Slitherine

It comes up. The situation that prompted my earliest question on this was where LF evaded to their rear into bad terrain and out of the straight-ahead path of a mounted charge. The charger went past the terrain and then wheeled so as to be in position for its charge at its next target in the clear behind the terrain (it didn't want to charge through the terrain). The reasons this was OK was that one wheel is allowed in the charge anyway, and, since the LF vaded off to the left, a left wheel was an "attempt" (admittedly futile) to follow them - although the tactical intent was to set up the next charge at a different target.

Mike

Again this seems smart tactical play ... as long as intent 1 and itnent 2 are aligned it makes reasonable sense to me.

What woudn't make sense would be a move that breached intent 1 that led to an advantage at the second stage. I guess that is the spriti of it.

Si

XXXX
Y
Y
Y

X is LF
Y is LH facing up the page

Y charges X, including a wheel of 90 degrees.

X decides to evade in the direction of the charge.

Do X go up the page, to the right, or could they choose any direction between these two?

To me ... as I would rule it ... again unofficial but fialry solid ground I suspect....

As stated earlier the direction of charge changes with the wheel so it's final direcion ...

• So the direction of charge, as seen by the XXXXs, is roughly sideways.
  As the charge did not start in Flank or Rear XXXX can evade to their own rear or away from the final direction of charge - this is always the only choice possible.

Certainly how I have played it any time it has happened - which wasn't common I must say. You can however try to push enemy LH/F around with this type of thing if they have their route to rear blocked. Good tactical guideline ... keep a route to rear clear if you are XXX and its irrelevant

Si

My diagram was a bit unclear. The reason that Q does not intercept is that when the charges are declared Z's line of charge is directly at X. It does not pass through the path that Q can intercept into. It is only after Y has moved across the front of Z that Z, in attempting to complete its charge, moves to the right and into Q's zone.

With your proposed resolution of the conflicting charges problem Y is used to give Z a move through an interception zone without being intercepted. How much of an advantage this is may be open to debate. It may also be interpreted as good play rather than a sneaky way of avoiding the interception.

It seems unlikely that these situations are going to occur very often. However, every rule change creates an opportunity. The 'elbow' technique in an early version of another rule set wasn't that common until it was 'discovered'. Its use spread like an epidemic.

My diagram was a bit unclear. The reason that Q does not intercept is that when the charges are declared Z's line of charge is directly at X. It does not pass through the path that Q can intercept into. It is only after Y has moved across the front of Z that Z, in attempting to complete its charge, moves to the right and into Q's zone.

With your proposed resolution of the conflicting charges problem Y is used to give Z a move through an interception zone without being intercepted. How much of an advantage this is may be open to debate. It may also be interpreted as good play rather than a sneaky way of avoiding the interception.

It seems unlikely that these situations are going to occur very often. However, every rule change creates an opportunity. The 'elbow' technique in an early version of another rule set wasn't that common until it was 'discovered'. Its use spread like an epidemic.

Hi Roger

I suspect its a bit of a non-issue as you say and suggest leaving it hanging as it is for the time being and seeing what issues people find, if any. Alas I won't be a Britcon this year to natter about it an other issues. My guts tell me it is really going to be a 1 in 100 games minor issue but maybe I am wrong.

Just on your scenario my sense would be that as X has to wheel if Q is close enough it will move forward an intercept anyway blocking the wheel. If far enough away it still leaves room for the wheel without hitting it then perhaps Q should have been a bit closer ... as you say the diags are a bit tricky but must say it seems a pretty minor issue to me at present.

History may prove me wrong - it has before

Si

shall wrote: As stated earlier the direction of charge changes with the wheel so it's final direcion ...

Si

I apologize, but I'm still trying to nail down how this works on the table, so is this an accurate blow-by-blow description of how this would work?

Our friend Y declares a charge, X says it will evade, Y is then required to declare a direction of charge and does so (let's say by placing a charge arrow oriented at 94 degrees from table "north"), X evades in that direction or to its rear, and then . . .

Y charges and must wheel to end its move facing in the declared direction 94 degrees from table "north"

OR it can wheel less or more to the extent doing so would "attempt to follow evaders"

BUT THIS IS IF AND ONLY IF they evaded out of the path that lies straight ahead of where Y would be if it wheeled to exactly 94 degrees at the point in its charge where it chooses to wheel.

The restrictions on Y's direction declaration and later movement are that it must pick a direction and later on a a wheel point that ensures that it would have hit X (if X had not evaded) with no less bases than it would have hit with if it had charged straight ahead (which in this case means it only need have hit 1 base since X was not straight ahead).

So in practice, Y would need to eyeball or work out the charge in advance to ensure the charge direction it chooses (most likely to discomfit the enemy with its evasion choice) is also legal.

---

This is the only way I see to put this all together and relate declared direction of charge to what happens in the actual charge as well as to the evasion.

What do you think? Not only do I need to play this rule (charge/evasion being a frequent occurrence) but I will need to be ready to umpire it a couple conventions down the line.

Thanks,

Mike

Ok not often have I seen such funnies so let's not get too carried away, but it is always fun to figure a puzzle...

When I have this is how the sequence went step by step ... (my personal view of course at present and rservce the right to change it if RBS/TS havea better one) .... and the spirit of what is intended, which is "run away from the direction that enemy charge you from".

1. Y charges X and it is clear that he can do so somehow so that is enough for now; and other charges are then declared
2. Returning to Y, X says he will evade, so we now need a direction of charge so that X can respond. If there were interceptors around you would need the path too, even if X was not evading.
3. Y is changing direction during the charge. For any BG that does this with a wheel from the start you can show the direction with a stick from the start of the charge from the otuside of the whell (which is much more normal). However the sharp change of direction part way means it needs to be more specifically defined and we put a stick down for the final direction of charge. Likewise any delayed wheel - which does happen a bit.
4. If there were any interceptors around who could get in the way these are moved now - before evaders - so may get in the way.
5. If there are non, the evader now moves away
6. The charger now move his charge and may add a further wheel in attempt to get to the evader (so if the evader evades to rear he can wheel again towards where they and up), BUT only if all targets evaded.

Si

Thanks Si! Clears it up.