Rules wording didn't give a logical result

[elysiumsolutions@fsmail.n]

The following situation occurred at Stockport Pick n mix competition. Which is a 650pt comp and only 2 ½ hours. Time pressure meant extended discussion was not an option.

A unit of LH (2x2) was charged in the flank/rear by a unit of Aux (1x4) who had another unit of aux (2x2) in front of them. There was about an inch between each unit.

Initial position as below: (Image supplied by Phil Powell Graphics Ltd)



I explained to my opponent that since its existing face was closer to the direction of charge it didn’t get to turn 90 or 180 and since it could not get past by dropping a base it had few options.

Umpire was called (Hammy).

Hammy ruled that the LH turned 90 (sadly I didn’t point out that I believed they couldn’t before he had moved the figures and as that is a bit dependant on the exact geometry and I haven’t got a photo lets ignore that).

Then measuring from their rear they wheeled 3 inches to the direction of charge, then moved another 4 inches sliding a base to avoid the aux to their front.

Post evade position is shown below (actually the LH orientation post evade is horizontal not angled)




The pursuing aux rolled a 6, therefore with 6 inch movement they had the movement to catch the LH.
However, Hammy said that as the LH were still in the path of the original charge (just) the aux could not wheel to follow the LH. The other aux therefore stopped them getting to the LH.

This definitely doesn’t seem logical but does appear to me to be correct to the rules as currently written. (If path just means direction).

One further point is that if upon contacting the other aux if the front base had wheeled clockwise (rather than just stopping at contact) it would have contacted the LH. You are allowed to wheel at any point in a charge. However, obviously this was not declared in the initial charge. Could they have wheeled?

[grahambriggs]

That hammy, what a minx he is.

Had it been me I think I might have ruled that "the path" means more than just whether they are to the front of the charger but also whether moving in that direction would allow the Auxilia to end in contact. In the sense that "there is a path to my front door" implies you can walk up it and contact my front door. But the wording is a little unclear so i can see it the other way as well.

Should have angled your charge a bit, got the horse boys to freeze then squashed them like bugs

[david53]

Should have angled your charge a bit, got the horse boys to freeze then squashed them like bugs

Bullies the lot off you....poor poor horse boys

No it was'nt my horse would never let those kid on Romans get behind me.

Come on Paul Dom Roms calling the Umpire shame on you.

[zeitoun]

for me, only wheel to face the direction of the charge ( it's closer than turn and wheel) , then if you cannot contract or shift to avoid ennemy's stop 1mU from it. Then Kill the LH....

[nikgaukroger]

Umpire was called (Hammy).

Think I've spotted your problem

[bbotus]

Umpiring is a tough job. We should be thankful that anyone would volunteer for that job. It is human nature to recall things imprecisely when we have to make quick judgment calls. And the rules generally become more FoGgy as the day goes on. We just call it part of the FoG of war. But after the game we always sit down and look up any rules question to try to remember it better next time. That being said, here are the applicable references (paraphrased):

page 45: Shifting to avoid enemy is not mentioned as allowable.
page 53: You are allowed a single wheel at any stage in the charge to avoid friends and contact the enemy.
page 66: Evaders charged in flank/rear must evade in direction of charge.
page 66: Evading BG turns 90 or 180 degrees (evading player's choice) unless it's existing facing is closer to the direction of the charge.
page 66-67: When evading, the 90 degree turn is different than normal, the old side edge nearest the charger becomes the new rear edge and the old front edge becomes the new side edge.
page 67: An evading BG must halt so as not to get closer than 1 MU from an enemy BG in its path. No shifting or contracting is allowed at all. Further, if an evading BG starts closer than 1 MU to an enemy BG in its path, it does not move at all.

[MatthewP]

Why didnt you angle your Charge better and force your opponent to evade directly into the Auxilla to your front. It is after all a flank/rear charge, they have to evade in the direction of the charge.

[david53]

Why didnt you angle your Charge better

A simple error in the heat of the game no doubt....

[elysiumsolutions@fsmail.n]

As the distance from the Aux to the LH was 1 inch any wheel would have been within 1 inch and meant that it was no longer a legal flank charge.
Since I didn't believe I needed to I therefore didn't wheel.

[grahambriggs]

As the distance from the Aux to the LH was 1 inch any wheel would have been within 1 inch and meant that it was no longer a legal flank charge.
Since I didn't believe I needed to I therefore didn't wheel.

Rear charges are not restricted by the 1 inch thing.

[david53]

As the distance from the Aux to the LH was 1 inch any wheel would have been within 1 inch and meant that it was no longer a legal flank charge.
Since I didn't believe I needed to I therefore didn't wheel.

Rear charges are not restricted by the 1 inch thing.

You just beat me to that.

Still Paul you'll get them next time....what was the army you were facing again?

[elysiumsolutions@fsmail.n]

Opponent was Later Byzantine (mainly shooty cav). Mine was Dom Rom.

[david53]

Opponent was Later Byzantine (mainly shooty cav). Mine was Dom Rom.

Damm shooty cavalry again, they'll be the death of the world don't you know

[hammy]

The post evade diagram is not quite correct. The heading of the evaders was away from the chargers and still partly in front of them.

The chargers could not I think wheel because they were within 1MU so it would have stopped the charge from being a flank charge.

[philqw78]

The post evade diagram is not quite correct. The heading of the evaders was away from the chargers and still partly in front of them.

The chargers could not I think wheel because they were within 1MU so it would have stopped the charge from being a flank charge.

All too late now Hammy.

[graym]

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.

[hammy]

The post evade diagram is not quite correct. The heading of the evaders was away from the chargers and still partly in front of them.

The chargers could not I think wheel because they were within 1MU so it would have stopped the charge from being a flank charge.

All too late now Hammy.

??

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.

[lawrenceg]

The post evade diagram is not quite correct. The heading of the evaders was away from the chargers and still partly in front of them.

The chargers could not I think wheel because they were within 1MU so it would have stopped the charge from being a flank charge.

All too late now Hammy.

??

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.

Let us suppose the LH were not there, but consider the piece of ground they occupied after their evade.
Now suppose that the friendly non-charging BG is in fact an enemy BG, which the charging BG is charging.
Now suppose that there is another enemy BG whose interception zone covers the area the LH occupied after their evade.

If that enemy BG can intercept then that area is in the path of the charge.
If they can't intercept then it is not in the path of the charge.

[hammy]

If that enemy BG can intercept then that area is in the path of the charge.
If they can't intercept then it is not in the path of the charge.

An interesting argument but I fear one that may lead to just a little cheese.

Consider BG A about 1mm from BG B, BG A charges BG B which evades directly to its rear. The moment it moves it leaves the path of the charge by your definition.

[lawrenceg]

If that enemy BG can intercept then that area is in the path of the charge.
If they can't intercept then it is not in the path of the charge.

An interesting argument but I fear one that may lead to just a little cheese.

Consider BG A about 1mm from BG B, BG A charges BG B which evades directly to its rear. The moment it moves it leaves the path of the charge by your definition.

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.