Rules dissagreement at the club last night

[hammy]

I was called over to a game being played by Mr Ruddock and Mr Powell where Mr Ruddock was insiting that his light horse BG (that was thoroughly involved in frontal combat) could evade a charge into it's flank by a BG of really nasty spears TM. He claimed that because he was light troops being charged in the open the could only stand if he passed a CMT and that if he failed said CMT he had to evade even though he was in combat.

When I pointed him to the part of the rules on evading specifically stating that you can't evade if you are in close combat he tried to argue that the rule about lights having to test not to evade in the open superceeded this!!

He also went on to claim that Terry had ruled this way at least once in Helsinki.

Now Mr Ruddock is far from the best at remembering things like rules and remembering umpiring calls or Terryisms is probably even lower on the scale of his retention capacity but that said can anyone find another rule that makes it even more clear cut that once in close combat you can't evade other than the one on page 64?

[nikgaukroger]

Not without my rules - but I can say that Dave is wrong

I would suggest that the bit about testing to stand can only apply if there is another option - i.e. evade - and as you cannot evade when in close combat it follows that the test is redundant due to the lack of a second option.

[philqw78]

The 2 rules do appear to contradict each other though But the first, Dave's, is in the bit about skirmishers being able to charge, and the second, mine and yours Hammy, is in the bit about permitted responses to charges. However we outnumbered him so won.

[lawrenceg]

Not without my rules - but I can say that Dave is wrong

I would suggest that the bit about testing to stand can only apply if there is another option - i.e. evade - and as you cannot evade when in close combat it follows that the test is redundant due to the lack of a second option.

Unfortunately the rules don't say you cannot evade. They say "can choose to evade ... unless they are already in close combat...". This could be interpreted as meaning that they could still be forced to evade by failing the CMT.

However, in the FAQ we have :

...skirmishers ... in close combat ... do not have to take a CMT not to evade. They cannot evade.

[nikgaukroger]

Well we certainly can't expect Dave to have read the FAQ - face it, I didn't until the plane trip back from Helsinki

[hammy]

To be honest expecting Dave to read the rules is pretty hopeful

[nikgaukroger]

Harsh, but fair

[dave_r]

Why do I need to bother to read the rules when you lot keep telling me what I can't do?

I presume this very question is mentioned in the FAQs?

[hammy]

Why do I need to bother to read the rules when you lot keep telling me what I can't do?

I presume this very question is mentioned in the FAQs?

Actually it is in the FAQ The FAQ says that you can't evade from close combat, just like the rules do

[dave_r]

Just got to clear up some of the comments above

When I pointed him to the part of the rules on evading specifically stating that you can't evade if you are in close combat he tried to argue that the rule about lights having to test not to evade in the open superceeded this!!

I was saying the rules contradict each other - I wanted to know why you thought the not evade superceded the do evade bit!

He also went on to claim that Terry had ruled this way at least once in Helsinki.

Pleasantly incorrect. I stated that Terry had said in this forum that you had to take A CMT and then ruled differently in Helsinki.

I am going to find that post if it takes me all day.

[terrys]

He also went on to claim that Terry had ruled this way at least once in Helsinki.


Pleasantly incorrect. I stated that Terry had said in this forum that you had to take A CMT and then ruled differently in Helsinki.

I am going to find that post if it takes me all day.

To save Dave looking for it - I did once state in this forum that skirmishers could evade if in combat (a long time ago). After discussion with Simon and Richard we decided that this was incorrect and published it in the FAQ.

I can't remember ruling on this in Helsinki - but would have ruled against Dave regardless!

[hammy]

Just got to clear up some of the comments above
I was saying the rules contradict each other - I wanted to know why you thought the not evade superceded the do evade bit!

Err because the rule says:

"Non-shock cavalry, camelry or light chariots entirely 1 base deep or skirmishers can choose to evade an enemy battle group's charge unless the are already in close combat other than as an overlap"

I accept your point that skirmishers have a CMT not to evade if they are in the open, it is just that as they can't evade if they are in close combat I don't see this rule allowing it. If it did it would say something.

There is also no provision for what happens to troops fighting an enemy that evades from close combat. Would you therefore argue that light foot fighting light horse in the open that were charged by another enemy BG could evade and then light horse just stand there and watch?

[lawrenceg]

Just got to clear up some of the comments above
I was saying the rules contradict each other - I wanted to know why you thought the not evade superceded the do evade bit!

Err because the rule says:

"Non-shock cavalry, camelry or light chariots entirely 1 base deep or skirmishers can choose to evade an enemy battle group's charge unless the are already in close combat other than as an overlap"

It says they can't choose to evade. It does not say they can't be compelled to evade through failing a CMT.

I accept your point that skirmishers have a CMT not to evade if they are in the open, it is just that as they can't evade if they are in close combat I don't see this rule allowing it. If it did it would say something.

There is also no provision for what happens to troops fighting an enemy that evades from close combat. Would you therefore argue that light foot fighting light horse in the open that were charged by another enemy BG could evade and then light horse just stand there and watch?

This is strongly suggestive that they can't evade, but it could just be one of these rare situations where the rules make odd things happen.

Luckily the FAQ is definitive.

[dave_r]

Since we now know this is covered in the FAQ's this is a moot point, but...

Non-shock cavalry, camelry or light chariots entirely 1 base deep or skirmishers can choose to evade an enemy battle group's charge unless the are already in close combat other than as an overlap

So therefore the Skirmishers can't CHOOSE to evade. Since this is as a result of a failed CMT there is no choose about it!

There is also no provision for what happens to troops fighting an enemy that evades from close combat

I would expect the troops to be counted as chargers and pursue according to a VMD.

[hammy]

Since we now know this is covered in the FAQ's this is a moot point, but...

Non-shock cavalry, camelry or light chariots entirely 1 base deep or skirmishers can choose to evade an enemy battle group's charge unless the are already in close combat other than as an overlap

So therefore the Skirmishers can't CHOOSE to evade. Since this is as a result of a failed CMT there is no choose about it!

There is also no provision for what happens to troops fighting an enemy that evades from close combat

I would expect the troops to be counted as chargers and pursue according to a VMD.

So you are happy to make up a rule that is absolutely not in the rules anywhere but are unwilling to accept that a rule clearly stating that you can't evade from combat is trumped by another rule despite the fact that there is no reference to evading from combat anywhere in the rules??

[dave_r]

The rules don't say I can't evade - they state I can't choose to evade.

[hammy]

The rules don't say I can't evade - they state I can't choose to evade.

I realise that is your argument but you have also said in this thread that in a situation where troops evade from close combat you would be happy for the troops they were fighting to pursue which is absolutely not in the rules.

If you turn the page the rules also say "When troops who CAN evade are charged, their player must decide wether or nor they will evade." I presume you will now argue that as light troops must under some circumstances pass a CMT to not evade that this other rule is also contradictory.

You asked a question at the club, I answered that you couldn't break off you then started claiming Terry said X and clutching at straws. Evading from combat is a no no. It doesn't happen. Even without the FAQ entry if I was umpiring I would rule the same way I did at the club.

[philqw78]

dave said

hammy said

Now now girls. Its only a game and if you can't play nice you won't play at all

[stenic]

I would expect the troops to be counted as chargers and pursue according to a VMD.

Err... since by the logic of "The rules don't say..." how do you come to the concludion that they pursue with a VMD ?

I though pursuit only happens if enemy BGs route ?

Granted, it would be logical. But, if the argument "The rules don't say..." applies then we cannot expect they would pursue surely ? Leaving the odd situation of them standing around watching.

Steve P

[dave_r]

Granted, it would be logical. But, if the argument "The rules don't say..." applies then we cannot expect they would pursue surely ? Leaving the odd situation of them standing around watching.

Good job it is covered in the FAQ's then isn't it?