Rule Problem: Evading when you cannot Evade

imanfasil · Post by **imanfasil** » Fri Sep 30, 2011 8:50 pm

If an evader starts within 1 MU of an enemy it doesn't move at all. So... is that really evading? Should a unit be able to choose to 'evade' when it cannot evade even 1 millimeter?

It came up in a game last night that an evade capable unit was flank charged in a position where it couldn't evade (within 1 MU of an enemy). If they do not evade, the enemy makes contact guaranteed. If I 'evade' - meaning I roll a meaningless VMD, the charger is then forced to roll a VMD and might or might not make contact.

That felt VERY wrong, but seems completely legal. The wording on evading (if you start within 1 MU of the enemy you don't move at all) is nestled in at the very end of the evade rules, but its not like it is a surprise. It is known before anything happens that you will not be able to evade... seems like the rule should say that you cannot choose to evade if you cannot move.

ravenflight · Post by **ravenflight** » Sat Oct 01, 2011 3:25 pm

imanfasil wrote:If an evader starts within 1 MU of an enemy it doesn't move at all. So... is that really evading? Should a unit be able to choose to 'evade' when it cannot evade even 1 millimeter?

It came up in a game last night that an evade capable unit was flank charged in a position where it couldn't evade (within 1 MU of an enemy). If they do not evade, the enemy makes contact guaranteed. If I 'evade' - meaning I roll a meaningless VMD, the charger is then forced to roll a VMD and might or might not make contact.

That felt VERY wrong, but seems completely legal. The wording on evading (if you start within 1 MU of the enemy you don't move at all) is nestled in at the very end of the evade rules, but its not like it is a surprise. It is known before anything happens that you will not be able to evade... seems like the rule should say that you cannot choose to evade if you cannot move.

I'm confused - why could a BG not evade if it's within 1MU of an enemy?

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Sat Oct 01, 2011 8:30 pm

If its evade path was towards that enemy it could then not move, it may have to start to evade but the evade cannot go any closer (than 1 MU)

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Sat Oct 01, 2011 8:31 pm

But for the OP it did start to evade, even though the bases did not move it may be rationalised by some clever words*.

* I haven't got any, the rugby was on at half 8, its a bit later now.

zoltan · Post by **zoltan** » Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:30 pm

Remember that the 'evading' unit must first turn either 90 or 180 degrees unless it is already facing the direction of the charge (page 66).

If the enemy is so close to the 'evader' to prevent them being able to turn (i.e. the bases won't fit in the gap), or if the 'evader' has multiple enemy BGs (other than the chargers) within 1 MU at 90 and 180 degrees, then clearly they are surrounded and deserve to die without evading!

A picture of the precise situation would help.

imanfasil · Post by **imanfasil** » Sun Oct 02, 2011 4:14 am

It was a flank charge they were already basically facing the unit that was going to keep them from evading. Close enough that no 90 would be part of an evade move. It wasn't an ideal spot to be in... flanking force was involved...

But yes.. there was no movement done by the 'evader' at all.

zoltan · Post by **zoltan** » Mon Oct 03, 2011 12:21 am

So in your example the issue appears to be that for some reason the 'evader' could not comply with the obligation to first turn 90 or 180 degrees? Intuitively this seems strange.

From what you've described it sounds like the 'evaders' have enemy to their front within 1 MU and then they are charged in the flank. That would appear to leave the 'evaders' rear and their other flank as potential escape options. The presence of enemy within 1 MU at the start of the evade does not per se mean the evaders can't make an evade move.

1. they can turn 90 degrees and then evade along the face of the enemy within 1 MU to their front (with the chargers chasing after their tail)

2. they can turn 180 degrees and then start wheeling round to evade along the face of the enemy within 1 MU to their front) in a line parallel with the chargers.

imanfasil · Post by **imanfasil** » Mon Oct 03, 2011 12:31 am

When you are flank/rear charged you cannot evade to your rear, only in the direction of the charge.

deadtorius · Post by **deadtorius** » Mon Oct 03, 2011 2:08 am

When you are flank/rear charged you cannot evade to your rear, only in the direction of the charge

That is true, but unless you were rear charged or flanked from a rear angle and forced to evade towards an enemy unit you can still turn 90 and bugger off. You would go from line to column and off you go. Not sure why your skirmisher could not run away. I have seen situations where they can't penetrate friends far enough to get clear and get stuck between friend and foe, that was most unpleasant.
I would say that if your skirmishers can't evade then there should be no evade/pursuit roll. The hapless lights would stand there and the charging unit gets an easy kill, or so you would hope anyway.

zoltan · Post by **zoltan** » Mon Oct 03, 2011 2:58 am

Is this anything like your OP?

C is within 1 MU of B
A declares a flank charge on C
C turns 90 degrees and evades along the face of B (ignoring the fact that C is within 1 MU of B)

Alternatively (if it has sufficient movement MUs), C could turn 180 degrees and then do a right wheel until it is parallel with A, and then complete its evade move.

The "1 MU rule" which would halt C's evade (at 1 MU) only applies if there was an enemy in C's evade path. You have not suggested that this is the case in your example.

zoltan · Post by **zoltan** » Mon Oct 03, 2011 3:14 am

In this situation, I guess it is a moot point as to whether:

1. C is unable to make any attempt to evade (because is has enemy within 1 MU of its evade path) and receives the flank charge from A, or
2. C must make either the 90 or 180 degree turn and line up parallel to the large red BG and gets charged in the rear by A.

imanfasil · Post by **imanfasil** » Mon Oct 03, 2011 3:25 am

It was a pancake situation. Facing (roughly) directly towards one enemy and charged in the rear directly towards that enemy. An evade away from the charge would not involve a 90 as the angle was closer to original facing.

Chargers VMD was a 4 so contact was made, on a 1 or 2 they would have failed to make contact.

zoltan · Post by **zoltan** » Mon Oct 03, 2011 6:30 am

Oh, so it was a rear charge - your OP said it was a flank charge.

So yes, if charged from behind with enemy blocking your front within 1 MU there would be no evade move at all!

imanfasil · Post by **imanfasil** » Mon Oct 03, 2011 7:06 am

Sorry... we always just say flank charge, meaning flank or rear.

I know we handled it right by the rules, my question was is it cool to 'evade' without being able to move. If the VMD had been low no contact would have been made and I could have gotten away. Seems wrong.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Mon Oct 03, 2011 11:03 am

A flaw in the rules. Or you could look on the bright side and see it as a challenge

grahambriggs · Post by **grahambriggs** » Tue Oct 04, 2011 10:19 am

imanfasil wrote:If an evader starts within 1 MU of an enemy it doesn't move at all. So... is that really evading? Should a unit be able to choose to 'evade' when it cannot evade even 1 millimeter?

It came up in a game last night that an evade capable unit was flank charged in a position where it couldn't evade (within 1 MU of an enemy). If they do not evade, the enemy makes contact guaranteed. If I 'evade' - meaning I roll a meaningless VMD, the charger is then forced to roll a VMD and might or might not make contact.

That felt VERY wrong, but seems completely legal. The wording on evading (if you start within 1 MU of the enemy you don't move at all) is nestled in at the very end of the evade rules, but its not like it is a surprise. It is known before anything happens that you will not be able to evade... seems like the rule should say that you cannot choose to evade if you cannot move.

In this situation it does feel odd that the charger rolls a VMD. Of course if the charger is close enough they'll catch the evaders. And it's hardly a game breaker.

At least as written the chargers get a ++ POA when they hit evaders (even in those odd situations where they hit the evaders in the front). I suspect the rule change you suggest would lead to gamey play. i.e. people deliberately putting their troops in "can't evade" positions to make the enemy conform/pursue in odd directions

gozerius · Post by **gozerius** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 4:21 am

The charger does not roll a VMD as the original target remains in his charge path. The charger would only roll a VMD if all potential targets of his charge evaded out of the charge path.

imanfasil · Post by **imanfasil** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:03 am

gozerius wrote:The charger does not roll a VMD as the original target remains in his charge path. The charger would only roll a VMD if all potential targets of his charge evaded out of the charge path.

Makes sense to me, but not what page 68 says... it says you use a VMD if all your targets evaded. Then it says that if they evaded out of the charge path you can wheel to pursue them.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 7:32 am

gozerius wrote:The charger does not roll a VMD as the original target remains in his charge path. The charger would only roll a VMD if all potential targets of his charge evaded out of the charge path.

That makes no sense at all. In this case evaders with the same move as chargers could never be caught if travelling in the same direction/path

ravenflight · Post by **ravenflight** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 12:05 am

It strikes me that this is really a problem that has been created because of wording meant to stop totally different situations from occurring - that is wheeling to approach an enemy that you're within 1" of blah blah blah.

Why not make the wording something like:

"A BG cannot wheel and end it's move closer to enemy when it begins within 1" of that same enemy"

another point:

"An evader can briefly approach an enemy that it is evading from so long as it ends its move further from that enemy at the end of it's evade move".

It seems to me to be an artefact of the base, which isn't there in real life.

I think we could take a leaf out of 'Napoleon's Battles' that had 'unformed movement' (unsure if that's the exact term) but basically routs didn't conform to anything... they were a cloud. There is little difference (to my mind) between a rout and an evade. An evade is just more controlled... both of them are 'lets get over there fast'.

Rule Problem: Evading when you cannot Evade

Rule Problem: Evading when you cannot Evade

Re: Rule Problem: Evading when you cannot Evade

Re: Rule Problem: Evading when you cannot Evade