Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Clarification of a clarification request  (Read 78 times)

nikgaukroger

  • Legionary
  • *
  • Posts: 204
    • View Profile
Clarification of a clarification request
« on: February 05, 2019, 08:39:14 PM »
The claries include the following:

Quote
SKIRMISHING WHEN CHARGED FROM FLANK/REAR

Is allowed to get a free turn if you are prepared to take the risk, but troops so doing are considered to have done a shooting action and cannot shoot in the shooting phase (they just had no real target).


What is this about, what situation is it trying to clarify? I'm at something of a loss about it.
"The Roman Empire was not murdered and nor did it die a natural death; it accidentally committed suicide."

Onurbm

  • MeG Moderator
  • Psiloi
  • *
  • Posts: 39
  • Wuji
    • View Profile
    • Ost de Rueil Malmaison
Re: Clarification of a clarification request
« Reply #1 on: February 06, 2019, 09:05:23 AM »
As much as I remember the story , was about some troop electing to skirmish instead of running away when charged. The intent was about  having a different facing and move distance .
In the example, being just at the limit of charge reach, there was obviously nearly zero chance the evading toop might be caught but in one case it wooul ends facing the ennemy  in the other facing away .

Is my Memory correct ?  ::)
Bruno

Simon Meg-Meister

  • TWZ Team
  • Legionary
  • *
  • Posts: 121
  • TWZ founder, MeG author and lifelong wargamer
    • View Profile
    • The Wargames Zone
Re: Clarification of a clarification request
« Reply #2 on: February 06, 2019, 11:50:58 AM »
it is simply that a Run Away or Skirmish is a shooting action.
You can do a skirmish if charged form rear - which turns you around for the future.
You did a shooting action but had no viable targets in arc and range.

I don't want them turning AND then shooting. Too generous.

Si
Rolling Skulls in the land or Purple

nikgaukroger

  • Legionary
  • *
  • Posts: 204
    • View Profile
Re: Clarification of a clarification request
« Reply #3 on: February 06, 2019, 02:13:04 PM »
it is simply that a Run Away or Skirmish is a shooting action.
You can do a skirmish if charged form rear - which turns you around for the future.
You did a shooting action but had no viable targets in arc and range.

I don't want them turning AND then shooting. Too generous.

Si

OK, that is clear - and will please Jacques as he thinks that skirmish/run-away should count as shooting  ;) Conceptually it may be arguable, but this is clear cut.

However, if you want both skirmish and run-away to count as a shooting action I suspect the clary needs rewriting as it only mentions skirmishing and not run-away.

I would also note that allowing a free 180 turn gives them what in most cases would require a paid move (M9) following a run-away/skirmish - is that a good thing?
"The Roman Empire was not murdered and nor did it die a natural death; it accidentally committed suicide."

Simon Meg-Meister

  • TWZ Team
  • Legionary
  • *
  • Posts: 121
  • TWZ founder, MeG author and lifelong wargamer
    • View Profile
    • The Wargames Zone
Re: Clarification of a clarification request
« Reply #4 on: February 06, 2019, 05:21:40 PM »
I'll take a look at the clarry.

Felt that skirmish allowing shooting or turning was both natural and fair.

It's a decision.  Others were possible.

Si
Rolling Skulls in the land or Purple

badhabum

  • Legionary
  • *
  • Posts: 105
    • View Profile
Re: Clarification of a clarification request
« Reply #5 on: February 06, 2019, 07:19:10 PM »
It pleases me dear Nik  8)

But only because it was explained that way and we always played that way . Once a decision has been made, we should stick to it unless there is a real problem.

Now let me paint some arabs