evading move

[dvorkin]

Yesterday during an evade move my opponent and me have a big argument.
He didn't allow me to shift even les than one base and contract after by one base my BG to avoid an obstruction, does he right?

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 read again the text in the rule and it is not really clear for me, perhaps it's my bad english.

Could you clarify this for me thanks

[rbodleyscott]

Yesterday during an evade move my opponent and me have a big argument.
He didn't allow me to shift even les than one base and contract after by one base my BG to avoid an obstruction, does he right?

He was right. The contraction does not allow extra shift - you can only make the contraction provded that no base shifts more than 1 base width sideways in total.

So you cannot shift the whole battle group 1 base width and then contract (on the end shifted away from) too.l

[rogerg]

I think he was correct. It is not a shift and a contraction that is permitted. You get one contraction by one file.

E.g.

YXXX
YXXX

with the end 'Y' bases obstructed would become

XXX
XXX
Y
Y

Neither of the 'Y' bases have shifted more than one base width.
I have not considered this before, but skirmishers in two or or more ranks might be very vulnerable to being caught if their path is partially blocked.

[dvorkin]

To be short:

you shift even less than one base or you contract

Right

[rogerg]

As I read it, there is no shift allowed at all. You get one contraction by bases that contract behind the adjacent base.

This is confusing becasue the 'shift' is not the 'shift' as described under shifting in the rules and the 'contraction' might not be a legal contraction.

Perhaps it ought to say:
"If one end file only of the evading BG is blocked by an obstruction, the bases in this file may be moved behind the bases in the adjacent file, even if this temporarily creates an illegal formation."

[lawrenceg]

To be short:

you shift even less than one base or you contract

Right

They are not quite mutually exclusive.

You could shift most of the BG half a base to the right and one file (on the right hand end) shifts half a base left and is placed behind the others.

But you can't shift half a base to the right and contract the left hand end behind, as the left hand file would have a total shift to the right more than one base width.

[rbodleyscott]

To be short:

you shift even less than one base or you contract

Right

They are not quite mutually exclusive.

You could shift most of the BG half a base to the right and one file (on the right hand end) shifts half a base left and is placed behind the others.

But you can't shift half a base to the right and contract the left hand end behind, as the left hand file would have a total shift to the right more than one base width.

Well stated, Lawrence.

The key point is that no base can shift sideways more than 1 base width in total.

[dvorkin]

Thanks

that's totally clear now