Multiple LF evades

[grahambriggs]

I had a game recently where the following happened:

My BG ->LF1-LF2

My BG charges to the right of page towards LF1, who must evade:

My BG ------>LF2--LF1(evaded)

I then reach the position of LF2, they must also evade:

My BG -------->LF2LF1(evaded)

LF2 reach the rear of LF1. What happens then?

The relevant sections of the rules seem to say:

Moving through friendly troops section. There's a bullet point list of what is allowed to interpenetrate. One of the bullets later on is one that says "a BG may not pass through a BG that passed through it this phase" or similar. Odd that it's in that list because it is not a permission as such. And also, the wording is "pass through" not "interpenetrate". We read this bit and played it that way.

But after the game it was pointed out that, as a bullet in the interpenetration section, some people thought it just meant interpenetration was not an option and instead LF2 will "burst through" LF1.

So, reading the evaders finding an obstacle section of the impact rules it sayes if you can't interpenetrate you'll burst through, and those burst through will drop a cohesion level. So LF1 gets burst through and drops to disrupted?

But then it says that LF who "Pass through" friends by bursting through dn't disrupt them. So LF1 are not disrupted?

But that brings us full circle to that bullet in the interpenetration section that states you can't "pass through" friends who have interpenetrated you this phase. Since it uses the phrasing "pass through" there and for that "passing through" by LF doesn't disrupt you does it perhaps mean they are disrupted anyway?

Like I say, we played it that they couldn't go through at all which meant LF2 got caught, ant the same happened to LF1 when LF2 routed through them in the melee phase. So that seems onerous. A burst through and disruption seems more balanced.

Any thoughts?

[zoltan]

The "can't pass through" prohibition seems to be absolute. If you have already been passed through, you may not in turn make a pass through. So no one drops a level. The second moving LF bg will halt on the enemy side of the first LF bg and is at risk of being caught in the rear.

Isn't this an anti leapfrog mechanism?

[Robert241167]

How zoltan describes it is how it was ruled in my game at Britcon this year.

Rob

[philqw78]

So if lf2 breaks at impact it cannot rout then so there is no pursuit
If it breaks in melee it does rout thru lf1 which then can only evade as far as lf2's rear.
Harsh if that is the interpretation

[zoltan]

On actually reading the rules (shock horror!) I note that the prohibition on a bg "passing through" (rules author code for interpenetrating) another bg that already passed through it (you know what I mean) only applies to the Interpenetrations. i.e. situations where one bg voluntarily moves through another bg.

There is no such prohibition against a bg may passing through a bg that already past through it, in a "bursting through" situation. i.e. situations where one bg is forced to move through another bg in circumstances where such an "interpenetration" would not normally be permitted.

[grahambriggs]

The 'passing through' prohibition is in the interpenetration section indeed. However, it's written as an absolute, which confuses things.

So, if they can't interpenetrate but can burst through, does the BG that is burst through by LF drop a level?

[philqw78]

Thats the way I play it. If it can't interpenetrate it bursts through. Anything burst through drops a level.

[petedalby]

The 'passing through' prohibition is in the interpenetration section indeed. However, it's written as an absolute, which confuses things.

I agree - this is how it is written and in my experience of V2 thus far - how it is played.

It doesn't happen that often but can be very nasty when it does.

[philqw78]

I think you are wrong Pete.

If the above would not allow front rank bases to complete their evade move the battle group
-must instead burst through any friendly BG in its normal evade path.

Must is an absolute
The bit about dropping a level clearly says 'passed through by evaders who can normally interpenetrate them'. In the OP they could not normally interpenetrate as it is not allowed since they had been interpenetrated by that BG in this phase previously.

QED they burst through and LF1 drops a level

[philqw78]

Also Pete's interpretation could produce very spurious occurences. He is saying that BGs who can never interpenetrate each other can complete their evade move, since they break through, but troops who can normally interpenetrate do not. Odd!

Imagine if LF1 and 2 were instead LH they would break through each other to evade from the enemy if they were in the same situation.

Even stranger if LF 1 and 2 were single rank light chariots



Also you play with careful people Pete. I see this a lot.

[petedalby]

I think you are wrong Pete.

Thanks for that Phil.

Please re-check my post. All I did was agree with Graham's statement about the rules as written and then reflected upon my own experience. Struggling to see how either of those things can be wrong?

But I am always happy to reflect and would never claim to always be right.

Where I am minded to agree with you is that the main rules section is headed 'Moving Through Friendly Troops'. This then distinguishes between voluntary and involuntary interpenetrations. I think we agree that a voluntary penetration is not permitted where a BG has already been passed through by the same BG it now wishes to pass through. Ergo the pass through may now be involuntary and a 'Burst Through'.

I've not seen it ruled this way however so may be worthy of further discussion.

[philqw78]

Please re-check my post. All I did was agree with Graham's statement....... Struggling to see how either of those things can be wrong?

You agreed with Graham. How can that ever be right.
And was it not you who ruled this way in Rob's game at Britcon?

I've not seen it ruled this way however so may be worthy of further discussion.

Which we now have

I await another addition to my signature block

[grahambriggs]

I think to be honest it's one where the interpenetration change was made to stop some V1 excesses but without really carrying through the changes to the evades section properly. Hence the v2 rules don't make it clear what happens.

Playing it the way we did (just can't pass through at all) was very one sided. I rolled a couple of 6s for my VMDs so caught two pairs of LF battle groups that way. It bites them both in impact and in melee and suddenly that's 8 attrition points down and rampaging pursuers in the middle of the enemy army.

The 'burst through and drop a level' seems the more reasonable way to play it but other ways of reading it could be equally valid.

I would ask for author input but I had two of them on my team at the time and they were not much help on the issue

[petedalby]

I await another addition to my signature block

Sadly not from me.

[philqw78]

Sadly not from me

You did previously agree with me Pete
See this thread viewtopic.php?f=43&t=48394
In summary

thanks Pete, but can you give me one case when you must BURST THROUGH with a troop who can interpenetrate ??? Because if I accept you reasoning you may never BUrst throught during a evade if there isn't room beyond ?

I am sorry Olivier - I don't think I can - no.

Page 72 - last sentence - "Note that BGs passed through by evaders who can normally interpenetrate them do not count as burst though." This is exactly the same as it was in V1.

There are lots of occasions when a BG may burst through through friends - but only if it is not a legal interpenetration. If the evader / router is LF - then the friends will never be burst through as LF can pass through any troops in any direction

The underline but is incorrect though as I showed above

I can.

If a LF BG evade through, for example, single rank cavalry then the cavalry also want to evade whatever nasty charged the LF. If the Cavalry evade is far enough they cannot interpenetrate the LF as it interpentrated them this phase. So the cav burst through the LF

Excellent - thanks Phil.

[philqw78]

Graham also agreed with my interpretation in this thread page 3
viewtopic.php?f=43&t=38398&start=40

! See for example Bursting through or not, General in the Front rank, Flank marches and dismounting - you call the discussions there very minor parts?

I do. The first two were resolved by reading the rules, so you don't need an errata. The third is a bit unclear, and an errata would clarify, but a reasonable conclusion was reached.

I have played several hundred games and have never seen any of these three occur. Nor have I had any calls about them while umpiring.

There are areas of the rules that an errata would help with. The most common in my experience being the rules around orb formations. It's just that they are encountered very rarely. However, what you seem to be looking for is a cross between errata and Frequently Asked Questions. I suspect the latter would be more useful in general; and has the benefit that it doesn't need the authors' intervention.

The underline referring to the thread above
So I look forwards to 2 additions to my signature block, or notches on my bedpost. Up to you two.

[grahambriggs]

I think you'll find if you read every thread on this site I have not written the words you wish me to write.

[philqw78]

I think you'll find if you read every thread on this site I have not written the words you wish me to write.

Not yet but you will

[vexillia]

I would ask for author input but I had two of them on my team at the time and they were not much help on the issue

Funny but in a really, really sad way.

[petedalby]

So I look forwards to 2 additions to my signature block, or notches on my bedpost

Slightly disturbing.....