Fragmented BGs retiring away from enemy

expendablecinc · Post by **expendablecinc** » Tue May 25, 2010 2:05 pm

dave_r wrote:
Battle group can make a simple move to retire away from all enemy with in 12MUs
And just how exactly do you retire away from all enemy when you initially move towards them?

A CMT is required for this move.

I agree. I think it may be partly a case of automatically applying one behaviour to others - namely that when you are in a zone 2 inches in frotn of enemy you have to "end your move further away".

dave_r · Post by **dave_r** » Tue May 25, 2010 2:14 pm

No. I didn't say that.That's how you interpreted it. I may be wrong.But I'd prefer an author to tell me that,thanks

What the authors think on this forum is largely irrelevant. As they themselves say, they make mistakes just like the rest of us. Or maybe one author hasn't noticed something that the other two might. Until something has been released in the FAQ's or errata then it is down to the umpire.

As I have mentioned before, it is impossible to retire towards an enemy.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Tue May 25, 2010 2:51 pm

Petefloro wrote: I may be wrong.But I'd prefer an author to tell me that,thanks.

viewtopic.php?t=10612
I think Simon's answer closed this thread completely. So Simon can tell us all.

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Tue May 25, 2010 3:23 pm

Interesting to see Simon's comment. I have to say that is not the way I have ever read that rule.

FWIW I did the follwoing diagram:

In this sutuation you are saying that the blue BG cannot retire as a simple move?

If you turn the top left and top right BGs 90 degrees outwards you still have to take a CMT to withdraw??

grahambriggs · Post by **grahambriggs** » Tue May 25, 2010 4:13 pm

It seems to me that either interpretation could be valid, so stick it on the list of things to go on the FAQ.

dave_r · Post by **dave_r** » Tue May 25, 2010 5:03 pm

Of course, what Phil should have said is:

Told you we were right - your way of interpreting it was clearly wrong and now we have proved it. Ner ner ner ner nerr nerr.

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Tue May 25, 2010 5:20 pm

dave_r wrote:Of course, what Phil should have said is:

Told you we were right - your way of interpreting it was clearly wrong and now we have proved it. Ner ner ner ner nerr nerr.

He could have done but if it turns out that you are not.......

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Tue May 25, 2010 5:48 pm

hammy wrote:He could have done but if it turns out that you are not.......

Yes we are. Ner Ner Ner ner Ner!
And as for your diagram blue cannot make a move without a CMT. No matter which way any of the enemy are facing. Unless you want a more complicated rule and to add reams of extra rules about facings and such.

Petefloro · Post by **Petefloro** » Tue May 25, 2010 7:28 pm

Told you we were right - your way of interpreting it was clearly wrong and now we have proved it. Ner ner ner ner nerr nerr.

Well Done! You win a Sherbet Dip!

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Tue May 25, 2010 7:32 pm

Petefloro wrote: Well Done! You win a Sherbet Dip!

T'uh. Hardly seems worth the effort now. Sherbert fountain tho. But I suupose any chance to rearrange the phrase "Hammy's nose out joint of" is worth any effort.

david53 · Post by **david53** » Tue May 25, 2010 8:26 pm

hammy wrote:It seems that I play the retiring part of this rule differently to other people.

I have always played that as long as the move ends further from all enemy that it started then it is fine and a simple move.

In a game last night my opponent argued that a move I made to pull a fragmented BG of LH out of trouble needed a CMT because the initial part of the move went closer to one enemy BG despite ending fruther from that BG than it started and further from all other enemy BGs.

Hammy did pass the CMT to move them. But before I lost the game to him last night I routed that nasty slippery fragged LH unit. boo to LH boo again just cause we can

david53 · Post by **david53** » Tue May 25, 2010 8:33 pm

It does seem quite simple according to Simon if you move closer you need a test.

grahambriggs · Post by **grahambriggs** » Thu May 27, 2010 1:02 pm

This area could do with precise definition I think. For example, if you read the rule as "a fragged BG cannot during the course of a move go closer to enemy even if it ends up further away" it opens further questions:

How do you actually define a BG going closer to the enemy? Perhaps it's a case of measuring the distance between shortest point an you can at no time come closer to that? The problem would be that BGs might have to wheel away from the enemy. But when you wheel often one corner goes closer temporarily while the wheel is made.

If a BG turns, can the turn allow a part of a base to go closer to an enemy? e.g if a unit of LH is sandwiched front and rear, can it turn to flank then move, as the turn would put it closer to the rear enemy?

Does the 'closer' mean the friendly BG as a whole, each base, or any part of any base? By enemy does it mean a BG as a whole, each base, or any part of any base? Presumably it doesn't mean any part of any base as skirmishers could never about turn and retire (the rear edge temporariliy gets closer to the enemy.

While I think the 'any closer during a move needs a CMT' seems sensible I think it opens up cheese. And the sort of fiddly 'cracks of the rules' cheese that will put some players off.

Regards

Graham

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Thu May 27, 2010 1:06 pm

Keep it simple, rather than adding lots of words use as few as possible. A fragmented BG may not move closer to enemy unless it passes a CMT. Thats simple. If it moves closer, even in a wheel it must pass CMT.
Where's the cheese?

grahambriggs · Post by **grahambriggs** » Fri May 28, 2010 9:31 am

Well, the cheese would include (in order of increasing fromagerie) claims that:

1. a two deep BG of fragged LF could turn and move but a two deep BG of LH could not because of turning and base depths.

2. Undrilled fragged cavalry with knights to their flank can't wheel away to retire as a corner briefly comes closer to the Kn.

3. Fragged LH can't turn and retire from HF to their front as the act of turning moves the rear edge of bases closer to the enemy.

All of these are daft. But in 1 and 2 the bases do actually come closer to the enemy. I can just see some players trying these tricks and it would leave a bad taste.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Fri May 28, 2010 10:31 am

Number 2 is a bit bad as the troops, like in a wheel from a line dont get closer. But in number three the BG does not get any closer, and number 1, well, erm, tough. I think its best to keep it simple though.

zoltan · Post by **zoltan** » Mon May 31, 2010 7:35 am

Retire
- to withdraw, or go away
- to fall back or retreat in an orderly fashion and according to plan, as from battle, an untenable position, danger, etc

To me, by definition, a retirement can not go closer to enemy, regardeless of the fact that you end up further from all enemy. That would be an advance past the enemy in my book.