Routing in Impact phase

[batesmotel]

...
VMD happens during moves, which happen after interceptions and evades (p. 61). VMD only happens if all charge targets have evaded. (p. 68)

Thus, by your own logic, outliers cannot evade because their contact only becomes possible because all evades have occurred.

In fact, following your logic, a BG of LH that is the target of a charge would lose his evade response if an interception blocked the charger's path to the LH.

I don't think the rules remove charge targets as a consequence of interceptions. Is that also part of the groupthink that is so obvious?

Spike

I would think that they would lose the option to evade if they cease to be a target of the charge due to interceptors cancelling the charge (by intercepting with a legal flank or rear charge) or blocking the charge path such that the LH could no longer be contacted by the chargers. This would clearly be the case at least for a cancelled charge. I believe that fragmented targets test before interceptions occur so would be handled differently from evaders. ( Don't have my rules handy.)

Chris

[hazelbark]

Spike,

I think you are saying that the movement that occurs with the VMD is not a charge. And therefore....

But it is.

[philqw78]

VMD happens during moves, which happen after interceptions and evades (p. 61). VMD only happens if all charge targets have evaded. (p. 68)

Moving happens during moves. VMD happens before the charger moves if all the current targets have evaded. P61 contains nothing about VMD. The P68 bit does I admit have a hole due to its simplistic outlook. But without VMD all may have evaded, but the VMD may bring new targets

Thus, by your own logic, outliers cannot evade because their contact only becomes possible because all evades have occurred.

I never said that. Are you in the police?

I said roll the VMD then if there is then a new target that target reacts, then move charge.

In fact, following your logic, a BG of LH that is the target of a charge would lose his evade response if an interception blocked the charger's path to the LH.

Yes it would. As it is no longer a target unless the intercept does not fully cover it and it could be stepped forwards into or otherwise legally contacted.

I don't think the rules remove charge targets as a consequence of interceptions. Is that also part of the groupthink that is so obvious?

They don't, unless the interception blocks or cancels the charge. Stick to the sequence of play and you will see.

[philqw78]

If "path" includes VMD distance, then that same path (now extended) should cross new ZOI and be an "attempt to charge through a ZOI" under pg. 62.

Yes it may cross new ZOI. But nothing can be done as the phase of play is now past interceptions, and all interceptions must move before all evades.

The sentences following your citation state:
"This applies even if it can only be contacted by bases stepping forward (see below). It does not apply if, due to intervening friends, it could no be contacted even by stepping forward bases - unless the situation changes, as follows: If a battle group is revealed and can now be contacted due to friends evading or breaking and routing, it becomes a target of the charge and will therefore take any required tests once the evade or rout move has occurred." Pg. 52.
The outliers at issue are not revealed by evades, routs, etc. They are clear to the charging unit but are not within the normal move distance.

They are only revealed because of evades and can only be contacted because of an evade. If the evades did not happen they would not be revealed and normal move distance is nowhere mentioned in this sentence as a need.

[philqw78]

I believe that fragmented targets test before interceptions occur so would be handled differently from evaders. ( Don't have my rules handy.)

Chris

Yes they are

[shall]

Spike

This is another one of those where if we had written it in legalease we would solve your problem, but sell very few books and have a very small commiunity alas.

Page 52 para 2 in declaration of chartges is there to say that if troops become a target as something is revealed it makes its reactions immediately af ter the evade or rout has occured - which tecnically keeps it in sequence. Effectively you are storing the VMD until it is resolved and then do the charge move, and perhaps in a 2nd edition we might insert roll charge VMD before evades.

I grant you we could make it super specific and maybe even put a flow arrow into the sequence of events, but not worth. Clearly one needs to be logical about a situatin such as :


LH1LH1
..........LH2LH2

5 inch gap

CVCVCVCVCVCV

Certainly is the Cv charge and get +2 MU we want LH1 to be allowed to evade.

Hope that helps, alebit that I can see where you are coming from and after all we have often said "if in doubt follow the move sequence".

Si

[petedalby]

Welcome back Si!

Hope you had a good honeymoon?

[philqw78]

Welcome back Si!

Hope you had a good honeymoon?

Back to the forum already. He must love us too

[spikemesq]

Effectively you are storing the VMD until it is resolved and then do the charge move, and perhaps in a 2nd edition we might insert roll charge VMD before evades.

If you do that, you will need to change the rule on pg. 68 that conditions the VMD on all targets evading. Otherwise, players would roll a VMD before knowing that a VMD is available and evaders would know the VMD result before deciding to evade. So, if the VMD came up short, the enemy would know that certain BGs are safe and could try to "receive" the charge that would never make it.

Unless you mean that evades are like charges in that they are declared with an opportunity (sort of) for the charger to respond. Something like:

Evades declared/tested.
VMD rolled if all evades declared and/or tests to receive instead of evade failed.
Additional evades declared (tested?).
Make evade moves.
Make charge moves.

Spike

[philqw78]

If you do that, you will need to change the rule on pg. 68 that conditions the VMD on all targets evading. Otherwise, players would roll a VMD before knowing that a VMD is available and evaders would know the VMD result before deciding to evade. So, if the VMD came up short, the enemy would know that certain BGs are safe and could try to "receive" the charge that would never make it.

All you need to change is roll VMD if all current targets have evaded.

Unless you mean that evades are like charges in that they are declared with an opportunity (sort of) for the charger to respond. Something like:

Evades declared/tested.
VMD rolled if all evades declared and/or tests to receive instead of evade failed.
Additional evades declared (tested?).
Make evade moves.
Make charge moves.

Spike

This is what happens now (where I am)
Charges declared, if an evade/intercept possibility direction declared so target knows which way to go.
Fragged test
(test for above test if rout)
Interceptors move
Evaders VMD and move
Chargers roll VMD
Additional targets react, evading, testing if fragged, tests for seeing fragged break if required
Charges move

And I still reckon it is best to put in charge path must be shown at declaration. But the writers must have had some reason not to in the first place.

[spikemesq]

Phil: This is what happens now (where I am)
Charges declared, if an evade/intercept possibility direction declared so target knows which way to go.
Fragged test
(test for above test if rout)
Interceptors move
Evaders VMD and move
Chargers roll VMD
Additional targets react, evading, testing if fragged, tests for seeing fragged break if required
Charges move

And I still reckon it is best to put in charge path must be shown at declaration. But the writers must have had some reason not to in the first place.

Your sequence misses a step.

Leaving aside the pesky outlier problem, new targets revealed by evaders should evade (or at least declare?) before the VMD roll. They should not know the VMD before making that decision. They also are expressly a target of the charge who must evade before the charger may roll a VMD.

Otherwise, those revealed targets enjoy too much information. If they know the VMD is low, they can choose to stand in safety. If they know the VMD is high, they might still choose to stand (e.g., single rank Cv) to deny the VMD (because not all targets of the charge evaded).


Spike

[philqw78]

[
Your sequence misses a step.

Leaving aside the pesky outlier problem, new targets revealed by evaders should evade (or at least declare?) before the VMD roll. They should not know the VMD before making that decision. They also are expressly a target of the charge who must evade before the charger may roll a VMD.

They are not a target unless they can be legally contacted, so must know the VMD. The fact that a VMD has to be long to reach them means that they can be upto 2MU outside charge range. This means they would have to be resting against difficult going in their evade direction to fail anyway. You are just adding unnecessary complication for no valid reason.

Otherwise, those revealed targets enjoy too much information. If they know the VMD is low, they can choose to stand in safety.

If the VMD is low they do not have to evade as they are not a legal target

If they know the VMD is high, they might still choose to stand (e.g., single rank Cv) to deny the VMD (because not all targets of the charge evaded).

Why are you adding this complication. The VMD hapens if all legal targets evade. The VMD then may add more targets. It doesn't matter if a new target evades or not the VMD has been rolled and is added or subtracted from the distance moved. Then the new targets react.

So considering the above no step is missed.

You are again adding pointless paradoxes to the rules.

[nikgaukroger]

Phil is right, Spike is wrong.

Simples.

[spikemesq]

Phil: I am not talking about outliers, here. There are two categories of "new targets" at issue. One that I call "outliers" are BGs that are beyond the normal charge move but within an extended move. They are not targets of the charge initially. They are eligible to intercept if their ZOI is in the charger's path. According to several posters, once the VMD extends the charge path, they are "new targets" that can evade. This is not covered in the rules, hence my original question.

The other "new target" are BGs within the charger's normal move but initially blocked by friendly troops. They are not targets of the charge initially. If the intervening troops rout/evade, however, those BGs now revealed/exposed become targets of the charge. Pg. 62. Call them "revealed targets." They must test (if fragmented) and (as I understand the rules) can evade if skirmishers/single-ranked Cv, etc. They cannot intercept because they are target of the charge. See pg. 63. [Actually this bit gets cloudy where the intervening troops rout, but whatever.]

Unlike the outlier situation, these BGs are specifically included as "targets of the charge." Thus, they can evade. If they do not or cannot evade, no VMD should be rolled because not all targets of the charge have evaded.

Under the sequence that Shall sets forth, "new targets" evade with knowledge of the VMD. Even assuming that outliers are such "new targets" (for which advance knowledge of the VMD result would be unimportant as you suggest), the VMD result makes a real difference to the evade decision of these revealed targets. If they are in normal move range, but know that the ultimate move will be short, that obviously will factor into their evade decision. Maybe they will stick around knowing they won't have to fight. Conversely, if they know that the VMD will catch them regardless of the evade decision, they might stand to fight rather than take a hit in the rear. No other evade decisions enjoy this foresight. Moreover, as they are unequivocally "targets of the charge," if they do not evade there should be no VMD included in the move. If they know the VMD roll andcan veto it by not evading, that puts a lot of power into that BG.

In any event, what are you so lathered up about? I am not making the rules more complicated. The words on the paper are what they are. Despite your shrill insistence that the impact sequence is painfully clear, every answer to my basic questions about outliers, the VMD and charge paths includes one or more of the following:

(a) new steps to the play sequence -- an entirely new sub-cycle of evade moves for outliers that occurs after charge moves begin, doubles back two steps up the chain, but does not include possible interceptions (because that would be 3 steps?);

(b) unwritten exceptions to the definition of "target of the charge" -- enemy BGs who cannot be contacted within the normal move of the charger become targets eligible to evade, even though they were also eligible to intercept earlier in the same impact phase; and

(c) results that completely obviate portions of the rule text (why should the charging player "place a measuring stick" to designate charge path for evaders -- pg. 66 -- when that path must already be known for interceptions and should be included in the declaration of the charge?).

My original point that outliers are not a charge target, cannot evade and consequently may be caught by speedy chargers is consistent with the written rules and the sequence of play. The authors (at least Shall) have indicated that they meant for outliers to be able to evade. OK, fine. But players should know what this new footnote to the impact rules does for the sequence of play.


Take a breath, and look at your last post:

Why are you adding this complication. The VMD hapens if all legal targets evade. The VMD then may add more targets. It doesn't matter if a new target evades or not the VMD has been rolled and is added or subtracted from the distance moved. Then the new targets react.

According to you, certain charge targets may postpone their evade decision until they learn whether the charging unit will move short or move long. Surely a VMD that comes up short does present any "new targets" that can react. Are you saying that if the VMD comes up short these charge targets will lose their status as charge targets because the VMD redefines the charge?

Spike

[philqw78]

OK, if all targets, revealed or not, within normal move distance evade (this is what I meant by all the legal targets evade) then a VMD is rolled, any new targets created (outliers as you call them) then react, then the charge is moved.

(a) new steps to the play sequence -- an entirely new sub-cycle of evade moves for outliers that occurs after charge moves begin, doubles back two steps up the chain, but does not include possible interceptions (because that would be 3 steps?);

No evades happen after charges. No sub-cycle is created. The VMD is rolled then any new targets react. Then the charge is moved.

(b) unwritten exceptions to the definition of "target of the charge" -- enemy BGs who cannot be contacted within the normal move of the charger become targets eligible to evade, even though they were also eligible to intercept earlier in the same impact phase

If they were eligible to intercept earlier they could have done as intercepts come before evades, come before charges. The fact is they didn't so now become eligible to evade if of a type allowed.

((c) results that completely obviate portions of the rule text (why should the charging player "place a measuring stick" to designate charge path for evaders -- pg. 66 -- when that path must already be known for interceptions and should be included in the declaration of the charge?).

Why did you bother to type this?

[lawrenceg]

If they are in normal move range, but know that the ultimate move will be short, that obviously will factor into their evade decision. Maybe they will stick around knowing they won't have to fight. Conversely, if they know that the VMD will catch them regardless of the evade decision, they might stand to fight rather than take a hit in the rear. No other evade decisions enjoy this foresight. Moreover, as they are unequivocally "targets of the charge," if they do not evade there should be no VMD included in the move. If they know the VMD roll andcan veto it by not evading, that puts a lot of power into that BG.

Spike

If the new targets are in normal move range then the chargers do not roll a VMD. They only roll it after all targets in range have evaded. Hence the new target cannot know the result of the VMD before making the decision to evade.

[philqw78]

Its becoming difficult to type now as what I am typing disappears below where I can see.. But to continue.

They cannot intercept because they are target of the charge. See pg. 63.

They cannot intercept initially because a friendly BG was in the way.

Unlike the outlier situation, these BGs are specifically included as "targets of the charge." Thus, they can evade. If they do not or cannot evade, no VMD should be rolled because not all targets of the charge have evaded.

No it shouldn't. Because they would be contacted by normal charge move, so a VMD is not necessary, indeed would not be allowed.
And I am getting lathered up, (hope Spike's a girls name, I like the thought of a girl lathering me up), because I keep repeating the same thing and you choose to keep ignoring it, which is obviously why I imagine you as a girl.




And now you want to know why I'm winking. say no more

[spikemesq]

((c) results that completely obviate portions of the rule text (why should the charging player "place a measuring stick" to designate charge path for evaders -- pg. 66 -- when that path must already be known for interceptions and should be included in the declaration of the charge?).

Why did you bother to type this?

Because the idea of a designating a charge path at declaration and the charge move restrictions on pg. 53 hold their own set of puzzles.



Spike

[philqw78]

Page 52 para 2 in declaration of chartges is there to say that if troops become a target as something is revealed it makes its reactions immediately af ter the evade or rout has occured - which tecnically keeps it in sequence. Effectively you are storing the VMD until it is resolved and then do the charge move, and perhaps in a 2nd edition we might insert roll charge VMD before evades.

I think I have decoded the Simonese. I think this should say roll VMD before evades are moved, not before they are declared or rolled for. (Perhaps his wife is lathering him up). Otherwise it creates problems you have mentioned above about evaders knowing the length of charge move even if they are in normal move distance. Which, as you rightly say, if they are in normal move distance they should not know.

[philqw78]

And also, for Si so we finally get an answer, the main discussion started here on how the impact phase sequence works. Are charges actioned individually or are all evades actioned before all charges are moved?