perhaps be a bit clearer n the subject, but I don't think there is actually a problem in them is there? Looking at turn sequence , it basically comes down to Declare charges - do some stuff - make evade moves. Sorted. It doesn't say at which points in the sequence VMD rolls are made

Well, clearly there was a problem that led to the original post which (in part) asked - Can LH evade when have moved past the evade move sequence and discover in the charge move sequence that they have now become a target of a charge (by dint of the VMD plus step forward rules)?

[spikemesq]

Leaving aside over-interpretation of rule legalese for a moment...

Isn't your point 1) that the only remotely sensible outcome? Or you would have situations in which troops move closer to the enemy to reduce to go from a 33% chance of being caught (including LH currently at 3.1 MU from HF), to 0%.

And then following on from that, 2) is only sensible as well.

And then you must accept 3) also.

The rules could perhaps be a bit clearer n the subject, but I don't think there is actually a problem in them is there? Looking at turn sequence , it basically comes down to Declare charges - do some stuff - make evade moves. Sorted. It doesn't say at which points in the sequence VMD rolls are made

Look how dumb you are.

The VMD can only happen if all charge targets have evaded, so the rules specifically define the VMD as occurring after Evades.

As to the logic of the minority position in which outliers do not evade, the current dogma is less sensible.

It makes perfect sense that troops who would evade from chargers that can reach them at declaration, might be caught off guard where they did not believe they were in charge range but then get caught up in the extended charge.

LH that are 6 inches away from Lancers happily ignore their charge into other troops because they are not a charge target (absent step forward issues). The current rule gives them a phantom ruler in which they can react to charges they ignored as distant at precisely the moment that the charge becomes relevant. By contrast, other reactions to enemy charges are based on the snapshot of declaration.

Why do skirmishers get a second bite at the play sequence when no other troops do?

Interceptions cannot be reconsidered on the fly. If you can intercept a charge when and as declared, go for it. If the scene changes and an intercept opportunity emerges (because of evades or VMDs), tough titty because that ship has sailed.

Even chargers do not get to call an audible. If you declare a charge against LF who evade through another enemy BG, you don't get to change direction to better engage the new target. Again, the BG is committed to its declaration, even if the declared charge becomes foolish.

As I have noted before, the CW rule for outliers is even more absurd where the outlier is single-rank Cav. Before the VMD, a line of Cv in position to intercept (out of range, not a charge target) suddenly becomes eligible to evade that same charge if the VMD rolls up.

Over interpretation of legalese? I just prefer to play the rules as written instead of injecting an arbitrary and wholly unwritten sub-routine to the sequence of play.

[batesmotel]

Leaving aside over-interpretation of rule legalese for a moment...

Isn't your point 1) that the only remotely sensible outcome? Or you would have situations in which troops move closer to the enemy to reduce to go from a 33% chance of being caught (including LH currently at 3.1 MU from HF), to 0%.

And then following on from that, 2) is only sensible as well.

And then you must accept 3) also.

The rules could perhaps be a bit clearer n the subject, but I don't think there is actually a problem in them is there? Looking at turn sequence , it basically comes down to Declare charges - do some stuff - make evade moves. Sorted. It doesn't say at which points in the sequence VMD rolls are made

Look how dumb you are.

The VMD can only happen if all charge targets have evaded, so the rules specifically define the VMD as occurring after Evades.

As to the logic of the minority position in which outliers do not evade, the current dogma is less sensible.

It makes perfect sense that troops who would evade from chargers that can reach them at declaration, might be caught off guard where they did not believe they were in charge range but then get caught up in the extended charge.

LH that are 6 inches away from Lancers happily ignore their charge into other troops because they are not a charge target (absent step forward issues). The current rule gives them a phantom ruler in which they can react to charges they ignored as distant at precisely the moment that the charge becomes relevant. By contrast, other reactions to enemy charges are based on the snapshot of declaration.

Why do skirmishers get a second bite at the play sequence when no other troops do?

Interceptions cannot be reconsidered on the fly. If you can intercept a charge when and as declared, go for it. If the scene changes and an intercept opportunity emerges (because of evades or VMDs), tough titty because that ship has sailed.

Even chargers do not get to call an audible. If you declare a charge against LF who evade through another enemy BG, you don't get to change direction to better engage the new target. Again, the BG is committed to its declaration, even if the declared charge becomes foolish.

As I have noted before, the CW rule for outliers is even more absurd where the outlier is single-rank Cav. Before the VMD, a line of Cv in position to intercept (out of range, not a charge target) suddenly becomes eligible to evade that same charge if the VMD rolls up.

Over interpretation of legalese? I just prefer to play the rules as written instead of injecting an arbitrary and wholly unwritten sub-routine to the sequence of play.

So maybe the uncovered BG should have to choose to evade or not before the VMD roll is made if it is within the possible charge range given a maximum VMD? That would allow them to evade at the right place in the sequence and deprive them of getting to take into account the final position of the chargers after they make their VMD. This avoids the second bite problem as well as penalizing the BG for being in the VMD range of the chargers but not in the unextended range. This would seem consistent with the charging without orders exceptions where the chargers get to take into account where they would possibly end up with VMD included to avoid elephants, bat terrain, etc.

Chris

[imanfasil]

I didn't realize this was a contested point when I asked. But it does seem to me that any troops capable of evading or required to roll not to evade should have to make that choice at charge declaration if they are within 8 MU of declared charge by KN with nothing between them and the charge but other evaders.

To think they'd be able to wait until the last second to decide oh.. they are going to be 50 yards shy of us seems dumb. If they are even a potential target they are going to hit the road as soon as lances get levelled in their general direction.... OR they are going to run the risk of getting caught. Even for a skirmish unit it would take some time for everyone to wheel their horses around to run. All I have to do is catch the slowest one!

[bbotus]

Another thought. The rules state that if a BG is revealed by evaders/routers and can be contacted, then it becomes a target of the charge (page 52). Page 60 and 52, for that matter, say that LH in the open must pass a CMT to receive a charge by enemy non-skirmishers. That strongly implies the LH have the option to evade and must evade if they fail the CMT.

Let's borrow a little from page 58 that says shock troops assume their normal move distance +2 MU if testing to charge. So, the Cav make their evade move, now measure the charger's normal distance +2 MU (before the charger rolls its VMD). If this could contact the LH, including the step forward whenever appropriate, then the LH must now roll to stand or make an evade move. After this is done, the charger rolls his VMD and moves accordingly. This is easy and keeps the turn sequence in order.

Rolling the 2nd evade VMD after the charger VMD or assuming a charger move of +2 MU works for me. It would be nice to have this officially clarified with an FAQ.

[ShrubMiK]

>It makes perfect sense that troops who would evade from chargers that can reach them at declaration, might be caught off guard where they did not believe they were in charge range but then get caught up in the extended charge.

So you are using rules mechanisms (predicated around the fact that we must play the game around the limitations imposed by rather large timeslices and alternate movement) to justify a "real life"interpretation? I think that was precisely my point - that you seem to be driven primarily by a lawyerly over-analysis of what is (and sometimes what isn't) said in the rules, sometimes twisting it beyond the sensbile interpretation.

I would say that what you describe is perfectly well represented by troops who roll short on VMD while their opponents roll long. If I was an officer that told all my men to look away for the next x minutes because the enemy are just outside the distance they could normally be expected to cover in that time, but not outside the distance that they could very conceivably cover in that time on a good day...well let's just say I probably wouldn't last very long in the post

>The VMD can only happen if all charge targets have evaded, so the rules specifically define the VMD as occurring after Evades

Haven't got rules handy. Does it actually really say that VMDs are rolled after evades take place, or merely that we have to wait until initial targets have decided whether they are going to evade or not before anybody rolls a VMD? That's slightly different. As you've written it it doesn't stand up to your own demanded lawyerly high standards. How can evaders not roll their VMD until after they have performed their evade move on the table?

[petedalby]

I didn't realize this was a contested point when I asked.

Sadly so.

The response I've given you is how it is played in the UK - where are you based?

[ShrubMiK]

>I didn't realize this was a contested point when I asked

I wouldn't really categorise it as "contested". I've never seen it cause any difficulties in a game before, and yet it is a situation that comes up regularly.

>To think they'd be able to wait until the last second to decide oh.. they are going to be 50 yards shy of us seems dumb.

But that's not quite how I see it. If they really did wait until "the last second", surely they would only get to move an MU or two, not their full move +/- 2 MU? Don't place too much literal significance on the chronology of the turn sequence*.

* an obvious point - if you regard the turn sequence as literally representing the passage of real-world time and sequences of events, you have to ask how we justify alternate movement. There's clearly some level of abstraction in this.

They make the decision when it becomes apparent that the enemy, who they might have assumed to be too far away to be a problem just yet, are actually going to hit them if they stand still. If they have any sort of foresight at all, that will be not long after the enemy have started their charge and they can see how determined and fit they look, and how fast they are moving and not slacking off as the initial target evades. Personally I make all the dice rolls before moving any troops. Then if more VMDs for additional evaders need to be rolled, I make them. So there is never any compelling reason to think that in the real-life situation we are representing that the second lot of evaders left it very late.



What you describe is an alternative way that a ruleset could be written, and be justifiable (with the usual need for attention being given to special cases - like what do you do if you have friendly cavalry in between you and the chargers and it is not "obvious" whether they will evade or not; or fragmented troops that might or might not stand). But it's not FoG.

[nikgaukroger]

I didn't realize this was a contested point when I asked.

Sadly so.

The response I've given you is how it is played in the UK - where are you based?

Hardly ever seems to come up when I'm umpiring - on that basis I wouldn't have said it was much contested if at all. One of those things that whilst not explicitly covered is obvious.

[ShrubMiK]

Actually it turns out I did pack my FoG rulebook after all, obviously in case I got bored and needed some bedtime reading!

So I thought I would hunt through the book and see if I could find anything that would suggest the other interpretation.

P52 explicitly says that charges can only be declared on targets within normal movement distance.

It says that new targets can be revealed by intervening BGs breaking or evading, and although it doesn't explicitly say so the presumption I think is that as another charge target the new BG will have the full range of options normally available to a target (although if you are picky you could argue that because it explicitly mentions they would take required tests but does not mention possibility of evasion, the implication is that you could evade if you had to take a test to stand and failed it, but not voluntarily. But that would seem remarkably contrarian to me).

I see that there is some detail on pages 66 and 68 about when VMDs are rolled. And yes I see the causality loop on p68 in particular - you do not make a chargers VMD roll unless all targets evade; but how do you know what all the targets are until a VMD roll has been made?

So this does seem to contradict the implication on p52.

So what?

We already know there are some imperfectly written rules in that particular area of the book - all the argument about if and when the charger should declare the direction of the charge is a similar issue.

And then if you are really picky with the RAW, p52 seems to state explicitly that you can declare charges on as many BGs as you like that are within thenormal move distance. No mention there about whether or not your BG could actually make a move that would manage to contact them all. And I do recall Spike having alot to say on this subjec tin the past

So there you go...the rules are not perfect, but in a lot of cases there does seem to be a very sensible consensus as to how to play them which removes the difficulties.

[spikemesq]

I think that was precisely my point - that you seem to be driven primarily by a lawyerly over-analysis of what is (and sometimes what isn't) said in the rules, sometimes twisting it beyond the sensbile interpretation.

Why are my objections to a departure from the play sequence that is (a) not in the RAW; and (b) contradicts specific provisions in the RAW discounted as "lawyerly." Moreover, catching outliers is not unreasonable from a simulation standpoint. It also makes sense to impose some risk on skirmishers that linger too close and too far from enemy. If you are close enough to be charged, you are assured to evade, but it might fall short. If you want to keep your distance and formation, stay clear. Outliers are skirmishers that try to split the difference. Giving them a special evade guarantees their safety since any distance they move will necessarily escape the charge (the chargers don't get a second VMD).

I would say that what you describe is perfectly well represented by troops who roll short on VMD while their opponents roll long. If I was an officer that told all my men to look away for the next x minutes because the enemy are just outside the distance they could normally be expected to cover in that time, but not outside the distance that they could very conceivably cover in that time on a good day...well let's just say I probably wouldn't last very long in the post

Except you have no problem with every other BG wearing blinders after charge declaration. Again, no other participants in the impact phase get to retcon their conduct. Potential interceptors "look away" for those minutes and watch a charger waltz past them. Chargers are blind to changes in the field and must carry out their charge direction even when a better target or path is revealed. Indeed, where a charger's target has evaded and rolls up on the VMD, the charger can only wheel to pursue the evaders. Even if that wheel and pursuit is fruitless, the charger cannot wheel to engage some other non-skirmisher BG that is now in range, unless it blindly hits that BG on its original path. Skirmishers who charge other skirmishers cannot roll a CMT to engage non-skirmisher BGs that are revealed by evades, but instead stop short. So, every unit on the battlefield follows the exact "pay no attention" order that you mock, except for outlier skirmisher BGs because, despite the written rules, the CW thinks it "feels right" and is "obvious."

Haven't got rules handy. Does it actually really say that VMDs are rolled after evades take place, or merely that we have to wait until initial targets have decided whether they are going to evade or not before anybody rolls a VMD? That's slightly different. As you've written it it doesn't stand up to your own demanded lawyerly high standards. How can evaders not roll their VMD until after they have performed their evade move on the table?

This is not "lawyerly" at all. The plain language of the rule is that charging troops roll a VMD only if all charge targets have evaded. Indeed, the hyper-technical reading of that rule (and one the CW does not challenge) is that a charge against two targets where one evades and the other routs (Fragged and fails CMT for being charged) does not get to roll a VMD because not all of its targets evaded. So "the VMD" I mention is the one that creates the outlier scenario in the first place -- i.e., the charger's VMD that extends its charge. Evade VMDs (at least the normal ones) are not at issue.

[bbotus]

Would someone be kind enough to explain what the abbreviations RAW and CW stand for? I keep seeing them in the different threads and haven't been able to find anything on them as yet. Thanks in advance.

[imanfasil]

I am in the U.S.

I understand the rules are trying to step by step simulate a steady flow of time. And the LH is in no risk of being caught in the game, right? We're talking about the last 1/2 MU of a step forward catching them and if they care to they CAN evade 5-9 MUs. What the issue comes down to is do they know precisely when the KN are going to stop and I say they don't... they are in a position that could become a bad place to be in a hurry and deciding to leave is probably the smart choice.

To go all 'real world examples' all I can come up with that we have all probably lived through is being on the receiving end of a golf shot headed our way or a car that is coming towards us while we are on foot - maybe stopping a few feet away from us.. or maybe over our corpse. Yes its all happening at once... and we are thinking...hmm... is it going to make it this far or not? Do I need to move? Is that going to stop? When I first started golfing I misjudged more than a few and sometimes was in the way and realized I needed to be courteous and get out of the way just in case all the time. In the case of oncoming cars... consequences being a lot higher... you tend to not screw around and just move to the curb rather than risk death.

On the battlefield I can see some smelly LH subaltern - "Boss those knights are coming right at us....we need to move!"
Skirmish commander - "Nah... they won't make it this far... trust me!"
"I ain't never seen them this close before... they are sounding pretty loud...."
"I said stand your ground! Sissy"
trample - trample - trample

Regardless of relative speeds there is always a point where the faster person has waited too long to react even in a real life situation.

Just my two pesos.