Routing in Impact phase

marioslaz · Post by **marioslaz** » Sun Sep 20, 2009 8:15 pm

philqw78 wrote:You do all the evades first, then the charges.

This is not what I read at pag 68, paragraph "Sequence of charges and responses". And above all, in the example which started this thread if BGs evade instead to rout you would have a very odd result if you move first all evaders than all chargers.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Sun Sep 20, 2009 8:30 pm

"Each charge and response must be actioned in the order listed in the full turn sequence"

The evades are before charges.

deadtorius · Post by **deadtorius** » Sun Sep 20, 2009 10:30 pm

In which case you could have forced 2 into A as first charge which would have sealed 2's fate as it would be removed at the end of the turn and then continued on with the rest of the charges.

marioslaz · Post by **marioslaz** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 6:52 am

philqw78 wrote:"Each charge and response must be actioned in the order listed in the full turn sequence"

The evades are before charges.

"but if there is more than one charge the active player chooses the order in which they are actioned". You cannot read only half of a phrase. So, when you have more than one charge you "action" the first, active player choice, and you follow the order of the full turn sequence, then you action the second charge, again active player choice, and you follow again the full turn sequence, and so on. Because in the phrase they used the same expression (it must be actioned and they are actioned) for me there is an evident intention to give priority to the 'actioning' over the sequence, so you must repeat the sequence for each charge you action.
I don't know if there are situations where this can lead to a mess, but your procedure in the situation of this thread lead to an unlikely result, and anyway, at least in general terms, the solution with the same procedure repeated for each charge seems more stable, because if you resolve first all evasions you can have the unlikely result that a charger pursues the evader of another charger, while if you resolve each charge completely before to go to the next, this cannot happen. You can have in such ways that an evader can be trapped by organizing the charges sequence, but this can be interpreted as a military tactic, while a charger which intercepts evader charged by a friend IMO is just a mess.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:11 am

marioslaz wrote:"but if there is more than one charge the active player chooses the order in which they are actioned". You cannot read only half of a phrase. So, when you have more than one charge you "action" the first, active player choice, and you follow the order of the full turn sequence, then you action the second charge, again active player choice, and you follow again the full turn sequence, and so on. Because in the phrase they used the same expression (it must be actioned and they are actioned) for me there is an evident intention to give priority to the 'actioning' over the sequence, so you must repeat the sequence for each charge you action. I don't know if there are situations where this can lead to a mess, but your procedure in the situation of this thread lead to an unlikely result, and anyway, at least in general terms, the solution with the same procedure repeated for each charge seems more stable, because if you resolve first all evasions you can have the unlikely result that a charger pursues the evader of another charger, while if you resolve each charge completely before to go to the next, this cannot happen. You can have in such ways that an evader can be trapped by organizing the charges sequence, but this can be interpreted as a military tactic, while a charger which intercepts evader charged by a friend IMO is just a mess.

And in the above example you are only quoting half a phrase. Action the intercepts, then the evades, etc in the order of the active players choosing. Doing it your way I could charge so as to prevent evades by getting chargers behind evaders. Whichever way you want to play it you can end up with a mess. And why is contacting a different evader unlikely if his evade crosses your charge path. It seems eminently likely to me. You can't pursue the evader of a different charge unless, for some reason, it is following the same path as the original target or original charge path.

marioslaz · Post by **marioslaz** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 12:31 pm

philqw78 wrote:And in the above example you are only quoting half a phrase.

Yes, because I quoted only the half you forgot, but I make reference to the full phrase. You, instead, continue to look only to the first half.

I don't remember the way we played it since now, but it's likely we played in both manner, each time with the goal to obtain a clean result and with no cheesy plan in mind. I suppose we are a gold dust, because in our group we are all friends, each one of us has a pleasant life and nobody feel the needing to plan a vile tactic to get a win over the others to redeem a featureless life. So we didn't need to spent time to discuss similar froth.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 1:11 pm

marioslaz wrote:I don't remember the way we played it since now, but it's likely we played in both manner, each time with the goal to obtain a clean result and with no cheesy plan in mind. I suppose we are a gold dust, because in our group we are all friends, each one of us has a pleasant life and nobody feel the needing to plan a vile tactic to get a win over the others to redeem a featureless life. So we didn't need to spent time to discuss similar froth.

Is this some sort of thinly veiled insult?

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 1:20 pm

Hammy wrote:The sequence of play applies across the whole table.
If the intention was that each charge and its responses were distinct then the sequence of play would have some sort of loop in it where you declare a charge, do all the reactions etc.
Declare all charges, resolve all reactions, move all chargers.
In practice is it often easier to do individual charges and reactions sequentially but when it makes a difference follow the sequence of play.

PeteDalby wrote: But I play it as you describe. All intercepts - all evades - all charges.

As per the detailed sequence of play on P168. This is supported by the introduction to charges on P52 and again on P68 - Sequence of Charges & Responses.

I'm obviously not the only one using vile tactics.
viewtopic.php?t=12234&highlight=charge+evade+sequence
Since you replied to this thread I thought you may have read it.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 1:42 pm

Consider this if you want vile

1, 2 and 3 charge ABC, who evade. I decide that 3's charge must be done first, but without VMD it can only reach C. If 3 rolls long, your way,I can get at least 1 of the BG fragmented before I even hit them.

spikemesq · Post by **spikemesq** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 3:00 pm

philqw78 wrote:Consider this if you want vile

1, 2 and 3 charge ABC, who evade. I decide that 3's charge must be done first, but without VMD it can only reach C. If 3 rolls long, your way,I can get at least 1 of the BG fragmented before I even hit them.

If 3 can only reach C, then won't A and B have the opportunity to evade to their own rear? Your diagram suggests that B evades in reaction to 3's charge.

Spike

Evading to his own rear.

dave_r · Post by **dave_r** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 3:06 pm

Not if it is a valid flank charge - you can only evade directly away from the charger!

dave_r · Post by **dave_r** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 3:09 pm

Hence, if you do the charge evade as per marioslaz suggestion

- C will evade and burst through both B and A (Disrupting both)
- C will make it's charge and hit B
- B will then evade and burst through A (Fragmenting A)
- C will then continue it's charge and hit A
- A will make a test for being charged whilst fragmented
- If it passes it will then evade
- If C catches any of these BG's they will either Disrupt, Fragment or Break (depending upon which one got caught)

Not a good state of affairs and a good reason for doing ALL the evades prior to charges as per the turn sequence!!!

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 3:13 pm

If 3 can only reach C, then won't A and B have the opportunity to evade to their own rear? Your diagram suggests that B evades in reaction to 3's charge.

Spike

But mario wants each charge actioned individually. So when the charge is declared B is not a target of 3. However if I decide to charge with 3 first C evades and 3 rolls VMD then rolls long making B also a target. B is being charged from 2 directions now so must split the angle as 1 of the directions is a flank charge. B evades, possibly fragmenting A which has already been burst through by C. Then 1 charges forcing A to evade probably through B fragamenting it. A may also have broken by now depending on exact angles. If A breaks at declaration and burst through B this will cause a test on B possibly breaking it. C will need a test for seeing this and hopefully will not have been burst through by B or A otherwise it may be routing as well.

If you count each charge completely individually all will go left from 3's charge and all will fragment

If all evades are done first, C will disrupt A and B. A and B will evade to their rear and thats it. (Unless any are caught, but that can happen anyway..)

spikemesq · Post by **spikemesq** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 4:30 pm

But in the example, 3 can only reach B with a VMD bonus. No rules at work, but I recall the rules on charge targets stating that an evade might reveal a new charge target (who may also evade) but only if that BG is within the charge range (i.e., not including VMD bonuses.

So C's evade must be away from the flank charge. Depending on the depth and troop type, C would turn 90 and then be able to shift or drop a base to avoid the burst through. If the targets are LF in two ranks, it could shift to clear A and B, fleeing just behind them.

Then A and B could flee from the other two charges, interpentrating/bursting through C as appropriate.

I cannot see a result where B has to split angles. Frankly, B can only evade to his rear, since the relevant charge is directly to his front.

Of course, without the rules at hand to cite, this may be wrong.

Spike

Flying blind.

spikemesq · Post by **spikemesq** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 4:33 pm

dave_r wrote:Hence, if you do the charge evade as per marioslaz suggestion

- C will evade and burst through both B and A (Disrupting both)
- C will make it's charge and hit B
- B will then evade and burst through A (Fragmenting A)
- C will then continue it's charge and hit A
- A will make a test for being charged whilst fragmented
- If it passes it will then evade
- If C catches any of these BG's they will either Disrupt, Fragment or Break (depending upon which one got caught)

Not a good state of affairs and a good reason for doing ALL the evades prior to charges as per the turn sequence!!!

I agree that evades should follow the turn sequence.

Within the evade segment, who chooses the evade order? In that diagram, it would be nice to evade A and B first to clear a path for C.

marioslaz · Post by **marioslaz** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 6:54 pm

dave_r wrote:Hence, if you do the charge evade as per marioslaz suggestion

- C will evade and burst through both B and A (Disrupting both)
- C will make it's charge and hit B
- B will then evade and burst through A (Fragmenting A)
- C will then continue it's charge and hit A
- A will make a test for being charged whilst fragmented
- If it passes it will then evade
- If C catches any of these BG's they will either Disrupt, Fragment or Break (depending upon which one got caught)

Not a good state of affairs and a good reason for doing ALL the evades prior to charges as per the turn sequence!!!

Yes, and with your solution A, B and C with enemy in front and on flank, who charge them at the same time, evade in perfect order baffling all enemies. But what are we talking about? A battle, or a parade?

But it's not all. Your sequence is wrong. In fact, if 3 can hit B, B evade but A is not disrupted, since you can drop only 1 cohesion level for burst through (p. 49). 2 charge is cancelled because he cannot contact enemy (it has 3 in his path now) and 1 charge is performed without any more problems. Otherwise, if 3 cannot contact B, 1 and 2 charge are performed as usual in whatever order.

Your solution: A, B and C evade crossing their paths in an harmonic way, like in a water ballet of Esther Williams

My solution: A, B and C evade, but A and B suffer some consequences (they get disrupted, but only if they are not LF) like in a real situation.

Moral: you failed to convince me at all and your example only strengthen my opinion.

This is my last post on this thread, because it is a froth.

marioslaz · Post by **marioslaz** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 6:59 pm

philqw78 wrote:
marioslaz wrote:I don't remember the way we played it since now, but it's likely we played in both manner, each time with the goal to obtain a clean result and with no cheesy plan in mind. I suppose we are a gold dust, because in our group we are all friends, each one of us has a pleasant life and nobody feel the needing to plan a vile tactic to get a win over the others to redeem a featureless life. So we didn't need to spent time to discuss similar froth.
Is this some sort of thinly veiled insult?

Absolutely not. I have not in mind you, or someone in particular. I don't know who you are and, sincerely, I don't think I will never know you, so I have no reason to worry about what is your approach to wargame.

marioslaz · Post by **marioslaz** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:04 pm

spikemesq wrote:I agree that evades should follow the turn sequence.

Within the evade segment, who chooses the evade order? In that diagram, it would be nice to evade A and B first to clear a path for C.

Yes: A and B first, then C waving to their friends which cleared its path. But you can do so only if you pay in your army list the cost of a traffic policeman

spikemesq · Post by **spikemesq** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 8:04 pm

Looking back at the OP, doesn't the rout happen before the charges/evades? The fragmented BG must test as soon as they are the target of the charge -- i.e., upon declaration. If they fail the CT, they break and then rout immediately.

Yes?

deadtorius · Post by **deadtorius** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 9:03 pm

Looking back at the OP, doesn't the rout happen before the charges/evades? The fragmented BG must test as soon as they are the target of the charge -- i.e., upon declaration. If they fail the CT, they break and then rout immediately.

If you look on page 168 the full turn sequence yes you are correct, fragged troops will rout before the chargers move. In an earlier post I pointed this out and said that 2 would have been forced into enemy A destroying it at the end of the phase for contacting enemy while routing. Since the attacker chooses the order of charges that would have been my first choice, won't see those guys back again.