We are suggesting that the *SPIRIT* of the rules is that an assault does not occur and we're also saying that, when written, the rules never considered, and therefore have nothing to say about, the defender moving out of range.

It's the exact *opposite* of rules lawyering.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

That result is determined after charge move is done. If after charge move is done there are enemies within 15cm from attacking unit attack takes place. What defenders do with counter charge move doesn't matter because this result and whether it applies has already been determined. You don't go backwards in time!

_________________
www.tneva.net

According to spirit of rules counter chargers wouldn't have to move away from unit they could reach in FF just because supporting formation is closer. Why would spirit of rules be ignored there and applied here?

Epic isn't for spirit of rule players. Epic is for rule lawyers. Just accept it and move on. Lot more easier. Forget about playing sensible and logical rules. That's not what epic is for. It's for abusing rules to get maximum advantages with illogical rules.

_________________
www.tneva.net

We're not talking about "attack stalls", we're talking about "attack fails", just to be clear.

Once the move is complete, the engaging
formation must have at least one unit within 15cms of a unit
from the target formation. If this is not the case then the assault
does not take place and the action ends.

No attacks, nothing broken, no effects other than a wasted activation.

Again, the rules never considered the defender being able to move "away" from the attacker.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

Rules are crystal clear on this one.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Allow me to quote myself, since you seem to have missed the important part:


By the precise wording of the rules you are probably correct, but we'te proving that epic is not a game of rules lawyers by saying that we'd choose to play in the spirit of the rules instead, and make the assault not happen.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

If that's your attitude, good luck to you.

It's not my attitude or the attitude of anyone I've ever played against.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

And this is done(as the text says) AFTER charge move but BEFORE counter charge moves.

That rule doesn't apply here because that has already been checked. Assault is series of steps. You don't go backwards in step(unless rules require) so this step isn't checked second time after counter charge moves are done(or point to rule which says it is). Therefore this isn't applied here.

And the rules do consider it. Rules specifically allow moving away from attackers so why wouldn't they consider it? There's just nothing special you need to do about that. Just roll for resolution normally. No need for obvious to be pointed out.

_________________
www.tneva.net

This one rule "oddity" sours your entire EPIC experience?  Whom ever you played against must've been brutal to you.

This situation can be easily cleared up by not allowing pre-measuring, either at all, or just for assaults, something the rules allow for... giving those kinds of options hardly seems like the domain of a "rules lawyer" game.

Are their other "maximum advantages with illogical rules" you could inform us of?

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

_________________
www.tneva.net

It's the attitude of many members  of this forum like Chroma, Hena and E&C who ignore spirit of rules to support broken abusable rules like counter charge.

_________________
www.tneva.net

Design Concept: Rules Questions

Tabletop wargaming is an imprecise science and can often generate rules questions. The sheer number of variables thrown up by the rules, army lists and varied tabletop terrain pretty much guarantees that at some point during any game you and your opponent will have a discussion about how exactly to deal
with a situation that has occurred, or you will find that you play the game using slightly different methods or conventions.

Usually, you will be able to overcome these differences by simply chatting about them with your opponent, but occasionally you will find that you each feel a rule or situation should be interpreted in a diametrically opposed way. Such a situation can lead to a very heated debate that might spoil your enjoyment of the game, and because of this, when these situations occur try not to argue about the rules, and instead simply smile and say “Okay, let’s play it your way!â€Â

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

So, people present an option to the "illogical rule", but, because it negates the "illogical rule", it's unacceptable?

You're presenting a "no win" situation here... and then being angry that you can't win.  You're actually being a "rules lawyer" by trying to stay directly with the rules, everyone else is saying, "ignore the illogical rule"... which is *anti*-rules laywering!

And the rules do consider it. Rules specifically allow moving away from attackers so why wouldn't they consider it?

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

What are you talking about?

And could you list some more of these "abusable rules"?

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?