Page 2 of 3
Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2010 7:08 pm
by spikemesq
bbotus wrote:Would someone be kind enough to explain what the abbreviations RAW and CW stand for? I keep seeing them in the different threads and haven't been able to find anything on them as yet. Thanks in advance.
RAW = rules as written
CW = conventional wisdom
Posted: Fri Dec 31, 2010 12:44 am
by philqw78
spikemesq wrote:
RAW = rules as written
CW = conventional wisdom
RAW= Spike's legalese view
CW= what everyone else knows to be true
normally. Spike occassionally has bouts of common sense
Posted: Fri Dec 31, 2010 12:58 am
by dave_r
spikemesq wrote:The VMD can only happen if all charge targets have evaded, so the rules specifically define the VMD as occurring after Evades.
I probably shouldn't, but I am still in a good mood after the Cricket. Do the rules define VMD's as occurring after evades or do they say the VMD roll happens after the evade roll? Evaders are moved first, then pursuers on a BG by BG basis. That doesn't specifically state or define that VMD occurs after evades.
As to the logic of the minority position in which outliers do not evade, the current dogma is less sensible.
It makes perfect sense that troops who would evade from chargers that can reach them at declaration, might be caught off guard where they did not believe they were in charge range but then get caught up in the extended charge.
No it doesn't. What would happen in real life is that when the knights begin to charge the LH would disappear. Only in a UGOIGO situation could this be deemed "logical"
LH that are 6 inches away from Lancers happily ignore their charge into other troops because they are not a charge target (absent step forward issues). The current rule gives them a phantom ruler in which they can react to charges they ignored as distant at precisely the moment that the charge becomes relevant. By contrast, other reactions to enemy charges are based on the snapshot of declaration.
Why do skirmishers get a second bite at the play sequence when no other troops do?
Other troops also get a second bite - Cavalry in single rank and other troops who can evade.
Interceptions cannot be reconsidered on the fly. If you can intercept a charge when and as declared, go for it. If the scene changes and an intercept opportunity emerges (because of evades or VMDs), tough titty because that ship has sailed.
Even chargers do not get to call an audible. If you declare a charge against LF who evade through another enemy BG, you don't get to change direction to better engage the new target. Again, the BG is committed to its declaration, even if the declared charge becomes foolish.
As I have noted before, the CW rule for outliers is even more absurd where the outlier is single-rank Cav. Before the VMD, a line of Cv in position to intercept (out of range, not a charge target) suddenly becomes eligible to evade that same charge if the VMD rolls up.
Over interpretation of legalese? I just prefer to play the rules as written instead of injecting an arbitrary and wholly unwritten sub-routine to the sequence of play.
But which in turn makes the rules break in certain circumstances. The way we all play the rule (except you) is natural, causes no arguments and can be easily explained.
Posted: Fri Dec 31, 2010 1:11 am
by philqw78
dave_r wrote: and can be easily explained.
Off you go then Dave.
happy birthday
Posted: Fri Dec 31, 2010 1:13 am
by dave_r
philqw78 wrote:dave_r wrote: and can be easily explained.
Off you go then Dave.
happy birthday
It's not my birthday?
Posted: Fri Dec 31, 2010 1:13 am
by philqw78
I know.
Posted: Fri Dec 31, 2010 1:15 am
by dave_r
philqw78 wrote:I know.
Does this mean you want the explanation then?
In simple (i.e. your) terms then:
If a BG gets contacted by a charger then it may evade as long as it meets the criterion for being able to evade.
There - dead easy to explain.
Posted: Fri Dec 31, 2010 1:17 am
by philqw78
dave_r wrote:philqw78 wrote:I know.
Does this mean you want the explanation then?
No. I want someone to care
Posted: Fri Dec 31, 2010 1:27 am
by dave_r
philqw78 wrote:dave_r wrote:philqw78 wrote:I know.
Does this mean you want the explanation then?
No. I want someone to care
I thought you weren't allowed to drink on weekdays?
Posted: Fri Dec 31, 2010 1:39 am
by philqw78
Only this one.
Posted: Fri Dec 31, 2010 2:06 am
by zoltan
[quote="dave_r"][Do the rules define VMD's as occurring after evades or do they say the VMD roll happens after the evade roll? Evaders are moved first, then pursuers on a BG by BG basis. [quote]
Evade Moves.
P66. "After chosing which of the above two options to adopt (evade to rear or in direction of charge), the evader makes a varibable move distance roll."
P68. "The chargers now move their charge move, adjusting the move distance by a VMD roll if all their charge targets evaded."
Posted: Fri Dec 31, 2010 11:59 am
by petedalby
I am in the U.S.
Okay - AFAIK you are in the only place where there is any disagreement on this point - as some of the early posts have demonstrated.
But I'm fairly sure that most of the US competition players would play it that the LH can evade when it becomes evident that the step forward would contact them.
For a definitive US tourney view I suggest you contact Dan Hazelwood.
Hope that helps.
Posted: Fri Dec 31, 2010 5:48 pm
by berthier
Dan does not speak for all of us but as far as this evasion issue goes most of us in the Gulf Coast Circuit don't see this as problem.
Posted: Fri Dec 31, 2010 7:44 pm
by gozerius
FWIW, in Minnesota, there is no contraversy. An unmasked BG executes the normal procedure for evasion when it becomes a target. The only issue I have with the way things are written is that chargers treat evaders and routers differently. And that evade capable troops cannot evade when a BG conforms into them.
Posted: Sat Jan 01, 2011 5:38 am
by bbotus
And that evade capable troops cannot evade when a BG conforms into them.
Not sure what you are referring to. Once a unit is engaged in hand to hand combat, no unit may evade in this system unless mounted break-off from steady foot in the JAP. But if a unit moves into melee contact with an enemy BG during the maneuver phase (pages 76-78), then all skirmish capable troops may evade.
Posted: Sat Jan 01, 2011 6:35 am
by gozerius
bbotus wrote:And that evade capable troops cannot evade when a BG conforms into them.
Not sure what you are referring to. Once a unit is engaged in hand to hand combat, no unit may evade in this system unless mounted break-off from steady foot in the JAP. But if a unit moves into melee contact with an enemy BG during the maneuver phase (pages 76-78), then all skirmish capable troops may evade.
Evading is not an option available on page 70-71. I would gladly do it if it were.
Posted: Sat Jan 01, 2011 12:32 pm
by iversonjm
I'm fairly sure that most of the US competition players would play it that the LH can evade when it becomes evident that the step forward would contact them.
For a definitive US tourney view I suggest you contact Dan Hazelwood.
Hope that helps.
The first statement is correct (it is certainly how I would rule if umpiring).
The second statement borders on heresy.
Posted: Sat Jan 01, 2011 4:36 pm
by petedalby
The second statement borders on heresy.
Sorry Matt!!
Posted: Sat Jan 01, 2011 7:53 pm
by hazelbark
berthier wrote:Dan does not speak for all of us but as far as this evasion issue goes most of us in the Gulf Coast Circuit don't see this as problem.
Now Chris, you should have writtenmore accurately...
"Many of us wish Dan did not speak for us..."
Posted: Sat Jan 01, 2011 7:59 pm
by hazelbark
iversonjm wrote:
I'm fairly sure that most of the US competition players would play it that the LH can evade when it becomes evident that the step forward would contact them.
For a definitive US tourney view I suggest you contact Dan Hazelwood.
Hope that helps.
The first statement is correct (it is certainly how I would rule if umpiring).
The second statement borders on heresy.
Matt's first statement is correct.
Matt's second statement demonstrates that he has skipped his recent appointment at the education camp.