Evades and shifting

[hammy]

Another one from last night.

A BG of LH (a -d in the diagram) broke from shooting and had to rout up the screen. There was a BG of friendly LH (1-4 in the diagram) facing left just behind them

Code: Select all

   111222333444
   111222333444
   111222333444
aaaabbbb
aaaabbbb
ccccdddd
ccccdddd

If the broken BG shifta about a quarter of a base then one file can pass the other BG but it looks like the rest of the broken BG can't shift behind as it would have to shift one and a quarter bases so must burst through the LH to it's rear

"o It can shift sideways up to one base width to get past friendly troops it cannot interpenetrate, enemy troops, a camp or terrain, or to avoid leaving the table. All bases must end in at least partial edge contact with another base of the battle group. The battle group cannot split.
o Provided that they do not shift more than one base width sideways, bases that cannot get past an obstruction can be moved to the rear of those bases that have been able to complete their evade move. In this situation the battle group is more likely to get caught, as its rear will not move as far as its front."

The first bullet allows the BG to shift upto a base to get past but the second limits the slide of b and d to one base width.

We were a bit confused about this one especially as there was loads of room for the routers otherwise and it seemed a bit hardh for a BG to lose a cohesion level because 10mm of it's base was too far across. All in all it felt rather too DBM like.

Hammy

[shall]

Yes we need to clarify as it is 1 file you can contract when falling back behind, and you can shift as well.

So they should shift 1/4 back and fall-back behind.

Si

[rbodleyscott]

Yes we need to clarify as it is 1 file you can contract when falling back behind, and you can shift as well.

So they should shift 1/4 back and fall-back behind.

Si

In fact they shouldn't. The rules mean what they say.

They can only shift 1 base width even to fall back behind their friends. This is clearly and specifically stated in the rules and is not unintentional.

(The reason for this was that otherwise routers, who use the same rules, would seldom if ever burst through friends, and nobody is going to care much if they get caught because they have bunched up.)

[rbodleyscott]

"o It can shift sideways up to one base width to get past friendly troops it cannot interpenetrate, enemy troops, a camp or terrain, or to avoid leaving the table. All bases must end in at least partial edge contact with another base of the battle group. The battle group cannot split.
o Provided that they do not shift more than one base width sideways, bases that cannot get past an obstruction can be moved to the rear of those bases that have been able to complete their evade move. In this situation the battle group is more likely to get caught, as its rear will not move as far as its front."

The first bullet allows the BG to shift upto a base to get past but the second limits the slide of b and d to one base width.

This is correct. They can only get past if no bases have to shift more than 1 base width.

This is intentional, the reason being that otherwise routers would seldom burst through friends, and as they are fairly unlikely to rally anyway, being caught because they have bunched up is not really all that bad.

It may seem harsh when they are within 10mm of being able to get past, but there has to be an arbitrary cut off point somewhere (in this case 1 base width), and wherever the cut off point is set it will always be possible to be 10mm beyond it.

We want there to be a high chance of routers bursting through firends, because this is realistic and the reason the Strategikon advises the second line to be placed four bow-shots behind the front line (and to have large gaps in it).

This is the reason why our rear support distances are so generous.

[hammy]

This is correct. They can only get past if no bases have to shift more than 1 base width.

This is intentional, the reason being that otherwise routers would seldom burst through friends, and as they are fairly unlikely to rally anyway, being caught because they have bunched up is not really all that bad.

It may seem harsh when they are within 10mm of being able to get past, but there has to be an arbitrary cut off point somewhere (in this case 1 base width), and wherever the cut off point is set it will always be possible to be 10mm beyond it.

OK, fair enough. I just wanted to check that the intention is what the words say.

The moral of this story is leave space for fragmented troops to rout.

[lawrenceg]

"o It can shift sideways up to one base width to get past friendly troops it cannot interpenetrate, enemy troops, a camp or terrain, or to avoid leaving the table. All bases must end in at least partial edge contact with another base of the battle group. The battle group cannot split.
o Provided that they do not shift more than one base width sideways, bases that cannot get past an obstruction can be moved to the rear of those bases that have been able to complete their evade move. In this situation the battle group is more likely to get caught, as its rear will not move as far as its front."

I must admit I always thought these bullet points were independent,i.e.

Bases that can't get past can shift 1 base sideways to go behind other bases.

Whether some bases drop behind or not, the whole BG can shift 1 base sideways to get past.

If even Simon got it wrong, then you need to make it explicit that the shift in the first bullet counts towards the shift in the second bullet.

Even with this restriction, there is still a fair amount of flexibility: you could drop back one file at each end or you could drop back a file on the right and then shift right.

[rbodleyscott]

"o It can shift sideways up to one base width to get past friendly troops it cannot interpenetrate, enemy troops, a camp or terrain, or to avoid leaving the table. All bases must end in at least partial edge contact with another base of the battle group. The battle group cannot split.
o Provided that they do not shift more than one base width sideways, bases that cannot get past an obstruction can be moved to the rear of those bases that have been able to complete their evade move. In this situation the battle group is more likely to get caught, as its rear will not move as far as its front."

If even Simon got it wrong, then you need to make it explicit that the shift in the first bullet counts towards the shift in the second bullet.

It is in fact explicit already, but if people as not reading it thus, we will need to tinker with the wording.

(Of course if we meant it to be independent of the BG's shift, we would simply have said that the BG can contract by one base frontage at each end).

[hammy]

"o It can shift sideways up to one base width to get past friendly troops it cannot interpenetrate, enemy troops, a camp or terrain, or to avoid leaving the table. All bases must end in at least partial edge contact with another base of the battle group. The battle group cannot split.
o Provided that they do not shift more than one base width sideways, bases that cannot get past an obstruction can be moved to the rear of those bases that have been able to complete their evade move. In this situation the battle group is more likely to get caught, as its rear will not move as far as its front."

If even Simon got it wrong, then you need to make it explicit that the shift in the first bullet counts towards the shift in the second bullet.

It is in fact explicit already, but if people as not reading it thus, we will need to tinker with the wording.

(Of course if we meant it to be independent of the BG's shift, we would simply have said that the BG can contract by one base frontage at each end).

When we read it quickly it seemed a little confusing but when I read it again today it was perfectly clear if a bit harsh. It just means that you need to be careful about putting troops behind wavering friends. I don't see a need to change anything here.

Hammy

[markm]

Having just re-read the rule as well (p.51) I would agree that it is clear.

I would, however, change bullet point 3 - "Provided that they do not shift more than one bsae ...." seems superfluous as bullet point two states you cannot shift more than a base width in any case?!

[shall]

Sorry Richard my mistake. You are correct its deliberate - I can see that now retracing mys teps ont he evade moves - it allows either a shift or a fall-back effectively up to 1 base width.....rushed a bit with that one.

Si

[rogerg]

Just to add another voice to this small sample, I read it as Richard explained it. The original wording is OK.

[spike]

"o It can shift sideways up to one base width to get past friendly troops it cannot interpenetrate, enemy troops, a camp or terrain, or to avoid leaving the table. All bases must end in at least partial edge contact with another base of the battle group. The battle group cannot split.
o Provided that they do not shift more than one base width sideways, bases that cannot get past an obstruction can be moved to the rear of those bases that have been able to complete their evade move. In this situation the battle group is more likely to get caught, as its rear will not move as far as its front."

If even Simon got it wrong, then you need to make it explicit that the shift in the first bullet counts towards the shift in the second bullet.

It is in fact explicit already, but if people as not reading it thus, we will need to tinker with the wording.

(Of course if we meant it to be independent of the BG's shift, we would simply have said that the BG can contract by one base frontage at each end).

The wording first line of the second bullet, could be a problem

"Provided that they do not shift more than one base width sideways, bases that cannot get past an obstruction can be moved to the rear of those bases that have been able to complete their evade move."

It could indicate that there is a rule somewhere, to allow troops could shift sideways by more than one base width, with exception to the first bullet. Therefore if its is swaped around to read.

"Bases that cannot get past an obstruction, after shifting more than upto 1 base width sideways, can be moved to the rear of those bases that have been able to complete their evade move"

Is this clearer whilst keeping the same intent?

[lawrenceg]

"Bases that cannot get past an obstruction, after shifting more than upto 1 base width sideways, can be moved to the rear of those bases that have been able to complete their evade move"

Is this clearer whilst keeping the same intent?

This is not clearer. The construction "more than upto " is not at all helpful. Did you really mean to type that?

[spike]

"Bases that cannot get past an obstruction, after shifting more than upto 1 base width sideways, can be moved to the rear of those bases that have been able to complete their evade move"

Is this clearer whilst keeping the same intent?

This is not clearer. The construction "more than upto " is not at all helpful. Did you really mean to type that?

Cut and past in a hurry, never a good idea- I dont think I should have left "more than" in the text, do you!

So-
Bases that cannot get past an obstruction, after shifting upto 1 base width sideways, can be moved to the rear of those bases that have been able to complete their evade move

[rbodleyscott]

"Bases that cannot get past an obstruction, after shifting up to 1 base width sideways, can be moved to the rear of those bases that have been able to complete their evade move"

Is this clearer whilst keeping the same intent?

This has the opposite effect to that we intend.

[spike]

"Bases that cannot get past an obstruction, after shifting up to 1 base width sideways, can be moved to the rear of those bases that have been able to complete their evade move"

Is this clearer whilst keeping the same intent?

This has the opposite effect to that we intend.

??? I'm confused by your statement that it would be a direct reversal of the original intent.
I can however understand, you saw it compared to the original context, that it would be less clear thsn the original text.

The problem still exists that there may be confusion that the bit in the original line states " Provided that they do not shift more than one base width sideways" which may be misinterpreted as a base could slip more than only one base width, and this being contrary to the rule in bullet 1, may lead players to look elsewhere in the rules for a correct interpretation from what you are clearly wanting, as discribed in this thread.

[lawrenceg]

"o It can shift sideways up to one base width to get past friendly troops it cannot interpenetrate, enemy troops, a camp or terrain, or to avoid leaving the table. All bases must end in at least partial edge contact with another base of the battle group. The battle group cannot split.
o Provided that they do not shift more than one base width sideways, bases that cannot get past an obstruction can be moved to the rear of those bases that have been able to complete their evade move. In this situation the battle group is more likely to get caught, as its rear will not move as far as its front."

I suggest two possible alternative wordings. One tells you what is allowed. The other tells you what you actually have to do. Only one is needed. In general I prefer being given a procedure.

o It can shift sideways up to one base width to get past friendly troops it cannot interpenetrate, enemy troops, a camp or terrain, or to avoid leaving the table.
o Bases that cannot get past an obstruction can be moved to the rear of those bases that have been able to complete their evade move. The net sideways shift of these bases must still not exceed one base width. In this situation the battle group is more likely to get caught, as its rear will not move as far as its front.
o All bases must end in at least partial edge contact with another base of the battle group. The battle group cannot split, except as the result of an incomplete interpenetration.

If your battlegroup cannot complete its rout or evade because one or more bases is obstructed (i.e. it would leave the table or reach friendly troops it cannot interpenetrate, enemy troops, a camp or terrain it cannot enter), then apply the following procedure.
o Move all bases that can complete their move straight ahead.
o Shift all obstructed bases sideways up to 1 base width.
o You may now shift the bases that completed their move sideways up to 1 base width.
o Move all bases that have not completed their move as far as possible. They burst through friendly troops of other battlegroups that they cannot interpenetrate. They stop if they contact other bases of their own battlegroup that obstruct further movement.
o If the battlegroup is split (except as the result of an incomplete interpenetration) or any part of any base has left the table, the battlegroup is destroyed.
o If possible, you must use a combination of shifts that avoids the battlegroup bursting through friends or being destroyed.

[spike]

"o It can shift sideways up to one base width to get past friendly troops it cannot interpenetrate, enemy troops, a camp or terrain, or to avoid leaving the table. All bases must end in at least partial edge contact with another base of the battle group. The battle group cannot split.
o Provided that they do not shift more than one base width sideways, bases that cannot get past an obstruction can be moved to the rear of those bases that have been able to complete their evade move. In this situation the battle group is more likely to get caught, as its rear will not move as far as its front."

I suggest two possible alternative wordings. One tells you what is allowed. The other tells you what you actually have to do. Only one is needed. In general I prefer being given a procedure.

o It can shift sideways up to one base width to get past friendly troops it cannot interpenetrate, enemy troops, a camp or terrain, or to avoid leaving the table.
o Bases that cannot get past an obstruction can be moved to the rear of those bases that have been able to complete their evade move. The net sideways shift of these bases must still not exceed one base width. In this situation the battle group is more likely to get caught, as its rear will not move as far as its front.
o All bases must end in at least partial edge contact with another base of the battle group. The battle group cannot split, except as the result of an incomplete interpenetration.

If your battlegroup cannot complete its rout or evade because one or more bases is obstructed (i.e. it would leave the table or reach friendly troops it cannot interpenetrate, enemy troops, a camp or terrain it cannot enter), then apply the following procedure.
o Move all bases that can complete their move straight ahead.
o Shift all obstructed bases sideways up to 1 base width.
o You may now shift the bases that completed their move sideways up to 1 base width.
o Move all bases that have not completed their move as far as possible. They burst through friendly troops of other battlegroups that they cannot interpenetrate. They stop if they contact other bases of their own battlegroup that obstruct further movement.
o If the battlegroup is split (except as the result of an incomplete interpenetration) or any part of any base has left the table, the battlegroup is destroyed.
o If possible, you must use a combination of shifts that avoids the battlegroup bursting through friends or being destroyed.

Version 2 much clearer than version 1 - there are no interpretation issue as these are instructions not statements, although the last bullet should be first and be a note rather than an instruction, and bullet 4 needs expansion to explain the "tailing effect"

[shall]

All useful thanks. The only additions I would make is that isn't it a choice whether to shift or fall-back behind in the current wording - so saying shift obstructed bases isn't quite accurate - you can choose to slide them sideways or they could fall back behind their neighbour.

Si

[lawrenceg]

All useful thanks. The only additions I would make is that isn't it a choice whether to shift or fall-back behind in the current wording - so saying shift obstructed bases isn't quite accurate - you can choose to slide them sideways or they could fall back behind their neighbour.

Si

It will often be necessary to shift them to get them behind their neighbour, or to allow them to move forward to reach the rear of their neighbour.

By the way, can they move backwards to get behind their neighbour? The current wording appears to permit this.
It could have interesting effects if a deep formation rolls -2 for its VMD.