Page 2 of 3
Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 2:32 pm
by hammy
lawrenceg wrote:
No.
I was using the analogy of the final position of the evader after the evade to a notional intercept decision made if this final position was the intercept zone at the point of declaring the charge.
So in your example you would see where B ends up, pretend this was a notional intercept zone, pretend you were only now declaring the charge and determine if the intercept was possible.
OK but I don't see how that is not just another opinion.
If there is an enemy BG in the way and the evaders slip past it does that mean that the chargers can wheel to avoid hitting the enemy because the evaders now past the enemy BG are not in the 'path' of their charge?
E are the evaders and have slid a base to avoid X the obstructing BG on the same side as the evaders. C are the chargers.
If the path of the charge does not extend past the obstruction then C can wheel to avoid hitting X. I am not sure that is what is intended.
Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 6:54 pm
by lawrenceg
hammy wrote:lawrenceg wrote:
No.
I was using the analogy of the final position of the evader after the evade to a notional intercept decision made if this final position was the intercept zone at the point of declaring the charge.
So in your example you would see where B ends up, pretend this was a notional intercept zone, pretend you were only now declaring the charge and determine if the intercept was possible.
OK but I don't see how that is not just another opinion.
If there is an enemy BG in the way and the evaders slip past it does that mean that the chargers can wheel to avoid hitting the enemy because the evaders now past the enemy BG are not in the 'path' of their charge?
E are the evaders and have slid a base to avoid X the obstructing BG on the same side as the evaders. C are the chargers.
If the path of the charge does not extend past the obstruction then C can wheel to avoid hitting X. I am not sure that is what is intended.
No. You can only wheel to catch evaders if all target BGs evaded.
Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 7:29 pm
by spikemesq
hammy wrote:lawrenceg wrote:
No.
I was using the analogy of the final position of the evader after the evade to a notional intercept decision made if this final position was the intercept zone at the point of declaring the charge.
So in your example you would see where B ends up, pretend this was a notional intercept zone, pretend you were only now declaring the charge and determine if the intercept was possible.
OK but I don't see how that is not just another opinion.
If there is an enemy BG in the way and the evaders slip past it does that mean that the chargers can wheel to avoid hitting the enemy because the evaders now past the enemy BG are not in the 'path' of their charge?
E are the evaders and have slid a base to avoid X the obstructing BG on the same side as the evaders. C are the chargers.
If the path of the charge does not extend past the obstruction then C can wheel to avoid hitting X. I am not sure that is what is intended.
Actually this is a trick question if XX are enemies of CC.
If XX are within normal charge range, then they become a target of the charge once EE reveal them to CC. CC will not roll a VMD because not all charge targets have evaded.
If XX are beyond normal charge range, then it gets weird. CC does roll a VMD because all charge targets evaded. If it gets extra move (i.e. rolls a 5 or 6) then (according to the CW here) XX becomes a charge target for evasion purposes only. So if XX = LH or single rank non-shock Cv/LCh, it gets to evade. Otherwise, it stands there and takes the charge but does not trigger any additional interceptions.
IIRC a strict construction of VMD language actually permits excess movement and wheeling to contact the evaders and (arguably) deny those wheels and added move if the evaders are too far away. No one plays it this way, and I don't have the rulebook to confirm, but check that language to see what I mean (or scold me for poor recall) v0v.
Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 8:21 pm
by dave_r
graym wrote:bbotus brings up many crucial points in this situation which I must admit not being a great skirmisher had eluded me until recently.
Important stuff to know and remember.
Unfortunately, some of them are wrong!
Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 8:35 pm
by ShrubMiK
Leaving aside all the legalese, and considering it from the point of view of "what do we think should happen in a reasonable world"...
Surely it is a little perverse that the evading BG can successfully slip past the second enemy BG them by complicated manoeuvering under pressure, and without interference from these guys who are very close and you would imagine quite keen to hinder them by any means possible. Whereas the chargers apparently are very large ships with jammed rudders who cannot follow the natural human instinct to follow the thing they are supposed to be impacting and instead collide blindly with their mates.
This ruling seems like an extension of the general ridiculousness of being in multiple threat zones generally resulting in more freedom of movement.
Can I propose that we add the infamous missing rule to the official errata...you know, the rule that says that under no circumstances should it ever be possible to catch LH
Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 9:56 pm
by dave_r
ShrubMiK wrote:Leaving aside all the legalese, and considering it from the point of view of "what do we think should happen in a reasonable world"...
Surely it is a little perverse that the evading BG can successfully slip past the second enemy BG them by complicated manoeuvering under pressure, and without interference from these guys who are very close and you would imagine quite keen to hinder them by any means possible. Whereas the chargers apparently are very large ships with jammed rudders who cannot follow the natural human instinct to follow the thing they are supposed to be impacting and instead collide blindly with their mates.
This ruling seems like an extension of the general ridiculousness of being in multiple threat zones generally resulting in more freedom of movement.
Can I propose that we add the infamous missing rule to the official errata...you know, the rule that says that under no circumstances should it ever be possible to catch LH
If that was the case why didn't the other lads charge? It was the players decision to only charge with one BG which wouldn't have happened in a reasonable world!
Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 10:38 pm
by ShrubMiK
Well, I would tend to agree.
Although I don't see how that would lead to a better result under the rules. Much as with multiple threat zones, multiple chargers often gives the evader more chance of escaping. In this particular case, instead of just barely skating past the blocking unit, wouldn't the LH squirt very easily out to the side? Am I missing a subtle point in the geometry here?
Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:35 am
by philqw78
hammy wrote:??
The diagrams are incorrect Phil, why is it too late to point that out?
There is an argument that the path of a charge does not extend past a friendly BG blocking it but that would be just as much of an interpretation as it not extending. The only possibly contentious point in this ruling was did the evaders go out of the path of the charge.
OK then too little too late. I made the diagrams without even seeing the situation. Therefore my drawings cannot be tarnished by any pre-determined preconceptions.
And for later points you can wheel at any point during a charge. So even though I think to allow the evaders to turn and wheel was wrong, not allowing a wheel at the end of the charge made it doubly so. Hammy, obviously, you should be ashamed of yourself this being Christmas and everything.
Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:48 am
by graym
Dave, apart from a shift to avoid enemy being allowed, what else is wrong ?
Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 9:10 am
by hammy
philqw78 wrote:hammy wrote:??
The diagrams are incorrect Phil, why is it too late to point that out?
There is an argument that the path of a charge does not extend past a friendly BG blocking it but that would be just as much of an interpretation as it not extending. The only possibly contentious point in this ruling was did the evaders go out of the path of the charge.
OK then too little too late. I made the diagrams without even seeing the situation. Therefore my drawings cannot be tarnished by any pre-determined preconceptions.
And for later points you can wheel at any point during a charge. So even though I think to allow the evaders to turn and wheel was wrong, not allowing a wheel at the end of the charge made it doubly so. Hammy, obviously, you should be ashamed of yourself this being Christmas and everything.
You can wheel at any point in a charge prior to contacting the enemy but as in this case the charger was within 1MU a wheel would have meant that it was not a flank charge.
Once the evaders leg it then the chargers can wheel to catch them if the evaders leave the path of the charge. As the evaders were still in front of the chargers then I argued that they were still in the path. The debate is about if the path of the charge is impacted by the presence of the other friendly BG.
Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 9:50 am
by philqw78
Further imaginings have produced this representation of the end of the charge.
Where it can be seen the path of the charge stops at the friendly BG pointing in the other direction.
Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 10:13 am
by nikgaukroger
hammy wrote:
Once the evaders leg it then the chargers can wheel to catch them if the evaders leave the path of the charge. As the evaders were still in front of the chargers then I argued that they were still in the path. The debate is about if the path of the charge is impacted by the presence of the other friendly BG.
Do the rules say anything about charges wheeling to follow evaders
if the evaders leave the path of the charge? I can't recall that they do - they just say that they can wheel to follow the evaders IIRC.
Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 10:28 am
by elysiumsolutions@fsmail.n
If both Aux had charged the direction of evade would allow them to squirt out to the side so this was not an option.
I think hammy has hit it on the head when he said
The debate is about if the path of the charge is impacted by the presence of the other friendly BG.
i.e. Does path just mean the direction of charge or does it mean the area over which the charge will pass. As Graham said the path to his front door ends at his front door rather than continuing through his house.
If the path of the charge ended where the charge would end, upon contacting the other Aux unit, the LH were not in the path of the charge and therefore the Aux could as one would expect have wheeled.
I believe this interpretation of what the rules mean by path would solve the logical inconsistency.
Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 10:49 am
by zeitoun
philqw78 wrote:Further imaginings have produced this representation of the end of the charge.
Where it can be seen the path of the charge stops at the friendly BG pointing in the other direction.
as you are in charge, you can dropping back base to follow the evaders !!!
Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 12:25 pm
by grahambriggs
philqw78 wrote:Further imaginings have produced this representation of the end of the charge.
Where it can be seen the path of the charge stops at the friendly BG pointing in the other direction.
My argument would be:
1. That the chargers path is not a BG wide zone projecting forever in front of it, but the actual route travelled from the start point to the chargers position in this diagram.
2. The routers are not in that path.
3. Ergo I am allowed to change my path so as to catch them.
Point 1 being the key difference
Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 1:38 pm
by berthier
nikgaukroger wrote:
Do the rules say anything about charges wheeling to follow evaders if the evaders leave the path of the charge? I can't recall that they do - they just say that they can wheel to follow the evaders IIRC.
p. 68 2nd column, 1st bullet under the tip states:
""If all target battlegroups evade out of the original path of the charge, the chargers can wheel in an attempt to catch them."
Christopher Anders
Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 1:49 pm
by Mehrunes
Did I miss something or does the picture in the first post clearly shows an rear charge with the LH unable to evade far enough?
What is the discussion exactly about now?
Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 1:59 pm
by philqw78
Mehrunes wrote:Did I miss something or does the picture in the first post clearly shows an rear charge with the LH unable to evade far enough?
What is the discussion exactly about now?
I did the picture for Paul as he had no way to get them on here. From what I understood the target of the charge was allowed to wheel around the blocking BG, but rolled short. In some peoples opinion the wheel should not have been allowed. After rolling short and being allowed to pass the blocker the charger than went forward but could not contact the evader due to the blocking BG. If the charger could wheel it could still reach the evader though. The main points were:
Could the evader be allowed to wheel
Since it did could the charger wheel to contact once the blocker got in the way.
Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 2:03 pm
by hammy
philqw78 wrote:Further imaginings have produced this representation of the end of the charge.
Where it can be seen the path of the charge stops at the friendly BG pointing in the other direction.
Cheers Phil,
That is pretty much the situation.
The way the bases were aligned it was not possible for the chargers to drop files to pass the other BG.
What is IMO not clear is the defninition of the 'path of the charge'. I quite like Graham's idea but am still slightly concerned that it might introduce opportunities for cheese.
Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 2:04 pm
by nikgaukroger
berthier wrote:nikgaukroger wrote:
Do the rules say anything about charges wheeling to follow evaders if the evaders leave the path of the charge? I can't recall that they do - they just say that they can wheel to follow the evaders IIRC.
p. 68 2nd column, 1st bullet under the tip states:
""If all target battlegroups evade out of the original path of the charge, the chargers can wheel in an attempt to catch them."
Christopher Anders
Ta - I wasn't sure.