Evading

[list_lurker]

This caused an issue last night... I believe we got the right answer but there is some ambiguity I'd like to clarify...


As simple set up...

CAVCAVCAVCAVCAVCAV

________LHLHLH
________LHLHLH

two friendly units, both facing down the page. The LH is being charged, and has elected to evade towards its own rear (but there is very little where for it to go!)

Looking at the evading section. Pg32 penultimate black bullet - If an evading group encounters....

Now, first <sub> bullet... it interpenetrates if allowed to do so. So, zipping to pg22 - interpenetrations. The following interpenetrations are permitted...Bullets 1 thru 4 explicity state which troop types interpenetrate on a bullet by bullet basis. 5 is a special rule thing - so I'll ignore for the moment. Now the sixth bullet 'sufficient move'... Now, is it starting as another explicate exception (like prior bullets) or does is apply to only prior exceptions? What I'm getting at is, the second <sub> bullet 'in all other cases, bases of the moving group...' - now, the 'all other cases' , is this applying only to the 'permitted' interpenetration types, listed in bulllets 1 -5? So, in our example LH is not allowed to penetrate Cav in 1-5, but does it get caught in the sixth bullet, 2nd sub bullet? 'all oter cases'? Now I'm saying not, but there was an argument over this. If it doesn't apply I've like to see a slight clarification or either, removing the 6th bullet and making it a paragraph break instead

Assuming we played it right then the LH cannot go through. SO, <sub>bullet 1 of evading is satified (back to Pg32)...

<sub>bullet 2, no good... no room
<sub>bullet 3 no good... no gaps
<sub>bullet 3 no good can't past the ostruction

now bullet <sub>4, 'front rank bases'. We've decide that they cannot interpenetrate, and the front rank cannot do an evade move. We're going to trigger <sub><sub> bullet 1 'burst through'... back to 22 'bursting through'... 2nd para ... no bullets apply. 3rd para. '....If is does not completely clear all friends, it is destroyed and removed from the table'. As the LH group is in two ranks the first rank can complete its evade, but the 2nd cannot clear the Cav base.

Is the LH destroyed? I say yes... but its a little harsh! You may argue that skirmishers caught in deep formations should be at risk - perhaps righly so. The 'tip' (pg22) does say to leave gaps for skirmishers to evade through

A rather moot point IMHO, is that later in the evade bullets pg 33, 2nd <white> bullet "battle groups that cannot complete an evade move by any of the above means move as far as they can and likely to get caught."

I say that the destruction of the unit in the penultimate point satisfies 'completing' an evade move, but it is ambigious perhaps.

SO,

option1 LH interpenetration happens splitting the LH and disrupting the Cav
option 2 LH are destroyed and the Cav are disrupted
option 3 LH are butted up to the front of the CAV


Thoughts?


Simon

[bddbrown]

Ok. I am not going to try and cover all of your points - your post is too comprehensive. Option 1 is the right thing to do.

There are two relevant bits in the rules after determing there is no way they can compete a normal evade. From "Evade moves":
"o If the above would not allow all front rank bases to complete their evade move the battle group
• must instead burst through any friendly battle group in its normal evade path, with no shifting or contraction being allowed at all. The battle group is moved to the full extent of its evade move and any battle groups even partially burst through drop 1 level of cohesion immediately. (Note that battle groups passed through by evaders who can normally interpenetrate them do not count as burst through.)"

So the LH are bursting through the Cavalry (who drop a cohesion level). From "Bursting through friends":
"If its move it does not completely clear all friends, it is placed beyond any battle group(s) it is currently bursting through if there is room for it beyond, otherwise it is destroyed and removed from the table."

Basically the LH have room behind the Cavalry and so are placed beyond them. The "otherwise it is destroyed" is not invoked. Now if there was a 2nd Cavalry BG behind the 1st one, and the LH did not reach them as part of their evade move, but in order to clear the 1st Cavalry BG the LH would end up superimposed on the 2nd Cavalry BG - then they would be destroyed.

Hope that helps.

[list_lurker]

You see there is always some smart arse with option 4

So, are you saying that the whole LH group is placed behind the Cav (rather than splitting)...

Also, isn't there somthing about friends behind making room, so if there was a 2nd Cav unit behinf it would back up to allow the LH to fit it?

So, maybe we did play it wrong no surprise there then

[list_lurker]

So the LH are bursting through the Cavalry (who drop a cohesion level). From "Bursting through friends":
"If its move it does not completely clear all friends, it is placed beyond any battle group(s) it is currently bursting through if there is room for it beyond, otherwise it is destroyed and removed from the table."

I can't actually see this in my copy of the rules .... v6.00

Have I got old rules?

My rules say :-

A battle group burst through by friendly evaders or routers drop one cohesion level:
o Move the evading or routing battle group to the full extent of its move. If it does not completely clear all friends, it is destroyed and removed from the table. No cohesion test is taken for seeing this

????

[rbodleyscott]

So the LH are bursting through the Cavalry (who drop a cohesion level). From "Bursting through friends":
"If its move it does not completely clear all friends, it is placed beyond any battle group(s) it is currently bursting through if there is room for it beyond, otherwise it is destroyed and removed from the table."

I can't actually see this in my copy of the rules .... v6.00

Have I got old rules?

No, and yes. 6.0 is the last full set of rules, but there are a lot of amendments since then - which can be found in the "changes since 6.0" thread. This is one of those changes.

As you found, the previous version was a bit over-harsh.