Slitherine

stenic wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:Stops you jumping half way across the table

lol, sorry, had to laugh, it's like questioning users...

"Why do you do it that way?"
"Because we do"

I understand what you are saying but it doesn't explain why 1 base width was the selected distance.

Steve

Probably because it was found to be suitable when tested. Not too far so that it is too easy to avoid things, but far enough to allow things to be avoided in reasonable circumstances.

nikgaukroger wrote:If they are pinned by both they only have to "react" to one of them, which they can choose, and so the fact that a 90 degree turn and move wouldn't get them further away from the Bw is not relevant to that. 3rd bullet page 74.

Of course (having checked the photo) in this example, as you point out, escape will actually be impossible, but not always in similar cases.

Nik, not that they would escape the same ultimate fate, but why is it impossible for them to do just as you say and respond to the restricted area of the spears by turning 90 and moving to the right of the photo? They can easily remain to the front of the spears.

Curious,

Mike

nikgaukroger wrote:

hammy wrote:
Look at the photo Nik,

The cavalry are facing the bowmen so can't move further away from them. A 90 degree turn is not going to be able to end up further away from the bow either. Moving so that they are still infront of the spear is also quite difficult.

If they are pinned by both they only have to "react" to one of them, which they can choose, and so the fact that a 90 degree turn and move wouldn't get them further away from the Bw is not relevant to that. 3rd bullet page 74.

Of course (having checked the photo) in this example, as you point out, escape will actually be impossible, but not always in similar cases.

Yup, IMO there is no move that the cavalry can make legally reacting to the spear (other than turn 180) and remain in a single rank and infront of the spear.

They could turn 90 but then will not be in a formation that can evade and have a flank exposed to something and be receiving 6 dice on 3+ (the bow were longbow).

If they react to the bow they won't be able to end up further away from the bow with a turn and wheel as they will end up in a single element column and have to kink.

This is an interesting theoretical debate though and I would like to have something from the triumvirate on it

spike wrote:
...

My 2p

Having seen the incident 1st hand last night, I would like to look at this in a slightly different light first.
What would have happened if the troops stopping Dave's evade move were friendlies not enemy- I think they would have been burst through by the evading Cv, and then the chargers would have hit the disrupted BG. So no kinked column would be allowed and the trying to evade round the edge of the friendly group would not happen.

The "conceived move" of a 90 deg turn does not comply with the spirit of the rules, which require a BG charged in flank or rear to move in the direction of the charge - which is directly blocked in this case by the enemy. The 90 degree turn in this case means that their initial move in this case after the turn is not in the direction of the charge.

and lastly as the rear 3 elements shift more than 1 BW sideways from their original position and importantly "direction"; that therefore 2nd bullet (on page 67) after "If the above would not allow all front rank bases ...etc" should apply- which states if the path is blocked by enemy stops 1 MU away and or remains stationary if within 1 mu, with no shifting or contraction.

Spike

I believe the mechanic that the rules give for evading in the direction of the charge is that the BG faces 90 or 180 degrees (owner's choice) and then wheels to move in the direction of the charge. That seems to be true for the "conceived move" ignoring the issues of kinked columns and side shifts, so I don't think it contravenes the spirit of the rules as you suggested.

batesmotel wrote:

spike wrote:
...

My 2p

Having seen the incident 1st hand last night, I would like to look at this in a slightly different light first.
What would have happened if the troops stopping Dave's evade move were friendlies not enemy- I think they would have been burst through by the evading Cv, and then the chargers would have hit the disrupted BG. So no kinked column would be allowed and the trying to evade round the edge of the friendly group would not happen.

The "conceived move" of a 90 deg turn does not comply with the spirit of the rules, which require a BG charged in flank or rear to move in the direction of the charge - which is directly blocked in this case by the enemy. The 90 degree turn in this case means that their initial move in this case after the turn is not in the direction of the charge.

and lastly as the rear 3 elements shift more than 1 BW sideways from their original position and importantly "direction"; that therefore 2nd bullet (on page 67) after "If the above would not allow all front rank bases ...etc" should apply- which states if the path is blocked by enemy stops 1 MU away and or remains stationary if within 1 mu, with no shifting or contraction.

Spike

I believe the mechanic that the rules give for evading in the direction of the charge is that the BG faces 90 or 180 degrees (owner's choice) and then wheels to move in the direction of the charge. That seems to be true for the "conceived move" ignoring the issues of kinked columns and side shifts, so I don't think it contravenes the spirit of the rules as you suggested.

read further
...90 or 180 degrees (owner's choice) unless it's existing facing is closer to its direction of charge. It must then wheel parallel to the chargers' indicated direction of charge. it then completes its full move forwards , adjusting for variable move distances.

look at the photo and they are facing almost in the direction of the charge (in my opinion), and I still think the 90 deg turn here in this case its not within the spirit of the rules.

Spike

spike wrote: look at the photo and they are facing almost in the direction of the charge (in my opinion), and I still think the 90 deg turn here in this case its not within the spirit of the rules.

I could definitly have wheeled the charge such that a 90 degree turn was not allowed. Infact in the previous turn I could have I think managed to wheel the spears so far that there would not have been the space for the cavalry to turn 90 even if they wanted to (i.e. end up less than 10mm from the rear corner of the cavalry base so that the turn would actually put them inside my BG).

That said the turning and evading as a single element column thing does seem to have differning interpretations depending on who is posting so getting a definitive answer would probably be good.

spike wrote:...90 or 180 degrees (owner's choice) unless it's existing facing is closer to its direction of charge. It must then wheel parallel to the chargers' indicated direction of charge. it then completes its full move forwards , adjusting for variable move distances.

look at the photo and they are facing almost in the direction of the charge (in my opinion), and I still think the 90 deg turn here in this case its not within the spirit of the rules.

Spike

Facing is a simple factual measurement issue of whether current facing or a turn is closer to the direction of charge set by the charger under the Impact rules.

If the cav starts facing 44 degrees from the direction of charge they move the way they are facing. If the cav is facing 46 degrees from the direction of charge then as a matter of geometry they must turn 90 degrees to get closer to the direction of charge. You quoted the rule above.

With a ruler on the screen I measured the angle as more than 45 degrees assuming the spear charge directly forward, so they must turn - no choice involved. If they turn, they must follow the turning rules which requires an ending frontage not more than a base wide, meaning a single column. No choice involved, just simple geometry. Then the BGmust wheel and if necessary shift, and that's where objections to doing so in kinked column come in and the rules issues arise.

Of course I could have measured wrong, and as Hammy said he could have set up the charge at an angle which would not require a turn. In that case, the Cav doesn't turn, can't wheel, can't shift, can't do anything but get rear attacked by the spears.

Either way, columns in evades need to be sorted out since they do happen, though this particular situation must be quite rare.

Good night,

Mike

MikeK wrote:Of course I could have measured wrong, and as Hammy said he could have set up the charge at an angle which would not require a turn. In that case, the Cav doesn't turn, can't wheel, can't shift, can't do anything but get rear attacked by the spears.

Either way, columns in evades need to be sorted out since they do happen, though this particular situation must be quite rare.

I think you did indeed measure right, the 90 turn was in this case possible. I didn't bother with the extra wheel to remove the 90 option because by my understanding it didn't make any difference.
We do need something about evading columns though and yes this is a rare situation, I can't remember anything like it in any of the well over 100 games I have played.

Nik, not that they would escape the same ultimate fate, but why is it impossible for them to do just as you say and respond to the restricted area of the spears by turning 90 and moving to the right of the photo? They can easily remain to the front of the spears.

That would have involved the troops in question actually passing a CMT.... Which is what they couldn't do earlier, which is why they ended up in this situation...

The 8 "in a row" failed CT's in the middle didn't help either....

Given the close proximity of warfare can we have an official announcement on this?

dave_r wrote:Given the close proximity of warfare can we have an official announcement on this?

I am not sure that one is likely before the weekend but you will get an opportunity to discuss it with them over the weekend if you want.

Dave_r, whatever you do, absolutely, positively, definitely don't accidentally get in a situation that would force them to umpire the questions of whether a kinked column formation can shift and whether a shift can end with less than 2 bases on either side of the kink!

hammy wrote:

MikeK wrote:Of course I could have measured wrong, and as Hammy said he could have set up the charge at an angle which would not require a turn. In that case, the Cav doesn't turn, can't wheel, can't shift, can't do anything but get rear attacked by the spears.

Either way, columns in evades need to be sorted out since they do happen, though this particular situation must be quite rare.

I think you did indeed measure right, the 90 turn was in this case possible. I didn't bother with the extra wheel to remove the 90 option because by my understanding it didn't make any difference.
We do need something about evading columns though and yes this is a rare situation, I can't remember anything like it in any of the well over 100 games I have played.

A sneaky man would have made him stop as soon as he turned into a column. It clearly says in my rule book that only cavalry entirely in a single rank can evade. While in a single rank you can do so. There's nothing that says "if at the point of being charged they are in a single rank"

Graham,

If I've read correctly, they were in a single rank, but charged in such a way as they had to first turn 90 (forming a column) then running away.

If the OP didn't want that to happen, then they should have declared charge with both BGs in order to force the enemy to disect the angle between chargers.

Madcam.

I think Grahams deviant point is that they are no longer in a single rank once they have turned into column so may no longer evade.

If I've read correctly, they were in a single rank

madcam2us wrote:Graham,

If I've read correctly, they were in a single rank, but charged in such a way as they had to first turn 90 (forming a column) then running away.

If the OP didn't want that to happen, then they should have declared charge with both BGs in order to force the enemy to disect the angle between chargers.

Madcam.

But my point is that once they turn 90, and are in a column they are no longer in a single rank - so they can't evade.

madcam2us wrote:Graham,

If I've read correctly, they were in a single rank, but charged in such a way as they had to first turn 90 (forming a column) then running away.

If the OP didn't want that to happen, then they should have declared charge with both BGs in order to force the enemy to disect the angle between chargers.

Madcam.

I could but then the cavalry would have had a chance to excape. I am not into giving my opponent any chance I can avoid giving them

This seems rather like confusing the movement mechanism with the action. Granted, it isn't specifically written in the rules. However, it would seem odd once the evade has begun, to rule that it should stop. Following this logic, if a cavalry base shifts across one base width into a second rank to avoid friends during an evade, the evade move would presumably have to stop at that point.

I think the intention of the rules is that cavalry one base deep are assumed to be in a suitably dispersed group to be able to evade. (Isn't this explicitly stated somewhere?) The movement during the evade may change their formation, but this is purely a mechanism for moving the figures.

It was only a tongue in cheek suggestion of potential "counter cheese" Roger.

Mounted troops being charged seem difficult to write tight rules around. I recall being asked to arbitrate on a 5th(?) edition game once. A unit of LH in 'cantabrian circle' was charged by some Roman auxila. The horse commander tried to argue that as his men were riding in a circle, they could all wheel on the spot, follow the leader in a semi-circle and charge the auxilia in the flank!!

Hammy, Hammy,

the bisected angle would be the way to go as that would be the furtherest distance the evading BG would have to travel.

Still I have come on DaveR's POV that the move was legite.

P66 second column, first bullet appears to support the move to column. Second bullet continues this support.

IMO you should have declared charge with each to prevent this bit of cheese...

Madcam.