Turn Sequence - Impact phase

[philqw78]

Needs tightening up for impact phase.

Spent a long long time on posts regarding troops hit by VMD, then their subsequent evading, standing, new targets created, step forwards, etc a couple of years ago. It all seemed sorted but has raised its ugly head again in the rules forum.

[spikemesq]

Needs tightening up for impact phase.

Spent a long long time on posts regarding troops hit by VMD, then their subsequent evading, standing, new targets created, step forwards, etc a couple of years ago. It all seemed sorted but has raised its ugly head again in the rules forum.

As a lead villain in the "Impact Phase Wars," I must concur.

[spikemesq]

Some thoughts on refining the impact phase.

Outliers - if they get to evade, make that clear in the rules. Moreover, we should re-examine whether any other impact interactions (intercepts, charge directions, etc.) should get a chance to deviate from the declaration snapshot.

Extending the evade rules to include potentially extended charges (like we do with involuntary charge exceptions) seems lees than ideal. That will provoke a lot more evades than needed, if every skirmisher must evade putative charges. If the outlier evade decisions (for Cav) or CMTs (for skirmishers) were made at declaration on a contingent basis -- e.g., if the charge extends, this BG will evade, receive, etc. -- that might work, because superfluous evades would be canceled if the extension did not happen.

VMD Rolls - I think a better way to address the outlier problem and other impact issues might be to alter the VMD process. As I see it, the mutual VMD serves to impose some risk on skirmishers but not complete safety. Two VMD rolls just manage the odds. The other VMD effect is to cause lines to break up (some run far, some don't). Two VMD rolls spread this risk to both sides, though not evenly, as chargers do not get VMDs every time (e.g., when only one of two targets evade).

Why not change it to emphasize evader VMD rolls, thereby eliminating the extra charge reach?

So, an evading BG would roll a VMD against the following result:

1 - evader turns 180 but doesn't move, caught in flank or rear
2 - evader turns and moves at -1 MU
3 - 4 evader turns and moves normal
5-6 - evader turns and moves at +1 MU


Chargers would not roll a VMD at all. These results could shift to manage the odds, but the ultimate aim is to preserve the variable risk to skirmishers while eliminating the extended charge distance. No extended charge distance, no outliers. You could preserve the bilateral aspects by adjusting the chargers VMD to eliminate the extra charge moves. So the charger might also roll a VMD but the results would be:

1 - charge move - 3 MU (but no less than 1 MU total)
2 - charge move -2 MU
3- charge move -1 MU
4-6 - full charge move

With some number crunching, we might come up with VMDs that maintain the risk allocation and disruptive effect on lines, but remains within basic move distances. Perhaps, this could alleviate the broader skirmisher problems, by tightening the zone of give-and-take between evaders and enemy.

Another approach would be to expand on the current rule language to limit charger VMD boosts to contact. The current rule sort of says this already, but it is not clear and nobody actually plays this way. Maybe we should, under a more explicit rule. So chargers move their full move plus any VMD extensions that would contact evading targets (not other enemy).

[gozerius]

A suggestion.
Alter the sequence.
1. Declare charges - ID target(s), charge path. Make necessary CMTs.
2. Fragmented targets CT. Failed CTs = immediate rout. CT nearby BGs. Rout if they break. Repeat.
3. Declare interceptions. Move interceptors. Chargers caught in flank rear have charge cancelled.
4. BGs capable of evading, which are still targets of charges, choose to evade or stand. Make CMTs as necessary. Note that an initial target would not have to check if now screened by interceptors.
5. BGs unmasked by routers/evaders execute step 2 and/or 4 as appropriate.
6. Move Chargers. Chargers whose targets have all routed or evaded out of the path roll VMD and may wheel to follow original target.

I feel that this would clear up much of the confusion re the Impact phase.
This is a departure from the current rules because it causes all BGs breaking as the result of a declared charge and those seeing such BGs break routing simultaneously.
It still does not deal with the paradox of a BG being forced to CT due to a charge that is later cancelled by an intercept. But then a Fragmented BG isn't going to wait to see if a friend is able to step into the path.
Not so evaders, who will be able to wait until interceptors have moved before deciding whether to evade.
This also treats routers and evaders the same for the purposes of how the charger reacts to a target unit running away.