Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Clarity and consistency issues around evading and shooting or not shooting.  (Read 1225 times)

LawrenceG

  • Centurion
  • *
  • Posts: 432
    • View Profile
    • Travel Terrain shop
Clarity and consistency issues around evading and shooting or not shooting.

Mainly with the aim of improving the rule wording next time it is updated, but there are a couple of items that would benefit from a response.

I'm using the term “evade” as shorthand for “run away or skirmish”.

rule references from pdf.

Quote
5.L: RUN AWAY AND SKIRMISH RESPONSES

1. A run away move is a charge response where troops make a fleeting shot and move away
from chargers as far as possible. A skirmish move is a charge response by an UG where the
troops sacrifice some move distance to pour as much fire as possible onto charging troops.
Some troops must make a run away or skirmish response because they are not strong enough
to stand to face a charge. Others are allowed to run away or skirmish but do not have to do
so. These take place at SP2.5, i.e. before charges are moved.

1.1. SuGs (or flexibles in skirmish form) charged by TuGs must run away or skirmish unless:
...


2.1. A run away response represents taking a quick fleeting shot and running away as
quickly, and as far, as possible.
2.2. A skirmish response represents dropping back more gradually while attempting to
maximise firing on chargers, so there is a 2BW reduction in maximum distance moved.

3.1. For each UG, before making any moves, first roll for any shooting effect using the
shooting mechanism. Files shoot if their target’s path of charge is ahead of them (i.e.,
in front of the line extending the front edge of the file shooting) and within 1 BW (see
7.D).


3.4. Move troops to their new position with them ending:
3.4.1. Facing away from the charge if making a run away.
* If charged frontally: after completing the run away move, turn 180o if needed
to face away from the charger.
* If charged in flank/rear: after completing the run away move, turn 90o or
180o to face away from the charger.
* If charged by more than one UG, the owning player chooses which UG to
face away from.
3.4.2. Facing towards the charge if a skirmish response.
* If charged frontally: after completing the skirmish move, turn 180o if needed
to face towards the charger.
* If charged in flank/rear: after completing the skirmish move, turn 90o or 180o
to face towards the charger. If you choose to skirmish when charged only in
flank or rear your shooting is deemed ineffective and you roll no shooting
dice, but it does at least turn you around to face them. The UG counts as
having shot and so cannot shoot in the shooting phase.
* If charged by more than one UG, the owning player chooses which UG to
face towards.
3.4.3. Both cases are still considered to have done a shooting action and cannot
shoot later in the shooting phase – you tried to shoot at them but did minimal
damage.


7.C: FILES THAT MAY SHOOT IN THE SHOOTING PHASE
7.C.5 . Troops are not forced to shoot, they may choose not to (which may be beneficial if an enemy hesitant ally is in range, or if you are hiding in ambush).

8.D: PURSUIT MOVES
8.D.9 If any unbroken enemy are met, they may run away or skirmish as if charged, but do not shoot (we consider there has been a mass of friends running towards them). TuGs that cannot run away or skirmish stand to receive.



Discussion points:

5.L.1.1 (because e.g. long spear flex cavalry in skirmish can do it) and 8.D.9 (explicit) imply that shooting is not an integral part of evading.

5.L.1 , 5.L.2.1 and 5.L.2.2 imply that shooting is an integral part of evading.

Contradictory rules, although it's pretty clear which one must apply. De facto: skirmish is retreat and rally, run away is run away. Both may also involve shooting.


7.C.5 Gives you the option of not shooting in the shooting phase, but there is no such option in the charge phase. Note that this also applies to UGs that do not evade.

Inconsistent, although it might be intended. If intended, why?

“There they are, sitting ducks” … “No, don't shoot, we don't want to give our position away”
“They are charging, we need to get away as fast as possible” … “No, let's stand here and shoot at them for a while first.”




5.L.3.1 gives criteria for determining whether files shoot or not. This establishes that there are files that shoot and there are files that don't shoot. Not files that shoot but with no effect. 

5.L.3.4.1 does not prevent troops that run away from shooting at flank or rear chargers (it is unlikely they would meet the criteria of 3.1, but it is possible). It also does not say they count as having shot when they don't meet the criteria for shooting.


5.L.3.4.2 has “If you choose to skirmish when charged only in flank or rear your shooting is deemed ineffective and you roll no shooting dice, ... The UG counts as having shot and so cannot shoot in the shooting phase.”

5.L.3.4.3 has “Both cases are still considered to have done a shooting action and cannot shoot later in the shooting phase – you tried to shoot at them but did minimal damage.”

Slightly different wording and I suspect the wording in 3.4.2 was accidentally not deleted in an edit when 3.4.3 was added (so this could potentially be added to the errata). However, either way, there is a lack of clarity.

Is it:

Rule:  The UG counts as having shot
Observation: and one of the implications of this is it cannot shoot later in the shooting phase
(another implication (not stated) is the combat claim vs non charging cavalry that shot).

or

Rule: The UG cannot shoot later in the shooting phase
Rationalisation: you tried to shoot in the charge response but did minimal damage.

I note that 7.C.4 also prevents you from shooting in the shooting phase if you evaded (and that is the most logical place for the rule), but there's nothing wrong with a bit of redundancy in restating it in section 5.


Further lack of clarity if the first one is intended: Does a flex TUG in skirmish with no missile weapon count as having shot (i.e. is the intention (in game-effect terms) that the act of evading triggers the +1 opponent claim, or only evading by missile-focussed units) ?

Consistency question that follows if the second is intended: If a path of charge passes within 1 BW of a non-evading UG but not ahead of it, why wouldn't it also try to shoot but do minimal damage, hence losing the ability to shoot in the shooting phase? [I assume the answer is "because that gives the right game effect"].




Another lack of clarity in 5.L.3.4.3:   “Both cases ...”. 
OK, but which “Both cases” ? Both flank and rear charge? Both skirmish and run away? Both frontal charge and flank/rear charge ? The comment “you tried to shoot at them but did minimal damage” suggests it means “Both flank and rear charge” and only when skirmishing, as those are the only cases where shooting is described as occurring, but ineffective.



8.D.9   is obviously intended as an exception to 5.L.3.1  to prevent you shooting when you meet the normal criteria for shooting. Is it also intended as an exception to the "counts as having shot" rule? If not, would the "cavalry that shot" claim apply when the combat is fought in the charge phase of the next turn?

LawrenceG

  • Centurion
  • *
  • Posts: 432
    • View Profile
    • Travel Terrain shop
I Missed 5.L.1.3:

1.3. Other cavalry, camelry or chariot TuGs that are missile focused (i.e., have a missile
weapon and skilled, experienced, or unskilled) may choose to run away or skirmish or
choose to stand to receive (and may choose to shoot at chargers if they stand).

so cavalry, camelry or chariot TuGs that are missile focused do have an option of not shooting if they stand.

But apparently SUGS charged by SUGS can't choose not to shoot if they stand.

nikgaukroger

  • TWZ Team
  • Imperator
  • *
  • Posts: 3944
    • View Profile
Quite a few points here, I'll start off on a couple of them now and return later.


Discussion points:

5.L.1.1 (because e.g. long spear flex cavalry in skirmish can do it) and 8.D.9 (explicit) imply that shooting is not an integral part of evading.

8 D 9 covers a specific case during pursuits and you should not apply it as a general principle.


Quote
5.L.1 , 5.L.2.1 and 5.L.2.2 imply that shooting is an integral part of evading.

Contradictory rules, although it's pretty clear which one must apply. De facto: skirmish is retreat and rally, run away is run away. Both may also involve shooting.

These are the general principles to apply  :D


Quote
7.C.5 Gives you the option of not shooting in the shooting phase, but there is no such option in the charge phase. Note that this also applies to UGs that do not evade.

Inconsistent, although it might be intended. If intended, why?

“There they are, sitting ducks” … “No, don't shoot, we don't want to give our position away”
“They are charging, we need to get away as fast as possible” … “No, let's stand here and shoot at them for a while first.”


7 B 2 covers this one I believe - "The shooting mechanism is the same for shooting at chargers or shooting in the shooting phase and is covered below.".

7 C 5 is part of the shooting mechanism so you have the option.

I guess "mechanism" could be narrowly read as, say for e.g, just section 7 G, however, IMO that it would be an odd reading not to understand it meant all the sections below 7 B.
"The Roman Empire was not murdered and nor did it die a natural death; it accidentally committed suicide."

nikgaukroger

  • TWZ Team
  • Imperator
  • *
  • Posts: 3944
    • View Profile
I Missed 5.L.1.3:

1.3. Other cavalry, camelry or chariot TuGs that are missile focused (i.e., have a missile
weapon and skilled, experienced, or unskilled) may choose to run away or skirmish or
choose to stand to receive (and may choose to shoot at chargers if they stand).

so cavalry, camelry or chariot TuGs that are missile focused do have an option of not shooting if they stand.

But apparently SUGS charged by SUGS can't choose not to shoot if they stand.

I'll comment on this one as well as it's a quick one.

Must confess I don't think I'd noticed this before, but I believe you are correct and SUGs must shoot (assuming they can, of course) if they stand when charged. Makes sense to me as how skirmishers would behave though  ;D
"The Roman Empire was not murdered and nor did it die a natural death; it accidentally committed suicide."

LawrenceG

  • Centurion
  • *
  • Posts: 432
    • View Profile
    • Travel Terrain shop
I Missed 5.L.1.3:

1.3. Other cavalry, camelry or chariot TuGs that are missile focused (i.e., have a missile
weapon and skilled, experienced, or unskilled) may choose to run away or skirmish or
choose to stand to receive (and may choose to shoot at chargers if they stand).

so cavalry, camelry or chariot TuGs that are missile focused do have an option of not shooting if they stand.

But apparently SUGS charged by SUGS can't choose not to shoot if they stand.

I'll comment on this one as well as it's a quick one.

Must confess I don't think I'd noticed this before, but I believe you are correct and SUGs must shoot (assuming they can, of course) if they stand when charged. Makes sense to me as how skirmishers would behave though  ;D

That contradicts what you said in the previous post about 7.C.5 "Troops are not forced to shoot, they may choose not to" being part of the shooting mechanism.

Note, it doesn't say skirmishers must shoot, it just doesn't say they may choose to shoot.

Usually mounted skirmishers would be better off shooting at other skirmishers and taking the -1 in charge combat, but if it was more important to survive in place than to kill enemy bases, (e.g. to block access to a camp) then it might be worth foregoing the shot and denying the claim. Especially if you are unskilled or the enemy is protected.

nikgaukroger

  • TWZ Team
  • Imperator
  • *
  • Posts: 3944
    • View Profile
Tripped myself up there by responding too quickly  ;D

I'd go with they can choose - removes an exception even if the exception has logic.
"The Roman Empire was not murdered and nor did it die a natural death; it accidentally committed suicide."

lionheartrjc

  • TWZ Team
  • Imperator
  • *
  • Posts: 2294
    • View Profile
Discussed with Simon.

The rules could be clearer or more precise but in summary:

1.  Troops can always choose not to shoot.  This includes SuGs standing to receive a charge.
2.  Troops that run away or skirmish in the charge phase cannot shoot later in the shooting phase.
3.  The general claim for non-charging Cv, Cm or Ch who shot  - applies to troops who could have shot but chose not to and chose to run away or skirmish, or troops charged in the flank or rear and were unable to shoot and ran away or skirmished.  It does not apply to troops who cannot shoot because they were charged by pursuers, troops that stood to receive a charge and choose not to shoot or troops that do not have missile weapons.

Richard
« Last Edit: March 07, 2024, 10:07:24 PM by lionheartrjc »

PUNCH

  • Legionary
  • *
  • Posts: 245
    • View Profile
Discussed with Simon.

The rules could be clearer or more precise but in summary:

1.  Troops can always choose not to shoot.  This includes SuGs standing to receive a charge.
2.  Troops that run away or skirmish in the charge phase cannot shoot later in the shooting phase.
3.  The general claim for non-charging Cv, Cm or Ch who shot  - applies to troops who could have shot but chose not to and chose to run away or skirmish, or troops charged in the flank or rear and were unable to shoot and ran away or skirmished.  It does not apply to troops who cannot shoot because they were charged by pursuers, troops that stood to receive a charge and choose not to shoot or troops that do not have missile weapons.

Richard

Hi Richard,

how can we apply the "+1 for non charging CV, CM,CH who shot" if we chose to not shoot at the chargers??

Best regards.

Gilles

lionheartrjc

  • TWZ Team
  • Imperator
  • *
  • Posts: 2294
    • View Profile
how can we apply the "+1 for non charging CV, CM,CH who shot" if we chose to not shoot at the chargers??

Because it is a shorthand for "+1 for non charging Cv, Cm, Ch who shot or skirmished/run away (except when charged by pursuers or do not have missile weapons".

Richard who only edits the rules - he doesn't write them...

PUNCH

  • Legionary
  • *
  • Posts: 245
    • View Profile
how can we apply the "+1 for non charging CV, CM,CH who shot" if we chose to not shoot at the chargers??

Because it is a shorthand for "+1 for non charging Cv, Cm, Ch who shot or skirmished/run away (except when charged by pursuers or do not have missile weapons".

Richard who only edits the rules - he doesn't write them...

ROTFLOL!
so if we choose to shoot or not, the chargers get +1 if we have something to throw in the hands ??? ;)

Onurbm

  • MeG Moderator
  • Legionary
  • *
  • Posts: 224
  • Wuji
    • View Profile
    • Ost de Rueil Malmaison

Just for my enlightment, how would they come to the decision « not to shoot » ? Radio is not yet invented , maybe magic or intuition ?

Bruno
La question n’est pas de savoir si nous aurons le temps mais bien , ce que nous allons faire avec le temps qui nous est imparti .
GANDALF

nikgaukroger

  • TWZ Team
  • Imperator
  • *
  • Posts: 3944
    • View Profile
Their unit commanders.
"The Roman Empire was not murdered and nor did it die a natural death; it accidentally committed suicide."

lionheartrjc

  • TWZ Team
  • Imperator
  • *
  • Posts: 2294
    • View Profile

ROTFLOL!
so if we choose to shoot or not, the chargers get +1 if we have something to throw in the hands ??? ;)

Unless you stand and choose not to shoot.

Richard

PUNCH

  • Legionary
  • *
  • Posts: 245
    • View Profile

ROTFLOL!
so if we choose to shoot or not, the chargers get +1 if we have something to throw in the hands ??? ;)

Unless you stand and choose not to shoot.

Richard

thanks for the answer Richard !
that's what I wanted to do  ;)

Best regards.

Gilles

Onurbm

  • MeG Moderator
  • Legionary
  • *
  • Posts: 224
  • Wuji
    • View Profile
    • Ost de Rueil Malmaison
Their unit commanders.

Thanks
But I assumed the players role was at generals level not unit commander …. Seems they get both , with telepathic synchronism …. Maybe this part of the discussion belongs to another thread 🙊🙈🙉
Bruno
La question n’est pas de savoir si nous aurons le temps mais bien , ce que nous allons faire avec le temps qui nous est imparti .
GANDALF