Came up in a game today.

TuG of cavalry charged by elephants in front of them. Cavalry response to skirmish. Shoots and kills a base so the elephants will not contact the TuG of cavalry.
The cavalry in theory could skirmish forward. I would not allow this.  A skirmish or run away move is about getting away from the enemy, not about moving towards them (even if they have been shot away!).

The same applies if charged from directly ahead.  In theory a skirmish move could be used like a countercharge move.  I would however also not allow this.
Similarly, a UG charged from directly behind could in theory skirmish to its own rear.  Again I would not allow this.

Neither situation is explicitly prohibited in the rules.  I have to admit I have never seen a player try to take advantage of the rules in such a cheesy way.

A helpful clarification might be that a skirmish or run away move must be an attempt to avoid the chargers.

Richard

Now what sort of a despicable person would suggest that move ...

I did it in a game 2 weeks ago but am not despicable just opportunist. Fleeing forward enabled me to avoid the charge which I could not avoid if fleeing backwards

I am not suggesting that you shouldn't be able to Run Away or Skirmish forwards if it enables you to avoid being caught.  I am suggesting you shouldn't be able to do it  when it takes you towards the chargers rather than away from them.

Richard

Does seem strange but not sure that it can be disallowed if the rules as written allow it.

Two points
A] There are many circumstances where a skirmish forward will take you closer to the enemy on your way to a position that they will not be able to reach, so wording this would be very difficult without it becoming cheesy in itself.

B] The way the rules are written, that the decision on direction is explicitly AFTER shooting as been resolved, implies that a forward surge is a valid reaction to blowing bases away (indeed to be really cheesy this might ensure impact to allow the chargers to be finished of with a lucky white wound!).

Fair points.

If you consider that a skirmisher's default behaviour is to shoot from the shortest possible range (to maximise effectiveness) while remaining at a "safe" distance, skirmishing forward may not be so objectionable.

If you want to legislate against it, maybe the way would be to assign the shooting dice before the skirmishers move, but throw them after they move.

Quote from: steads on June 15, 2021, 01:01:39 AM
Two points
A] There are many circumstances where a skirmish forward will take you closer to the enemy on your way to a position that they will not be able to reach, so wording this would be very difficult without it becoming cheesy in itself.

Absolutely agree.

Quote from: steads on June 15, 2021, 01:01:39 AM
B] The way the rules are written, that the decision on direction is explicitly AFTER shooting as been resolved, implies that a forward surge is a valid reaction to blowing bases away (indeed to be really cheesy this might ensure impact to allow the chargers to be finished of with a lucky white wound!)

This is the situation which is tricky.   What if I don't choose to shoot at all, but merely skirmish forward as a method of doing a countercharge without having to play a card?  That is when it becomes cheesy!

Richard

Richard 

Quote from: lionheartrjc on June 14, 2021, 05:31:56 PM
Came up in a game today.

TuG of cavalry charged by elephants in front of them. Cavalry response to skirmish. Shoots and kills a base so the elephants will not contact the TuG of cavalry.
The cavalry in theory could skirmish forward. I would not allow this.  A skirmish or run away move is about getting away from the enemy, not about moving towards them (even if they have been shot away!).

The same applies if charged from directly ahead.  In theory a skirmish move could be used like a countercharge move.  I would however also not allow this.
Similarly, a UG charged from directly behind could in theory skirmish to its own rear.  Again I would not allow this.

Neither situation is explicitly prohibited in the rules.  I have to admit I have never seen a player try to take advantage of the rules in such a cheesy way.

A helpful clarification might be that a skirmish or run away move must be an attempt to avoid the chargers.

Richard

I wonder if a couple of changes could sort out this. Something like:

Say that you need to declare the direction of Run Away/Skirmish when you decide your charge response* and that such a response could not end with any bases closer to any of the chargers bases based on how the bases are at that point. Although the latter bit could run into problems when charged by multiple enemies who charge from different directions 

QuoteThis is the situation which is tricky.   What if I don't choose to shoot at all, but merely skirmish forward as a method of doing a countercharge without having to play a card?  That is when it becomes cheesy!

Won't the skirmishing forward unit be destroyed if it contacts the chargers?

Quote from: LawrenceG on June 15, 2021, 07:25:23 AM

QuoteThis is the situation which is tricky.   What if I don't choose to shoot at all, but merely skirmish forward as a method of doing a countercharge without having to play a card?  That is when it becomes cheesy!

Won't the skirmishing forward unit be destroyed if it contacts the chargers?

It could not actually contact in its skirmish move, it would stop short by a gnat's todger. Of course the chargers would then be moved to contact so you get the same effect.

The skirmishers would only be destroyed if a SuG being contacted by a TuG. A skirmishing TuG (including Flexibles in skirmish formation) are not destroyed but would fight. Hence RJC's point that you can effectively get a countercharge (possibly with shooting benefits) from this.

I suppose that we have to remember that some excellent combat troops have the skirmish ability. Persian cavalry come readily to mind as well as the famous Mongols. Stephen's point might cover these.

Given that the rules talk about skirmishing being a dropping back action I think it is clear that movement towards chargers is not what is intended. Added to which is Richard's point about getting a free countercharge.

There is page 127 -2.2 :

A skirmish response represents a dropping back more gradualy while maximising firng on chargers.

- i fail to see how dropping back can be a move forward

For a Run Away move i do not see the problem :

Page 127 2.1

A run away response represents taking a quick shot and running away as quickly as possible.

I think it is consistent with the way i see how skirmishers (not the action of skirmishing) operate :

i do not see the problem of skirmishing forward as a run away move.

I think we see it as independent actions with stop and go as the game is locked in phases.
When you take in account that it should be a flow of actions there is a difference.
The skirmishers are always in mouvement, see the chargers comming and react by avoiding the chargers, that may be backwards or by flowing around the chargers like water around a stone.

Skirmishers are not static, they will exploit gaps and try to move to the rear of the ennemy, certainly monted skirmishers like pathians or mongols.
If behind enemy lines they easely can escape or create havoc.