Test to advance

[richafricanus]

I believe there should be a tweak to the rule about what's defined as an advance, or maybe I'm just misinterpreting the wording.

An advance is defined as "Any move which results in at least part of the unit ending further forwards than the original front edge and facing".

Therefore, a unit that is trying to retreat and so has it's front facing away from the enemy, that fails a test to advance after receiving 1 hit from shooting, by the above definition can't move away from the enemy shooting it from behind. That seems wrong.

Or do people interpret "moving forwards" as moving closer to enemy? If that's the interpretation, then there's no problem.

[deadtorius]

Pretty sure this has come up before, and Terry's response was advancing is getting closer to enemy.

So your unit gets wavered and halted by enemy shooting. It's a single CMT to try and move a half move backwards. You don't test for the halt as you are not getting closer to enemy.

[KendallB]

Depends what "further forward" means. I take it to be closer to the enemy's base edge.

I copped something like that in my game against Sonic at NATCON. My AV LC was parllel to my base edge and was hit by fire from front and rear. I wanted to retreat towards my base edge but was called up on this rule. Even though I called shenanigans, Steve was adamant because "it had been done to him" (as if that made it legitimate).

In the end I took my CMT and passed it then hoisted one of his cavalry by his own petard later in the game.

Shenanigans!

[deadtorius]

Shenanigans indeed! Still at least you got revenge in the end.

[Blathergut]

It has to be closer to enemy/enemy table edge. Anything else is silly. You'd have an argument for the original point if there was enemy behind somewhere nearby and moving back would get you closer.

[sonic]

Well the definition in the rulebook needs to change then because it is very clear.
"Advance: Any move which results in at least part of the unit ending further forwards than the original front edge and facing."

Forwards isn't defined however you would open even more interpretation issues if you assumed forwards to mean in relation to the enemy only. Be careful of the consequences of how you relate it, closer to the enemy table edge, and closer to the enemy are often different.

[Blathergut]

I could also argue once I turn a unit around it is not moving forwards but backwards, back towards my base line.

[deadtorius]

I know this was brought up before an terry said forward was getting closer to the enemy, which was the rule intent.

[Blathergut]

Also, if it was to be interpreted as mentioned in the first post:

a) a unit facing enemy, halted, could do a half move back and face enemy still
b) a unit facing away from enemy, halted, could not move back...silly!

[sonic]

That is why I said you have to be careful with the interpretation of enemy and forward. The enemy can be anywhere including behind you. If you take it from a position of forwards relates to the long base edge and the enemy LOC it might be more workable.

[terrys]

I will have to change that definition - I've made a note to do so.

An 'Advance' should be "Any move which ends closer to the enemy" (with a possible addition of - "and ends within 10MU").