Evading and Reaction Fire

In the original rules CL and S could automatically evade. In later developments the evade option became a Discipline Test and expanded to include CM and CGL. I am curious about how the following has been interpreted in other groups.

Suppose a enemy T unit fires on a CM in good order within the CM's ZOC. The CM attempts to evade but fails the DT. Can the CM now chose to return fire or has that ability been superceded by the failed evade attempt?

Can't say it's come up but to return fire it would need to use opportunity (either ZOC or diced status).

For my money failing (a relatively easy) DT to evade would be an attempt to (re)act and thus either prevent it from using an opportunity (re)action or remove its opportunity staus, depending on how you view it.

In any case I think the player should choose how to react to the situation and then live with the consequences.

For instance if we reverse the situation and say the CM choose to shoot, roll badly and then ask if they can evade would you entertain the notion?

Simplicity and decision nexus would seem to coincide here to generate a better game by limiting the option to one or the other not both.

Interesting don't remember this coming up before either. I would agree with Zippee - can't have your cake and eat it situation here I think.

Actually thinking about it, why not? We already have situations where a reaction is conditional - you can shoot if your move does not bring you to contact for instance. Consistency is probably important, and as written I think they probably could

Cyrus The Adequate wrote:you can shoot if your move does not bring you to contact for instance.

Not sure I'm following you Cyrus ?...sorry

Cyrus The Adequate wrote:Actually thinking about it, why not? We already have situations where a reaction is conditional - you can shoot if your move does not bring you to contact for instance. Consistency is probably important, and as written I think they probably could

can I shoot and opportunity charge?

can I shoot and counter-charge?

can I opportunity charge and then evade?

shooting when my move doesn't contact the enemy isn't a reaction - the enemy reacted (by evading presumably) I'm conducting my activation and in my activation I can do multiple things.

I can't think of a single situation where I can do multiple things as part of a reaction. I may be able to react multiple times to different stimuli but that's different.

I'm all for consistency but I don't understand your claim.

if you evade (try to) you cannot perform any other further (re)actions.
Anyway from a tactical point of view I would countercharge/fire back with a CM instead of taking fire with just 1 die less.

Thanks for the responses. I can see both ways of thinking on this but the more I think about it the more I am in agreement with Cyrus. Since evade is an either or proposition I wasn't completely certain whether it qualifies as a reaction response when the DT fails. The question is whether the attempt at evade is the reaction response or is it the evade itself the reaction response. In this understanding an evade failure signifies that there is no reaction to the originating event (in this case missile fire) and the CM in question could then make a reaction response (fire or countercharge.) I think that is what Cyrus was getting at. With that said, I am completely content to have it as Lorenzo says.

Overall, I agree that it is generally better to countercharge or fire but sometimes it may make sense to try and evade the CM back into better supported position.

I think that a failed evasion must be seen as an order issued but for some reason not executed in time or simply not correctly issued or issued in time.
At the same time a ZOC reaction is the only action you can do. So you have to make a choice. Beeing the enemy already in ZOC, so pretty close, I see correct to have more chance of success in standing.

Is that the case Lorenzo? Or is it more that from a command perspective the unit in question is doing what it wants to do and not what, I, the overall commander want it to do. So the failure of the DT to evade simply means the local commander has decided to stay and fight.

I'm happy with the clarification, and I can see all sides of the argument. Situations such as this are quite rare. I think GC has a valid point - they troops have failed to react in the way the commander would wish - that doesn't mean they have failed to react.

Maybe the issue lies with "free" DT tests, ie those that do not result in disorder when failed? If this were the case the point would be moot as failing the DT would take the Cav off opportunity....

There probably lies another can of worms

This is not going to come up very often... if at all.

As I see it the shooting triggers the evade response ....which doesn't get off the ground (for whatever reason). Being so close to the enemy is the problem, couldn't imagine you'd get much of a chance for a plan B response under those circumstances.

What if the reason the "reason" the evade doesnt happen is that the troops want to shoot back?

then the confusion caused by contradictory troop movements within the unit is such that it ensures the shooting is wholly ineffective.

You made a decision, you rolled the dice, the thing you wanted didn't happen - you don't get to do something else instead.