May not advance

[richafricanus]

The definition of an advance on p104 is any move that results in the unit ending further fwd than the original front edge or facing. I had a cavalry unit take 3 hits from being shot in the rear which means it can't advance. Based on the above definition, the unit therefore could not move away from the firers! Seems a bit odd. Did we play this right?

[viperofmilan]

Again, don't have the rules with me, but going from memory (and common sense, it seems to me) the intent is not to advance on the BG(s) causing the hits, so I would say your BG should have been able to move away from the firer. Just my opinion, you understand.

Kevin

[richafricanus]

Yes logic would say so, but the wording in the rules is very specific. FOG A words it in terms of ending closer to enemy which makes more sense.

[deadtorius]

Alas I do believe it is you have to pass a CMT to move forwards, falling back would not require it. seems odd that you can fall back on the shooters but not advance away from them, but you are right that is what the rules state.

[hazelbark]

Yes logic would say so, but the wording in the rules is very specific. FOG A words it in terms of ending closer to enemy which makes more sense.

First rule of FOG N. Don't assume ANY precedent or meaning from previous FOG rules. These are very different.

[terrys]

The definition of an advance on p104 is any move that results in the unit ending further fwd than the original front edge or facing. I had a cavalry unit take 3 hits from being shot in the rear which means it can't advance. Based on the above definition, the unit therefore could not move away from the firers! Seems a bit odd. Did we play this right?

You did play this right - the wording (at present) stops you from moving away - without a CMT.
If the cavalry had been within 2MU of the firers they would have retired to 3MU and turned to face.

[richafricanus]

Thanks Terry. Can I take from that that you are planning to make a change to the wording?