Slitherine

It sounds to me like the FAQ really needs a section about evading and kinked columns. Between this topic and another recent one that raised the question of what constitutes evading towards its rear for a kinked column, this seems to be an area that would benefit from some further explanation even if it might be possible to ferret out the answer from the rules with sufficient years of Talmudic scholarship.

The thought of the combination of Dave, Hammy and the rule book fills me with dread ...

dave_r wrote:Tragically, the Interent connection went at work, so I have been unable to join in on the fun that I have started...

- A BATTLEGROUP can only shift one base width to avoid obstacles. Nothing in there about bases I think

Looking at the picture it seems to me that at the point you would have wanted to shift it would not have been possible for the whole BG to do so as, I believe, it has to shift as a whole at that time and not in some sort of sequential manner when bases are able to.

I think (possibly) that if the BG had room to shift when it met the obstruction Dave would have been able to get away as he was claiming he could.

batesmotel wrote:It sounds to me like the FAQ really needs a section about evading and kinked columns. Between this topic and another recent one that raised the question of what constitutes evading towards its rear for a kinked column, this seems to be an area that would benefit from some further explanation even if it might be possible to ferret out the answer from the rules with sufficient years of Talmudic scholarship.

Probably true in this case.

All reminds me of the break off when facing in 2 directions question

dave_r wrote:Tragically, the Interent connection went at work, so I have been unable to join in on the fun that I have started...

- A BATTLEGROUP can only shift one base width to avoid obstacles. Nothing in there about bases I think

Actually, there is. P.67, second and third sub-bullets. Essentially says that no base can shift more than one base width as part of an evade move.

Marc

P67 If an evading BG

second bullet
"It can shift sideways upto one base width to get past freindly troops it cannot interpenetrate, enemy troops, a camp or terrain, or to avoid leaving the table. All bases must end in edge to edge and corner to corner contact with another base of the BG the BG cannot split"

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

I do not dissagree that the end base can complete it's evade. I do however dissagree that the other bases can be placed "to the rear of those bases" without having to "shift more than one base sideways"

If I wanted to be a pedant I suppose I could have wheeled so that my charge was such that evading directly forwards would have been "closer to the direction of charge" P66 right hand column first bullet then the cavalry would not have had the option to turn 90 and this issue would not have arisen.

I still think that the rules are pretty clear and that Dave and Phil are being selective in ignoring key rules from the evade section.

grahambriggs wrote:I think that's the case here. The guy who worries about shifting no more than a base width is the first base to get there. Everyone else forms column behind.

Not so Graham. None of the bases can shift more than a base width.

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.

However, as Phil points out, in this example it appears possible that none of the bases do need to shift more than a base width (after the 90 degree turn) to get past. (Assuming that they can evade in a kinked column).

I too would welcome input from the other authors.

I too would welcome input from the other authors.

ROTFLMAO

Completely ignoring the details of the rules, it does feel to me that the likely response for troops evading in this situation is that they would just run out the opening between the two enemy units. As a previous poster noted, this would have been the case had the second enemy unit charged as well so the evaders would have split the angle. While there may be reasons why the rules authors would disagree that the evaders would not just head for the gap or that it would require too many special case rules to handle a case like this, the current discussion about the exact geometry of the charge and who can and has to shift how far does feel very much like rules artifacts of the sort that plague DBx and that FoG generally seems written to avoid.

batesmotel wrote:the current discussion about the exact geometry of the charge and who can and has to shift how far does feel very much like rules artifacts of the sort that plague DBx and that FoG generally seems written to avoid.

Well said that man!!

Any reason why the restriction on only moving up to 1 base width was put in ? What does it represent ?

Steve P

Stops you jumping half way across the table and means you have to leave sensible routes for evades and that clever opponents can trap troops.

hammy wrote:P67 If an evading BG

second bullet
"It can shift sideways upto one base width to get past freindly troops it cannot interpenetrate, enemy troops, a camp or terrain, or to avoid leaving the table. All bases must end in edge to edge and corner to corner contact with another base of the BG the BG cannot split"

Isn't the second sentance here what is going to stop Dave's move in this case? IMO the natural reading of this rule is that the bit about being in edge to edge, etc. is that that must apply at the end of the shift (as opposed to the end of the evade move).

lawrenceg wrote:
I note that if both enemy BGs had charged, the evaders would split the angle and evade out to the side. It seems unrealistic that an advantage should be gained by charging with only one BG.

I agree with Laurence,
- if the evade is possible when two such BGs are charging, it should be possible when only one BG is charging,
or
- if the evade is not possible if the BG in the flank is charging, it should not be possible too when the two BG are charging.

Otherwise, it's a cheesy situation.

frederic wrote:

lawrenceg wrote:
I note that if both enemy BGs had charged, the evaders would split the angle and evade out to the side. It seems unrealistic that an advantage should be gained by charging with only one BG.

I agree with Laurence,
- if the evade is possible when two such BGs are charging, it should be possible when only one BG is charging,
or
- if the evade is not possible if the BG in the flank is charging, it should not be possible too when the two BG are charging.

Otherwise, it's a cheesy situation.

IMO if a BG of cavalry let's itself get trapped with a BG of infantry in possition to charge it's rear and another BG of infantry in front of it they should be up the creek without a paddle.

What if the cavalry were sandwiched directly between an BG to their front and one to their rear and just one BG charges, should the cavalry be able to evade out to the side just because it suits them?

It is hard enough to catch evaders as it stands although in this situation I could have just not charged and shot the cavalry to bits anyway. There was no possible way that the cavalry could escape by moving.

Oh, I don't know.

Pinned by 2 BGs they can choose which pin to be influenced by - so move away from the non-bowmen but leave a gnats todger of the last base in front of them and they may have been in a better position to get away later.

nikgaukroger wrote:

hammy wrote:P67 If an evading BG

second bullet
"It can shift sideways upto one base width to get past freindly troops it cannot interpenetrate, enemy troops, a camp or terrain, or to avoid leaving the table. All bases must end in edge to edge and corner to corner contact with another base of the BG the BG cannot split"

Isn't the second sentance here what is going to stop Dave's move in this case? IMO the natural reading of this rule is that the bit about being in edge to edge, etc. is that that must apply at the end of the shift (as opposed to the end of the evade move).

It seems to me that Nik's point is correct and that the requirement that each base of the evading battlegroup being in edge to edge and corner to corner contact at the end of the shift makes it impossible for the cavalry to evade, as the column's rear end would be pushed into the enemy MF.

Of course it would have been even better if the MF had been directly behind the cavalry but such things are rarely so neat

Cheers,

Dale

hammy wrote:

frederic wrote:

lawrenceg wrote:
I note that if both enemy BGs had charged, the evaders would split the angle and evade out to the side. It seems unrealistic that an advantage should be gained by charging with only one BG.

I agree with Laurence,
- if the evade is possible when two such BGs are charging, it should be possible when only one BG is charging,
or
- if the evade is not possible if the BG in the flank is charging, it should not be possible too when the two BG are charging.

Otherwise, it's a cheesy situation.

IMO if a BG of cavalry let's itself get trapped with a BG of infantry in possition to charge it's rear and another BG of infantry in front of it they should be up the creek without a paddle.

What if the cavalry were sandwiched directly between an BG to their front and one to their rear and just one BG charges, should the cavalry be able to evade out to the side just because it suits them?

It is hard enough to catch evaders as it stands although in this situation I could have just not charged and shot the cavalry to bits anyway. There was no possible way that the cavalry could escape by moving.

My 2p

Having seen the incident 1st hand last night, I would like to look at this in a slightly different light first.
What would have happened if the troops stopping Dave's evade move were friendlies not enemy- I think they would have been burst through by the evading Cv, and then the chargers would have hit the disrupted BG. So no kinked column would be allowed and the trying to evade round the edge of the friendly group would not happen.

The "conceived move" of a 90 deg turn does not comply with the spirit of the rules, which require a BG charged in flank or rear to move in the direction of the charge - which is directly blocked in this case by the enemy. The 90 degree turn in this case means that their initial move in this case after the turn is not in the direction of the charge.

and lastly as the rear 3 elements shift more than 1 BW sideways from their original position and importantly "direction"; that therefore 2nd bullet (on page 67) after "If the above would not allow all front rank bases ...etc" should apply- which states if the path is blocked by enemy stops 1 MU away and or remains stationary if within 1 mu, with no shifting or contraction.

Spike

nikgaukroger wrote:Oh, I don't know.

Pinned by 2 BGs they can choose which pin to be influenced by - so move away from the non-bowmen but leave a gnats todger of the last base in front of them and they may have been in a better position to get away later.

Look at the photo Nik,

The cavalry are facing the bowmen so can't move further away from them. A 90 degree turn is not going to be able to end up further away from the bow either. Moving so that they are still infront of the spear is also quite difficult.

If you think there is an escape in one I would be interested to hear your idea. Any move that puts the cavalry in anything other than a single rank is going to make things difficult as they will be shot at at + by the bow and then charged in the flank or rear by one or other BG.

nikgaukroger wrote:Stops you jumping half way across the table

lol, sorry, had to laugh, it's like questioning users...

"Why do you do it that way?"
"Because we do"

I understand what you are saying but it doesn't explain why 1 base width was the selected distance.

Steve

I think (possibly) that if the BG had room to shift when it met the obstruction Dave would have been able to get away as he was claiming he could.

Looking at the picture it seems to me that at the point you would have wanted to shift it would not have been possible for the whole BG to do so as, I believe, it has to shift as a whole at that time and not in some sort of sequential manner when bases are able to.

Looking at the kinky photo carefully, and assuming a kinked column is not debarred from shifting, the column's facing is the same as the chargers and there is room for the entire column to shift over in front of the chargers. The entire column shifts less than a base width.

I think the question we got to was whether a column can shift if there are less than 2 bases on either side of the kink:

Isn't the second sentence here what is going to stop Dave's move in this case? IMO the natural reading of this rule is that the bit about being in edge to edge, etc. is that that must apply at the end of the shift (as opposed to the end of the evade move).

Good point. I don't think the "end" nuance would come up without this situation. The next bullet covers everything to the completion of the evade move and the one after refers back to completion of the evade move for the preceding two bullets, but you are right that the wording means you look just at the shift, lest someone think bases can flow round both sides of an obstruction.

If you are right, though, that would mean that whether a shift is possible after an evading column turns is entirely dependent on whether the distance to an obstruction is short enough or long enough to leave the kink at the first or the last base. Having shifting depend on the distance to the obstacle being a little longer or a llittle shorter makes things fiddly as the angles and distances have to be got just right.

It seems obvious this situation was not contemplated in the language of the first bullet. There would not be a kinked column issue if the bullet said "legal formation" rather than referring to edge and corner contact. I suspect it didn't say "legal formation" because the bullet applies to routs as well as evades and needs to accommodate some non-legal formations that can arise in those processes. The purpose is to keep BGs from splitting, and the edge and corner language seems to be a clarification of that, but it's a strange glitch that the language (erratically) prohibits the unavoidable use of a legal formation.

P.67, second and third sub-bullets. Essentially says that no base can shift more than one base width as part of an evade move.

!! Much too sweepingly described.

Evade moves can involve changes of direction and cover a lot of ground. There is no general restriction on lateral displacement of bases - they move with the BG and are subject to specific evade rules such as the one you are thinking about, which only kicks in to effectively implement the concept of the BG shift rule when necessary to pass an obstruction. It does not apply to normal movement in evades, whether turning, wheeling, or moving in block or column.

Time for an authorial conclave?

Cheers,

Mike

_______________________

When you come to a fork in the road, take it.

hammy wrote:
Look at the photo Nik,

The cavalry are facing the bowmen so can't move further away from them. A 90 degree turn is not going to be able to end up further away from the bow either. Moving so that they are still infront of the spear is also quite difficult.

If they are pinned by both they only have to "react" to one of them, which they can choose, and so the fact that a 90 degree turn and move wouldn't get them further away from the Bw is not relevant to that. 3rd bullet page 74.

Of course (having checked the photo) in this example, as you point out, escape will actually be impossible, but not always in similar cases.