Moderators: philqw78, terrys, hammy, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Moderators, Field of Glory Design
I probably shouldn't, but I am still in a good mood after the Cricket. Do the rules define VMD's as occurring after evades or do they say the VMD roll happens after the evade roll? Evaders are moved first, then pursuers on a BG by BG basis. That doesn't specifically state or define that VMD occurs after evades.spikemesq wrote:The VMD can only happen if all charge targets have evaded, so the rules specifically define the VMD as occurring after Evades.
No it doesn't. What would happen in real life is that when the knights begin to charge the LH would disappear. Only in a UGOIGO situation could this be deemed "logical"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.
Other troops also get a second bite - Cavalry in single rank and other troops who can evade.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?
But which in turn makes the rules break in certain circumstances. The way we all play the rule (except you) is natural, causes no arguments and can be easily explained.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.
Okay - AFAIK you are in the only place where there is any disagreement on this point - as some of the early posts have demonstrated.I am in the U.S.
Not sure what you are referring to. Once a unit is engaged in hand to hand combat, no unit may evade in this system unless mounted break-off from steady foot in the JAP. But if a unit moves into melee contact with an enemy BG during the maneuver phase (pages 76-78), then all skirmish capable troops may evade.And that evade capable troops cannot evade when a BG conforms into them.
Evading is not an option available on page 70-71. I would gladly do it if it were.bbotus wrote:Not sure what you are referring to. Once a unit is engaged in hand to hand combat, no unit may evade in this system unless mounted break-off from steady foot in the JAP. But if a unit moves into melee contact with an enemy BG during the maneuver phase (pages 76-78), then all skirmish capable troops may evade.And that evade capable troops cannot evade when a BG conforms into them.
The first statement is correct (it is certainly how I would rule if umpiring).
I'm fairly sure that most of the US competition players would play it that the LH can evade when it becomes evident that the step forward would contact them.
For a definitive US tourney view I suggest you contact Dan Hazelwood.
Hope that helps.
rbodleyscott wrote: Matt is correct.
babyshark wrote:Matt is right.
Matt's first statement is correct.iversonjm wrote:The first statement is correct (it is certainly how I would rule if umpiring).
I'm fairly sure that most of the US competition players would play it that the LH can evade when it becomes evident that the step forward would contact them.
For a definitive US tourney view I suggest you contact Dan Hazelwood.
Hope that helps.
The second statement borders on heresy.
