Removing Scythed Chariots

Keef · Post by **Keef** » Sun Feb 10, 2008 3:50 am

At the start of the joint action phase scythed chariots are removed if "in contact with any unbroken enemy".

Does this also include removing them from "contact" when the scthed chariots are only in front-corner to front-corner or side-edge to side-edge contacts (ie fighting as an overlap).

stevoid · Post by **stevoid** » Sun Feb 10, 2008 4:53 am

No. It's in the post ver 6 amendments - only if they are in front edge contact with unbroken enemy they fought this turn:-)

Steve

goofaholix · Post by **goofaholix** » Sun Feb 10, 2008 10:21 pm

The trouble with that is keef contacting my two element wide unit with a two element wide cavalry unit lined up on the front and a scythed chariot corner to corner.

He elected to fight with the chariot and one cavalry element in impact phase, rather than the two cavalry elements in front to front contact.

This seemed a bit dodgy to me but i deferred to keefs better knowledge of the rules, it would be doubly dodgy if the chariot avoided being destroyed as a result even though it did fight.

babyshark · Post by **babyshark** » Sun Feb 10, 2008 11:21 pm

goofaholix wrote:The trouble with that is keef contacting my two element wide unit with a two element wide cavalry unit lined up on the front and a scythed chariot corner to corner.

He elected to fight with the chariot and one cavalry element in impact phase, rather than the two cavalry elements in front to front contact.

This seemed a bit dodgy to me but i deferred to keefs better knowledge of the rules, it would be doubly dodgy if the chariot avoided being destroyed as a result even though it did fight.

Very dodgy indeed. From the description you gave it appears that the scythed chariots are in contact solely as an overlap. Only bases in frontal contact fight in the impact phase, so the scythed chariots, in overlap only, would not get to fight. They could contribute in the melee phase, as an overlap. And one does not get to choose not to fight with any bases that are in contact with enemy.

You should file a protest!

Marc

stevoid · Post by **stevoid** » Sun Feb 10, 2008 11:57 pm

babyshark wrote:
goofaholix wrote:The trouble with that is keef contacting my two element wide unit with a two element wide cavalry unit lined up on the front and a scythed chariot corner to corner.

He elected to fight with the chariot and one cavalry element in impact phase, rather than the two cavalry elements in front to front contact.

This seemed a bit dodgy to me but i deferred to keefs better knowledge of the rules, it would be doubly dodgy if the chariot avoided being destroyed as a result even though it did fight.
Very dodgy indeed. From the description you gave it appears that the scythed chariots are in contact solely as an overlap. Only bases in frontal contact fight in the impact phase, so the scythed chariots, in overlap only, would not get to fight. They could contribute in the melee phase, as an overlap. And one does not get to choose not to fight with any bases that are in contact with enemy.

You should file a protest!

Marc

Actually legal charge contact includes a front corner to an enemy's base edge. If the chariot wheeled slightly to hit the side edge then it would have legal contact although as described above, corner to corner would not be.

Then, if there are unequal bases in contact the active player chooses which fight so long as the numbers are even and all enemy bases have someone to fight.

Therefore, it is cheesy but legal - but maybe not as described.

The real fromage kicks in if this does not count as reason to remove the chariot - it probably conforms in the manouevre phase and ends in corner to corner.

I suspect the answer is to amend the scythed chariot removal to include any contact with any unbroken enemy they fought this turn except as an overlap only in the melee phase.

Steve

goofaholix · Post by **goofaholix** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 12:04 am

stevoid wrote:
babyshark wrote:
goofaholix wrote: I suspect the answer is to amend the scythed chariot removal to include any contact with any unbroken enemy they fought this turn except as an overlap only in the melee phase.

Steve

I think we've discovered the fog equivilent of the Clingon, of course scythed chariots were well known throughout history to act as wingmen

Keef · Post by **Keef** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 5:57 am

Steve's description above is correct . . . the whole mess arose cos the scythed chariots charged, wheeled slightly to obtain a legitimate front-corner contact with the flank edge (but not a flank charge !) in the impact phase, then realigned in the manuever phase to be in corner to corner contact as an overlap for the melee phase (maybe they should have realigned to be in slight side-edge contact - but the situation and removal question would be identical) . . .

accordingly the chariots fought in both impact and melee phases . . . (and dang fine work they did in both rounds !!) . . .

in the general interest of fairness we actually removed the scythed chariot BG as it did seem a bit cheesey to keep them 'alive' after they fought in both combats in the turn . . . (and, hence, this thread/query about removal) . . .

but, I agree with Steve, there does seem to be room for a slight tweak in the (even amended) wording . . .

rogerg · Post by **rogerg** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 9:12 am

...or not tweak the rules, and try not to leave a flank edge open to attack by scythed chariot?

stevoid · Post by **stevoid** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:04 am

It is not the having a scythed chariot as an overlap or indeed hitting a flank that is the problem, it is whether the intent of the rules was to allow a scythed chariot to fight in the impact phase and then remain on table if its opponent remained unbroken at the end of the turn.

To the letter it is allowed as per above but I wonder if this scenario ever came up in play testing?

Steve

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:33 am

stevoid wrote:It is not the having a scythed chariot as an overlap or indeed hitting a flank that is the problem, it is whether the intent of the rules was to allow a scythed chariot to fight in the impact phase and then remain on table if its opponent remained unbroken at the end of the turn.

To the letter it is allowed as per above but I wonder if this scenario ever came up in play testing?

Steve

Well we specifically amended the rules to say frontal contact, so I presume (but cannot exactly recall) that we felt that overlap contacts would not be enough to destroy the chariots. (A quick run down the side of the enemy unit, scything the flank files).

We didn't (IIRC) envisage the exact situation you mention, but it is perhaps liveable with as not representing a full head-on crunch.

Anyway, we are not in the market for tweaks any time soon, so best follow Roger's advice. (Or rout the scythed chariots by shooting them with massed skirmishers before they get to you, which is the correct historical counter).

carlos · Post by **carlos** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 11:51 am

Even w/ this cheese I can't imagine people rushing out to use Scythed Chariots as the new power troop.

goofaholix · Post by **goofaholix** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 8:14 pm

One thing with this particular situation that we didn't mention is that the scythed chariots started in front of the charging cavalry so that the cavalry could not contact the enemy without the chariots getting out of the way or the cavalry contracting during the charge.

I don't know if the latter is doable in FOG but keef elected to wheel the chariots into corner contact to allow room for the cavalry to get through.

I guess I'll have to get used to not having a ZOC to prevent this kind of thing.

stevoid · Post by **stevoid** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 8:34 pm

So long as such a wheel (and only one is allowed) didn't result in less bases making contact than would have occurred with a straight ahead charge move then it is legal, otherwise the chariots would have needed to charge straight ahead. I'm presuming that stepping forward is counted towards how many bases can be contacted.

The question might be whether Keith was allowed to declare a charge with the cav if they couldn't contact your troops without the chariots moving first. The cav would have been allowed to contract their frontage by one base, but if that was not enough then they should not have charged. All declarations need to be made first.

Steve

goofaholix · Post by **goofaholix** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 9:41 pm

stevoid wrote:So long as such a wheel (and only one is allowed) didn't result in less bases making contact than would have occurred with a straight ahead charge move then it is legal, otherwise the chariots would have needed to charge straight ahead. I'm presuming that stepping forward is counted towards how many bases can be contacted.

The question might be whether Keith was allowed to declare a charge with the cav if they couldn't contact your troops without the chariots moving first. The cav would have been allowed to contract their frontage by one base, but if that was not enough then they should not have charged. All declarations need to be made first.

Steve

His cavalry could have gone in by contracting one base width together with the chariots charging straight ahead. This is what I was assuming would happen and why I elected not to charge the chariots in my turn.