I really do hope Dave is wrong on this one

[chubooga]

omg

[madaxeman]

At least the "drive a column of skirmishers really close to the enemy flank to stop them expanding once in contact" maneuver seems to have avoided generating controversy though....

Tim
(go to NZ to play FoG? Frankly I'd not even bother crossing the road to get a game)

[expendablecinc]

...

If my cavalry charge there are two questions.

1) is it a flank or rear charge? Dave was trying to argue that because one base was actually facing towards me that it was not.

2) Which way do the light horse evade or can the even evade at all? Dave claimed that the column neatly turned 180 and evaded to it's rear popping through a BG of LF that were just behind them to get further from my cavalry.

Thoughts?

Q - Where is the font edge of the battlegroup?
A - The line extending the front edge of the battlegroup is the line extending the front rank of the bases in the battlegroup. otherwise you would have to be entirely behind the front edge of the rearmost base (not the front one). I know this causes problems for defining front edge when the BG is fighting in more than one directin but that is irrelevant in this case.

This is rear/flank charge.

Hence they can only go to away from the direction of the charge.

Next issue: what is the direction of the charge?
Many argued in prior posts that 'shepherding' was ok regarding direction of the charge and the angle at impact defined the direction of the charge (not the line from the original postion to the target or the facing at the start of the charge).

If this is the case the LH cannot evade away from this direction. At best they can turn 180 and wheel about 45 degrees to shoot straight away from the direction of the rear charge. This would cut through the rear corner of the knights. They are allowed to slide one base to the side but in this case the front 3 bases of LH woudl have to slide into the knights after the 180 turn as the Lh have to slide straight away.

My take:
- Its a flank charge.
- Then cannot evade directly away from it.

[expendablecinc]

I think I can claim the moral high ground even if there may be a sleazy escape clause for Dave from his cheesy attempt to stop me expanding.

I agree. Its a shame skirmishers not in combat cant be shoved aside to make room for expansions in combat, conforming and reforming as they are in other parts of the rules. It wouldl prevent theis sort of DBesque malarky.

(I am guiltly of zoccing a column of pike into stunned immobility with a 1 point psiloi i)

[hammy]

At least the "drive a column of skirmishers really close to the enemy flank to stop them expanding once in contact" maneuver seems to have avoided generating controversy though....

Tim
(go to NZ to play FoG? Frankly I'd not even bother crossing the road to get a game)

There was so much controversey in Mr Ruddocks behaviour I felt it deserved posting.

I can just about live with the not being able to expand as long as the lights are taking a risk by doing so. Had I actually had any supports in the area it would have been nearly impossible for Dave to do what he did. As it happened with one BG of knights facing four enemy BGs it didn't feel that bad that he could mess me about.

The funny bit was that after all his sleaze he managed to get 3 hits on the knights from shooting. It is funny watching your opponent pray for you not to fail a death roll

[grahambriggs]

If we agree it is a rear charge then they must evade in the direction of the charge - Page 66. On that basis they are trapped.

Why are they trapped? In the game we actually treated it as a flank charge, so I turned 180 degrees and then wheeled to meet the direction of the charge. I was able to shift a base to avoid enemy and ended up directly away from the charge?

It certainly looks like a flank charge, at least on the first three bases. Though i see how you could attempt to weasel this.

Surely for a flank charge you would turn 90 degrees not 180? (otherwise a 'standard' flank charge would see enemy zipping sideways out of the way)

So if you have to turn 90...The front three bases have to try and turn left (facing the enemy knights). The rear base has to turn left (facing the enemy knights).

The BG then wheels to line up with the direction of the charge. It looks to me that the knights will block the evade.

[dave_r]

It certainly looks like a flank charge, at least on the first three bases. Though i see how you could attempt to weasel this.

As previously discussed, I didn't and wasn't bothered if it was a flank charge or not to be honest. The difference was negligible.

Surely for a flank charge you would turn 90 degrees not 180? (otherwise a 'standard' flank charge would see enemy zipping sideways out of the way)

You turn whichever way would result in the smallest wheel to make the direction of charge - in this instance, because of the LH facing then a 90 degree turn or a 180 degree turn would have to wheel the same way. I chose to turn 180 degrees.

As an aside, if I had turned 90 degrees then the charge would have been illegal, since they would have had to wheel more than 90 degrees to hit the Light Horse after they had turned 90 degrees and stopped.... This is an interesting debate which I look forward to getting an informed decision on.....

So if you have to turn 90...The front three bases have to try and turn left (facing the enemy knights). The rear base has to turn left (facing the enemy knights).

The BG then wheels to line up with the direction of the charge. It looks to me that the knights will block the evade.

Yup, I think if they turned 90 degrees they would end up with a front line of three bases and the element that was originally going to get hit by the Cavalry in the second rank. They would then stop because the Knights would block the evade. However, as mentioned above, the Cavalry would then be unable to hit them anyway because they can't wheel more than 90 degrees.

In fact, having thought about it, that would have been a better move as it would have fulfilled the original intention of blocking the Knights expansion. Although Hammy would probably have still been moaning about something. Just goes to show than when you think you have pulled off the most outrageous manover ever, somebody can still come up with one better. Well done Graham

Surprisingly, I know the rules for evading quite well.

[hammy]

Surprisingly, I know the rules for evading quite well.

Unlike various other parts of the rules eh

I would like you to point out to me where it says that a kinked single element column evades back in an orderly procession past the point at which it wheeled.

To be fair I don't think the rules cover how a single element column with a kink evades which is where we get the problem.

As far as I can tell the front element of the column must end up going more than a base width sideways and as such I don't think that the evade is possible.

[grahambriggs]

Surely for a flank charge you would turn 90 degrees not 180? (otherwise a 'standard' flank charge would see enemy zipping sideways out of the way)

You turn whichever way would result in the smallest wheel to make the direction of charge - in this instance, because of the LH facing then a 90 degree turn or a 180 degree turn would have to wheel the same way. I chose to turn 180 degrees.

As an aside, if I had turned 90 degrees then the charge would have been illegal, since they would have had to wheel more than 90 degrees to hit the Light Horse after they had turned 90 degrees and stopped.... This is an interesting debate which I look forward to getting an informed decision on.....

Hmm. Not sure I follow you here (though I'm sure you know best, of course). If you turn 180 degrees you get one base facing the way you want to go, but three facing back towards the cavalry. It's unclear to me how this right angle of bases will wheel to be parallel to the charge without going through either the knights or the cavalry.

I would also claim that the 90 degrees results in the smallest wheel for the battlegroup as a whole (there is less total movement to get to a position where they can then evade).

I suppose the general problem here is that the rules state how you get into a kinked column, but not what happens when you're in it. I imagine an author would say that you take the front edge of the battle group as the reference point.

I'd agree that it's a good old murky area in the rules[/i]

[dave_r]

Unlike various other parts of the rules eh

I know the conforming part

I would like you to point out to me where it says that a kinked single element column evades back in an orderly procession past the point at which it wheeled.

There is no other way to do it, otherwise you would end up with element based fleeing a la DBM.

To be fair I don't think the rules cover how a single element column with a kink evades which is where we get the problem.

Indeed, we have been here before (that was me again as well) and there was no definitive answer from any of the Authors to my recollection. Just prior to Warfare 2008 I believe.

As far as I can tell the front element of the column must end up going more than a base width sideways and as such I don't think that the evade is possible.

Do you even read the rules A base cannot SHIFT more than one base sideways to avoid enemy troops (amongst other things) there is nothing to stop a base moving more than one base sideways as long as it doesn't shift more than one base sideways. Otherwise you could never evade in the direction of a charge.

[hammy]

Unlike various other parts of the rules eh

I know the conforming part

I am saving that one for later

[dave_r]

Hmm. Not sure I follow you here (though I'm sure you know best, of course).

Careful now, there are a whole host of people who will disagree with you on that one

If you turn 180 degrees you get one base facing the way you want to go, but three facing back towards the cavalry. It's unclear to me how this right angle of bases will wheel to be parallel to the charge without going through either the knights or the cavalry.

I would also claim that the 90 degrees results in the smallest wheel for the battlegroup as a whole (there is less total movement to get to a position where they can then evade).

Difficult to show without models on the table!

I suppose the general problem here is that the rules state how you get into a kinked column, but not what happens when you're in it. I imagine an author would say that you take the front edge of the battle group as the reference point.

I'd agree that it's a good old murky area in the rules

There's nothing bad about a bit of murk. If I took the front edge as the reference point then presumably I would have burst through my own Cavalry?

Just to raise another point, following a turn (of either 90 degrees or 180 degrees) what happens if the Battle Group cannot now be hit with a wheel of less than 90 degrees by the charger? Is the charge cancelled? Does it wheel the maximum it can and then stop?

[hammy]

Just to raise another point, following a turn (of either 90 degrees or 180 degrees) what happens if the Battle Group cannot now be hit with a wheel of less than 90 degrees by the charger? Is the charge cancelled? Does it wheel the maximum it can and then stop?

Remember that when you turn before evading etc. you don't actually get to move further away from the enemy as part of the turn. I suspect that there are very few situations where what you are thinking of could actually happen. Also as you are evading all that matters is were you a potential target before your evade move which you clearly are otherwise the charge could not be delcared at all.

[Mehrunes]

Just to raise another point, following a turn (of either 90 degrees or 180 degrees) what happens if the Battle Group cannot now be hit with a wheel of less than 90 degrees by the charger? Is the charge cancelled? Does it wheel the maximum it can and then stop?

Isn't the legality of the charge checked prior to evade moves?
I can imagine many situations in which charges would be cancelled then and I never saw it played that way.

[dave_r]

Problem is that a wheel cannot be more than 90 degrees during an actual charge!

Therefore do they just wheel the max they can and then go forward, which I presume is what would happen, thereby missing the target?

[hammy]

Problem is that a wheel cannot be more than 90 degrees during an actual charge!

Therefore do they just wheel the max they can and then go forward, which I presume is what would happen, thereby missing the target?

That is not a problem Dave.

As long as your BG is a target of the charge the charge is fine. You can't semi evade and then declare that the charge doesn't happen.

Also check the evade rules on P66 and P67 and tell me how a BG where "the old side edge nearest the chargers becomes the new rear edge" can possibly result in the BG not being able to be charged (not that this is in any way relevant).

If a BG is charged it gets to react. If it evades then it may not be contactable after the evade. That does not mean it didn't have to evade to tget to the place where it can't be contacted.

[spikemesq]

Why would the LH evade through that LF? The diagram indicates that the LF are also a charge target? I suppose the LH could evade first, but both BGs would be evading as I see it.

Spike

[dave_r]

I think you've just answered your own question spike I could have chosen to evade the LF first, but......

[grahambriggs]

Problem is that a wheel cannot be more than 90 degrees during an actual charge!

Therefore do they just wheel the max they can and then go forward, which I presume is what would happen, thereby missing the target?

Also check the evade rules on P66 and P67 and tell me how a BG where "the old side edge nearest the chargers becomes the new rear edge" can possibly result in the BG not being able to be charged (not that this is in any way relevant).

That's interesting. So I guess it's a question of which side edge is closer to the charging enemy. Looks like it might be either the right hand side edge of base 3 or base 4 from the diagram - possibly base 3 by a hair?

[donkiesrus2003]

I have been reading through this thread and here is my understanding.
1. A literal interpretation of the rules then it is a frontal charge if any part of the cavalry unit is in front of the kinked base. (Taking the spirit of the rules you have a flank charge on the column as it is not in orb, fighting in 2 directions or undergoing some compulsary move)

2.
If you take the spirit of the rules and its a flank charge then:
They evade away from the direction of the charge through enemy knights that cannot be avoided by a 1 base shift and since they are less than 1MU away from the knights they cannot move but sit and take it second bulletpoint page 67.

If you take the literal interpretation then:
They either evade away from the direction of charge and the above happens or turn 180 degrees and goes next to nowhere unless it splits into 2 groups as the 3 bases next to the knights at the front of the column cannot move move than 1 base width upwards on the diagram and the other base can only go a base width left as right will intermix the unit with the knights (and no option allows you to split the BG). This is the literal interpretation of the evade rules as they make no exceptions for kinked columns although in keeping with the spirit of the rules you would allow them to follow round as a logical column move.

You cannot use the literal interpretation to get out of trouble at point 1 and then apply the spirit of the rules at point 2.
Hammy if this is what Dave normally plays like I would not waste my time with him unless you are really desperate for opponents.