Routing unit question

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 10:03 am

This will also be complicated if the BG wheels and/or turns on its rout to the gap. Making original position definition very difficult

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 10:07 am

philqw78 wrote:This will also be complicated if the BG wheels and/or turns on its rout to the gap. Making original position definition very difficult

Good point, so how about:

"Yes, provided that in total no base shifts a net distance of more than one base width sideways from the path that it would have taken if no shift or dropping back had occured."

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 10:24 am

Shifting and contraction of bases only occurs upon reaching a gap by normal wheels and turns as allowed in the evade or rout move. Upon the BG reaching the gap no base may then move laterally more than 1 base width to enter the gap.

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 10:31 am

philqw78 wrote:Shifting and contraction of bases only occurs upon reaching a gap by normal wheels and turns as allowed in the evade or rout move. Upon the BG reaching the gap no base may then move laterally more than 1 base width to enter the gap.

Hmm. Is all this really necessary? What was wrong with the last version I suggested?

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 10:34 am

Nothing really, I just like the sound of my own voice. Although mine confirms when the shift occurs. And dropping back is not dropping back, just pedantry there as it gives the image that bases can move backwards whilst evading

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 10:39 am

philqw78 wrote: And dropping back is not dropping back, just pedantry there as it gives the image that bases can move backwards whilst evading

True, but it is a convenient shorthand for "moving to the rear of those bases that have been able to complete their evade moves".

Can you suggest a better short way of saying this?

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 10:40 am

contracting behind

SirGarnet · Post by **SirGarnet** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 10:50 am

Maybe I am missing something, but, since the shifting and the dropping back occur only when the obstruction is met as phil mentioned, I think talking about turns and path is likely to be a red herring to any already confused people perusing the FAQ.

Maybe

Yes, provided that as a result of dropping back and shifting taken together no base shifts a net distance of more than one base width sideways, relative to its position just before shifting and dropping back.

works. Also, if you omit the explanation highlighting the situation requiring the "net" and that only obstructed bases can drop back, I suggest the question be

Can an evading battle group both shift sideways and drop back obstructed bases to pass obstructions?

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 10:53 am

How about:

"v) SHIFTING WHEN EVADING

Can an evading battle group both shift sideways and contract bases to pass obstructions?

Yes, provided that in total no base shifts a net distance of more than one base width sideways from the path that it would have taken if no shift or contraction had occured.

In effect, shifting the battle group and contracting bases at the same time can only happen where an obstructed file of bases contracts behind an adjoining file (which requires a base width shift) and the BG as a whole also shifts a partial or whole base width back towards the side where the contracted file was. As a result, none of the bases have at any time shifted more than a net 1 base width. This can happen when passing through a narrow gap."

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 10:53 am

But no bases should drop back. They should contract behind those already through the gap. None move backwards.

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 10:54 am

philqw78 wrote:But no bases should drop back. They should contract behind those already through the gap. None move backwards.

You posted too soon, see my new version above your last post.

SirGarnet · Post by **SirGarnet** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 12:29 pm

Having seen several threads about tangents over artifacts of word choice, my idea is to avoid that here.

SUGGESTION: I'd replace "contract bases" with "move obstructed bases to the rear" in the question and in the answer.

REASON: The language used in the rules is actually "moved to the rear" of those completing their evade move - the omission of the word "contraction" on p67 is an effective way to avoid confusion caused by people seeing this as a contraction rules issue (enough argument about those already) rather than simply what it says.

"Obstructed" should be in there so people get things in the right order - dropping back unobstructed bases and shifting over obstructed ones may get them to the same result if measured correctly, but it's best to stick to the right habits.

SUGGESTION: "from the its position just before the shift and move to the rear" rather than referring to the path not taken.

REASON: The "what if" path calculation is going to misdirect attention to the starting position of the evade move, turns, and wheels. Unless the path matters, no good can come of people focusing on that rather than the shifts. People who understand this rule perfectly right now may no longer do so when puzzling over the path reference.

Does the earlier path matter? At this hour I can't see it.

**
The explanatory paragraph is now very clear except for "contracts" for the reasons above and I think stands alone to explain the situation.

Cheers,

Mike

madcam2us · Post by **madcam2us** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 1:17 pm

See Dan...

the Squeaky wheel gets the grease! Sticking by ones principles gets actions... One doesn't need to be the sheep to get results. Nay, be the Wolf!

Now there is (or will be ) a FaQ entry much like my adding to overlap without charging (RBS, when will that be added).

I'll be famous as the new Ghost-Muse for RTS in their new addition....

Ah, lofty goals.

Madcam

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 1:22 pm

madcam2us wrote:I'll be famous as the new Ghost-Muse for RTS in their new addition....

Well you will certainly be famous, but as what I would prefer not to say.

Sticking by ones principles gets actions...

Principles, my ***. More like, being a **** forces otherwise unnecessary action.

Now there is (or will be ) a FaQ entry much like my adding to overlap without charging (RBS, when will that be added).

Wasn't that covered by the existing Errata? (Which you couldn't be bothered to read).

madcam2us · Post by **madcam2us** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 1:25 pm

some say Famous, some(in)Famous... I prefer Cult of Personality!

Remember the charging of a BG with a wheel that would (bc the original target evades) hit another BG locked in CC that would not normally be targetable....

anyways, I've not asked... Will you be joining the Leffe Blond/Single Malt expedition at the IWF?

Madcam.

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 1:26 pm

madcam2us wrote:anyways, I've not asked... Will you be joining the Leffe Blond/Single Malt expedition at the IWF.

Sadly not.

kal5056 · Post by **kal5056** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 1:31 pm

So,
Is the final result of this point - counter point that the Knights in the pictures shown are burst through or can the light horse shift to avoid the first contact and then drop back bases to avoid the second? because unless I interp the pictures incorrectly don't the light horse on make a Net move greater than 1 base width in the pictures?

Gino
SMAC

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 1:34 pm

kal5056 wrote:So,
Is the final result of this point - counter point that the Knights in the pictures shown are burst through or can the light horse shift to avoid the first contact and then drop back bases to avoid the second? because unless I interp the pictures incorrectly don't the light horse on make a Net move greater than 1 base width in the pictures?

Gino
SMAC

They burst through. As everyone (probably including madcam) already knew.

madcam2us · Post by **madcam2us** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 1:35 pm

Apparently I've been shut down....

but won another discussion due to my oratory skills during play...

You may still want me defending you as its not till before the scholars of this game do I fail miserably... by then the results speak for themselves!

Sorry, Ms Gino, while indeed your husband was found innocent upon review, we still thru the switch...

Or

How did we let that Git out of jail?????

Madcam, pseudo-ESQ

madcam2us · Post by **madcam2us** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 2:10 pm

They burst through. As everyone (probably including madcam) already knew.

Hopefully there was a bit of TIC there...

I don't do things purposefully against the rules. I had thought the forum was the place to put these issues when playing the game to gain a better understanding...

If you are adding this issue to the FaQ at least you acknowledge where some could interpret it differently from the authors intent.

Remember, there are several of out here that were not part of the playtesting and are arriving at conclusions within our own groups based on their understanding of the rules...

Madcam.