sliding and contracting when evading

[expendablecinc]

When you evade can the battle group slide one base depth AND contract frontage? If both are possible the only restriction would appear to be that you cant slide one way and than contract on the same flank so that the net effect is that some baseshave moved more than one base width to the side.

eg

AA_BB
_CC

For simplicity sake assume three BGS each of two bases
- There is only gap for one base between AA and BB
- bases of CC are slightly offset.

If the left C is slightly over the left A BG C woudl have to slide one bae depth to the right and then contract the on the right base. Illegal due to the overall distance C bases have slid?

What if the bases of C straddled the gap. the group slides half a base to one side then contracts to shooth through the gap. legal?

anthony

[philqw78]

Providing no single base shifts more than a base width left or right, contracting or sliding, it is OK. If the shift is more than one base width no shifting is done at all.

So yes the first is illegal and the second legal

[frederic]

When you evade can the battle group slide one base depth AND contract frontage?

I'm not sure about the "AND".

Looks like Richard should confirm here what he agreed on the french forum.

viewtopic.php?t=9105

[philqw78]

Providing no base slides more than 1 base width it is OK. This can be part of the contraction.


In A Light green must burst through. The shift would be more than 1 base.

In B Light green can shift up to 1 base width adn get past. Contracting as it does so

[shall]

Indeed. Or could just shift as 2 wide if there is room.

Si

[rbodleyscott]

When you evade can the battle group slide one base depth AND contract frontage?

I'm not sure about the "AND".

Looks like Richard should confirm here what he agreed on the french forum.

viewtopic.php?t=9105

the "AND" is correct BUT it does not allow any base to shift more than 1 base width IN TOTAL. (The contraction inevitably requires a sideways shift. This is not exempt from the no element can shift more than 1 base width sideways requirement).

In some cases, as has been pointed out in the recent examples, it is possible to have a BG shift and a contraction without any single base shifting more than 1 base width sideways. In others cases it isn't.

In the example on the French board, there certainly isn't any way the routing BG can bipass the enemy without some bases sliding more than 1 base width sideways. (Unless the ASCII art is wrong, and I have misunderstood the French text).

[frederic]

the "AND" is correct BUT it does not allow any base to shift more than 1 base width IN TOTAL. (The contraction inevitably requires a sideways shift. This is not exempt from the no element can shift more than 1 base width sideways requirement).

In some cases, as has been pointed out in the recent examples, it is possible to have a BG shift and a contraction without any single base shifting more than 1 base width sideways. In others cases it isn't.

In the example on the French board, there certainly isn't any way the routing BG can bipass the enemy without some bases sliding more than 1 base width sideways. (Unless the ASCII art is wrong, and I have misunderstood the French text).

Is a one base shift considered as a shift of more than 1 base width or not ?

eg :

When
AA

BB

becomes
AAB
AAB

does B shift more than a base or not ?

[nikgaukroger]

A shift of exactly one base is not, by definition, a shift of more than one base

[expendablecinc]

the "AND" is correct BUT it does not allow any base to shift more than 1 base width IN TOTAL. (The contraction inevitably requires a sideways shift. This is not exempt from the no element can shift more than 1 base width sideways requirement).

In some cases, as has been pointed out in the recent examples, it is possible to have a BG shift and a contraction without any single base shifting more than 1 base width sideways. In others cases it isn't.

In the example on the French board, there certainly isn't any way the routing BG can bipass the enemy without some bases sliding more than 1 base width sideways. (Unless the ASCII art is wrong, and I have misunderstood the French text).

Is a one base shift considered as a shift of more than 1 base width or not ?

eg :

When
AA

BB

becomes
AAB
AAB

does B shift more than a base or not ?

the B on the left is shifting two base widths so from comments earlier cannot be done.

[frederic]

OK, so now I have correctly understood :
the bases that contract to the rear couldn't shift more than a base too.

For the shifting I was only looking at the head of the colum, that's why I misunderstood the explanations.

[shall]

Don't worry this happened a lot in the early days. We should have put the

NO BASE CAN SHIFT MORE THAN ! BASE WIDTH

in nice big letter

Si

[Ghaznavid]

Don't worry this happened a lot in the early days. We should have put the

NO BASE CAN SHIFT MORE THAN ! BASE WIDTH

in nice big letter

Nah, that's not the problem. We read that alright, we just didn't understand it initially. The problem is that many people (me included) just aren't used to think of a contraction as a sideway shift of a base. What might have saved a lot of confusion is if you had added something like: "(including the shift resulting from a contraction)".

[marioslaz]

I have a doubt. Think to one example where to avoid contact fleeing unit must shift more than one base, but imagine that there is room for 2 move before interpenetrate friends. Of course this case is about a unit in rout. In this case, the routing unit can shift one base during first move, so when it will do second rout move can avoid friends?

Mario.

[hammy]

I have a doubt. Think to one example where to avoid contact fleeing unit must shift more than one base, but imagine that there is room for 2 move before interpenetrate friends. Of course this case is about a unit in rout. In this case, the routing unit can shift one base during first move, so when it will do second rout move can avoid friends?

Mario.

A routing BG can only shift if the shift is required to avoid an obstruction durung the move in question. It cannot shift because there is an obstruction more than its move this phase away from it that will require more than one shift.

[hazelbark]

I think people who come from other rules are used to lots of wild turns to evade through gaps and such. Then at first reading the rules seem even more flexible with the shift and drop backs, but at the end of the day they are actually quite rigid and if you start thinkig of them as rigid not flexible that clears up a lot of misconceptions i have found.

[SirGarnet]

Agreed, and the benefit of clear mechanics is that if I pay attention I can know for sure that in the event of an evade or rout whether the result will be foul or fair, and sometimes can move troops in time to avoid problems.