Slitherine

...I have a few questions and a long list of things I've been doing wrong.

My questions are below (and my list of things I've been doing wrong I'm keeping to myself to avoid embarrasment ):

1. If a BG is in the restricted area of an enemy BG and responds to this (say by wheeling to line up) and at some point (during the response) ends up in another enemy BG’s restricted area, can it now respond to either enemy BG because it is in two restricted areas? If not, then it seems BGs starting outside a restricted area should therefore ignore restricted areas they move into. Which opens up some very nice cheese. This came up at Oxford doubles the other weekend as that sneaky Dave Handley tried to "push the envelope".

2. If routers meet enemy they are destroyed and removed at the end of the phase. Does this mean they move as far as they can and pursuers as well, or that the rout/pursuit is not done at all?


3. When 2 base BGs (such elephants) lose a base, it seems they are not broken until the end of the JAP (Removing destroyed battle groups p.109 and Autobreak p.116)? At least I cannot find the bit where it says they are broken.
If no then:
- Does this mean that if this happened in the impact phase they fight in the melee phase as unbroken?
- Does this also mean for games ending and therefore not getting a JAP means the elephants do not count as broken for attrition points?
If yes then:
- When would the sentence (Autobreak p.116) “Where a battle group has not already broken when this occurs, it will trigger a cohesion test for nearby friendly battle groups as if it had just broken” ever apply?

4. When a base is lost due to shooting, it is not clear how it is replaced (only important for mixed BGs). Is it the same as close combat? The rules say (Base Removal p.116) “Other bases of the battle group immediately shuffle up to retain contiguity and fill vacated front rank positions. All vacated front rank close combat fighting positions...” – does the “close combat fighting positions” part meant to apply even to shooting base losses?

5. If a column of pike is charged by enemy in line at an angle and a base contacts the front base and the 3rd rank of pike, does the 1st rank get the benefit of 4 ranks (even though the 3rd rank is also fighting to the front)? The objection to this is that the 3rd and 4th ranks of pikes seem to be contributing to the fight twice! The FAQ covers the PoA for the 3rd rank (it counts PoA like it was the front rank) but the FAQ does not cover what happens to the front rank of pike!

bddbrown wrote:3. When 2 base BGs (such elephants) lose a base, it seems they are not broken until the end of the JAP (Removing destroyed battle groups p.109 and Autobreak p.116)? At least I cannot find the bit where it says they are broken.
If no then:
- Does this mean that if this happened in the impact phase they fight in the melee phase as unbroken?
- Does this also mean for games ending and therefore not getting a JAP means the elephants do not count as broken for attrition points?
If yes then:
- When would the sentence (Autobreak p.116) “Where a battle group has not already broken when this occurs, it will trigger a cohesion test for nearby friendly battle groups as if it had just broken” ever apply?

If a 2 base BG is Average or Poor it will autobreak on losing a base, since it has lost more than 40%. If it is Superior or Elite (and does not break for any other reason) it does not count as broken until the single base is removed in the JAP.

Best wishes,
Matthew

bddbrown wrote:1. If a BG is in the restricted area of an enemy BG and responds to this (say by wheeling to line up) and at some point (during the response) ends up in another enemy BG’s restricted area, can it now respond to either enemy BG because it is in two restricted areas?

I believe that you made your choice (there was only one option when you did so at the beginning) and are stuck with it, including the restrictions such as ending in front of the BG that apply even when outside the restricted area (otherwise the move is not permitted). If, however, you get outside the restricted area of the first BG and are now in a new restricted area of another BG, you are now constrained by that one as well, since the restricted area rule is not limited to when you start your turn.

bddbrown wrote:If not, then it seems BGs starting outside a restricted area should therefore ignore restricted areas they move into. Which opens up some very nice cheese. This came up at Oxford doubles the other weekend as that sneaky Dave Handley tried to "push the envelope".

Can you illustrate the cheese? BTW, I'd suggest the expression "tried to squeeze the cheese" -- "pushing the envelope" evokes the heroic daring of test pilots, which is much too positive, rather than trying to squeeze cheese-like paste "food" products out of a tube, which is suitably icky.

bddbrown wrote:2. If routers meet enemy they are destroyed and removed at the end of the phase. Does this mean they move as far as they can and pursuers as well, or that the rout/pursuit is not done at all?

Rout to obstruction and stop since they can't bypass, pursue, and then remove routers at the end of the phase.

3. Autobreak means they break "immediately" upon loss (p116). They cause cohesion tests, rout move, burst through friends, get shot at, be pursued etc. during the turn, then get removed at the end of JA.

bddbrown wrote:4. When a base is lost due to shooting, it is not clear how it is replaced (only important for mixed BGs). Is it the same as close combat? The rules say (Base Removal p.116) “Other bases of the battle group immediately shuffle up to retain contiguity and fill vacated front rank positions. All vacated front rank close combat fighting positions...” – does the “close combat fighting positions” part meant to apply even to shooting base losses?

4. The difference I have seen with shooting is that if 2 front rank bases in close combat (not overlap) are removed then you need to fill in both spots subject to the specific procedures that follow (maintaining frontage). If from shooting and no one is in close combat, you just need to close up, so you might end up 1 file narrower in frontage.

bddbrown wrote:5. If a column of pike is charged by enemy in line at an angle and a base contacts the front base and the 3rd rank of pike, does the 1st rank get the benefit of 4 ranks (even though the 3rd rank is also fighting to the front)? The objection to this is that the 3rd and 4th ranks of pikes seem to be contributing to the fight twice! The FAQ covers the PoA for the 3rd rank (it counts PoA like it was the front rank) but the FAQ does not cover what happens to the front rank of pike!

The point of the FAQ is that the enemy in each case is fighting a solid deep pike block frontally, and the Pike rank POAs are based on the Pike block. If they turn for a flank attack, it's another story.

Mike

bddbrown wrote:... (and my list of things I've been doing wrong I'm keeping to myself to avoid embarrasment ):

Don't keep them to yourself, add them to the

" Common Mistakes! Newbies start here "

thread (which ought to be a sticky).

I endorse Mike's replies.

Here's my view

1. I would agree. At the point the BG enters the second RZ it presumbably can respond to either.

2. For consistency I would play this like other removed routers. 'Meet' suggests that the BG has to move until it meets this point. Pursuers I would move to the place where they (would, if they were stilll there) contact the routers. This makes it like following an autobroken BG in the JAP.

3. Autobroken states that if reduced to one base the BG is broken. This can only mean they are broken at the time the base is removed. The other base is in play as a broken BG until removed in the JAP. I used to have an issue with this. On re-reading I believe it is clear that the break is immediate, the JAP is when the BG is removed. P116 I assume means that when that first base is removed the break test is then. Presumably the authors were trying to explain that this is just the same as a break by failing cohesion tests.

4. I would think so.

5. A definite yes here. Two bases of each side fight just as if the contact was on the front rank. We have discussed this one here before.

bddbrown wrote:1. If a BG is in the restricted area of an enemy BG and responds to this (say by wheeling to line up) and at some point (during the response) ends up in another enemy BG’s restricted area, can it now respond to either enemy BG because it is in two restricted areas? If not, then it seems BGs starting outside a restricted area should therefore ignore restricted areas they move into. Which opens up some very nice cheese. This came up at Oxford doubles the other weekend as that sneaky Dave Handley tried to "push the envelope".

I ruled on this at Oxford and allowed what seemed to me to be the sensible move which was to change what was responded to but this opens up a lot of other issues so I think that it should be that your only option is to respond to the original restricted area. If you could setup and photograph the situation it would help others. If not I can probably remember most of it.

2. If routers meet enemy they are destroyed and removed at the end of the phase. Does this mean they move as far as they can and pursuers as well, or that the rout/pursuit is not done at all?

The routers make their rout and are removed, any pursuers make their move, at least that is the way I play it. I will double check the rules.

3. When 2 base BGs (such elephants) lose a base, it seems they are not broken until the end of the JAP (Removing destroyed battle groups p.109 and Autobreak p.116)? At least I cannot find the bit where it says they are broken.
If no then:
- Does this mean that if this happened in the impact phase they fight in the melee phase as unbroken?
- Does this also mean for games ending and therefore not getting a JAP means the elephants do not count as broken for attrition points?
If yes then:
- When would the sentence (Autobreak p.116) “Where a battle group has not already broken when this occurs, it will trigger a cohesion test for nearby friendly battle groups as if it had just broken” ever apply?

A BG autobreaks in any phase where it drops below the autobreak threshold. This means an average BG of 6 bases breaks when it is reduced to 3 or a superior BG of 4 bases breaks when reduced to a single base. When the BG breaks you get all the usual tests and reactions (CTs, pursuit etc.)

At the end of the JAP (so an autobroken BG can rout twice before this) all autobroken BGs are removed. Unbroken 1 base BGs are also removed. Elite and superior troops in 2 base BGs do not autobreak on the loss of 1 base but are removed at the end of the JAP and there is no pursuit in this case as they are assumed to have died to a man.

4. When a base is lost due to shooting, it is not clear how it is replaced (only important for mixed BGs). Is it the same as close combat? The rules say (Base Removal p.116) “Other bases of the battle group immediately shuffle up to retain contiguity and fill vacated front rank positions. All vacated front rank close combat fighting positions...” – does the “close combat fighting positions” part meant to apply even to shooting base losses?

I can't see any distinction to the replacement for shooting or close combat. If you have a BG that is 4 in the front rank and 3 in the second and lose the odd base from the front rank IMO you have to replace with one of the second rank bases.

5. If a column of pike is charged by enemy in line at an angle and a base contacts the front base and the 3rd rank of pike, does the 1st rank get the benefit of 4 ranks (even though the 3rd rank is also fighting to the front)? The objection to this is that the 3rd and 4th ranks of pikes seem to be contributing to the fight twice! The FAQ covers the PoA for the 3rd rank (it counts PoA like it was the front rank) but the FAQ does not cover what happens to the front rank of pike!

All the chargers count as charging the front of the pike, each base in contact fights as if it is the front rank of the pike. You cannot sleaze an advantage on a pike formation by charging it at the corner. A pike formation in this possition will probably be in trouble anyway as it will be overlapped in the melee.

MCollett wrote:

bddbrown wrote:3. When 2 base BGs (such elephants) lose a base, it seems they are not broken until the end of the JAP (Removing destroyed battle groups p.109 and Autobreak p.116)? At least I cannot find the bit where it says they are broken.
If no then:
- Does this mean that if this happened in the impact phase they fight in the melee phase as unbroken?
- Does this also mean for games ending and therefore not getting a JAP means the elephants do not count as broken for attrition points?
If yes then:
- When would the sentence (Autobreak p.116) “Where a battle group has not already broken when this occurs, it will trigger a cohesion test for nearby friendly battle groups as if it had just broken” ever apply?

If a 2 base BG is Average or Poor it will autobreak on losing a base, since it has lost more than 40%. If it is Superior or Elite (and does not break for any other reason) it does not count as broken until the single base is removed in the JAP.

Best wishes,
Matthew

Excellent. I wasn't thinking laterally enough! Something to note when using superior troops in BGS of 2s!

I can't see any distinction to the replacement for shooting or close combat

Shooting casualties are removed from bases nearest the firers, I believe. If you are shot from behind you would loose a rear rank, if shot from the side which base would you loose and who would close up if both ranks are the same distance from the firers? What if shot from multiple directions?

MikeK wrote:

bddbrown wrote:1. If a BG is in the restricted area of an enemy BG and responds to this (say by wheeling to line up) and at some point (during the response) ends up in another enemy BG’s restricted area, can it now respond to either enemy BG because it is in two restricted areas?

I believe that you made your choice (there was only one option when you did so at the beginning) and are stuck with it, including the restrictions such as ending in front of the BG that apply even when outside the restricted area (otherwise the move is not permitted). If, however, you get outside the restricted area of the first BG and are now in a new restricted area of another BG, you are now constrained by that one as well, since the restricted area rule is not limited to when you start your turn.

I think your last sentence is the bit that adds confusion. Since the restricted area rule is not limited to when you start your turn, surely this means that if are not restricted to responding to the BGs restricting you at the start of the turn.

What's the difference (as far as the rules are concerned) between starting in an RA and moving into another, and starting in no RA and moving into another?

MikeK wrote:

bddbrown wrote:If not, then it seems BGs starting outside a restricted area should therefore ignore restricted areas they move into. Which opens up some very nice cheese. This came up at Oxford doubles the other weekend as that sneaky Dave Handley tried to "push the envelope".

Can you illustrate the cheese? BTW, I'd suggest the expression "tried to squeeze the cheese" -- "pushing the envelope" evokes the heroic daring of test pilots, which is much too positive, rather than trying to squeeze cheese-like paste "food" products out of a tube, which is suitably icky.

Well essentially if the argument goes that you are limited to RA at the beginning of your move, you are setting the predict that if you start outside the RA you can move through it and ignore it. That is fine so long as everyone knows that is the case, but it becomes cheese when new players are exposed to it because it is counter-intuitive. I personally don't mind either way. I normally get stung by something once in a game and then remember it from there on in. Invariably I then use it to my advantage in more than one game.

For me cheese is something that players on other players that don't know about it because it is counter-intuitive. Which is slightly different take on cheese than most people.

MikeK wrote:

bddbrown wrote:2. If routers meet enemy they are destroyed and removed at the end of the phase. Does this mean they move as far as they can and pursuers as well, or that the rout/pursuit is not done at all?

Rout to obstruction and stop since they can't bypass, pursue, and then remove routers at the end of the phase.

Makes sense.

MikeK wrote:

bddbrown wrote:4. When a base is lost due to shooting, it is not clear how it is replaced (only important for mixed BGs). Is it the same as close combat? The rules say (Base Removal p.116) “Other bases of the battle group immediately shuffle up to retain contiguity and fill vacated front rank positions. All vacated front rank close combat fighting positions...” – does the “close combat fighting positions” part meant to apply even to shooting base losses?

4. The difference I have seen with shooting is that if 2 front rank bases in close combat (not overlap) are removed then you need to fill in both spots subject to the specific procedures that follow (maintaining frontage). If from shooting and no one is in close combat, you just need to close up, so you might end up 1 file narrower in frontage.

Hmm, not sure I like that. Means you can perform a contraction which might be helpful in some cases. Whiffs of cheese potential to me, somewhat limited, but there is something there.

In any case, I think this should go into the FAQ as it is not really spelled out in the rules.

MikeK wrote:

bddbrown wrote:5. If a column of pike is charged by enemy in line at an angle and a base contacts the front base and the 3rd rank of pike, does the 1st rank get the benefit of 4 ranks (even though the 3rd rank is also fighting to the front)? The objection to this is that the 3rd and 4th ranks of pikes seem to be contributing to the fight twice! The FAQ covers the PoA for the 3rd rank (it counts PoA like it was the front rank) but the FAQ does not cover what happens to the front rank of pike!

The point of the FAQ is that the enemy in each case is fighting a solid deep pike block frontally, and the Pike rank POAs are based on the Pike block. If they turn for a flank attack, it's another story.

Agreed. The rules are pretty clear on this in my opinion. But as the FAQ sells out the PoA for the 3rd rank of Pike it seems like a minor change to include the PoA for the 1st rank. Especially as having the same base doing 2 things in the combat is a little unintuitive (certainly annoyed our opponents when it happened in a game).

Thanks for your replies.

lawrenceg wrote:

bddbrown wrote:... (and my list of things I've been doing wrong I'm keeping to myself to avoid embarrasment ):

Don't keep them to yourself, add them to the

" Common Mistakes! Newbies start here "

thread (which ought to be a sticky).

Happy to do that when I get home. Some of them are specific to me though (just plainly got it into my head that things are done a certain way). Not sure if they apply to everyone!

hammy wrote:

bddbrown wrote:1. If a BG is in the restricted area of an enemy BG and responds to this (say by wheeling to line up) and at some point (during the response) ends up in another enemy BG’s restricted area, can it now respond to either enemy BG because it is in two restricted areas? If not, then it seems BGs starting outside a restricted area should therefore ignore restricted areas they move into. Which opens up some very nice cheese. This came up at Oxford doubles the other weekend as that sneaky Dave Handley tried to "push the envelope".

I ruled on this at Oxford and allowed what seemed to me to be the sensible move which was to change what was responded to but this opens up a lot of other issues so I think that it should be that your only option is to respond to the original restricted area. If you could setup and photograph the situation it would help others. If not I can probably remember most of it.

I would look at it this way:

You are in the restricted areas of enemy BGs A and B

Restricted area A prevents you from doing certain moves.
Restricted area B prevents you from doing certain other moves.

You can do a move if neither A nor B prevent it.

So if you were wheeling towards A and entered the restricted area of B, you could continue wheeling only if you are wheeling towards both A and B and not yet parallel to either.

2. If routers meet enemy they are destroyed and removed at the end of the phase. Does this mean they move as far as they can and pursuers as well, or that the rout/pursuit is not done at all?

The routers make their rout and are removed, any pursuers make their move, at least that is the way I play it. I will double check the rules.

NOte, this may mean the pursuers move further than they would have done had the routers not been destoyed.

MY opinions...

1) The 'pinned BG's movement is restricted to the moves allowed in respect to the original single pinning BG.
The fact that you move into another BG's pinning range doesn't change the fact that you are still restricted by the original restriction. When you move into the pinning range of the second BG, you could (for no obvious reason) choose to also be restricted by that BG as well.
All the restrictions listed refer to 'that' enemy battle group, which is the battle group that was pinning you at the start.
2) Routers make their move. Pursuers make their move. The routers are removed
3) A 2-base battlegroup that loses a base continues fighting until the end of the JAP phase.
It is removed at the end of the JAP phase.
It will immediately cause a test on nearby BGs 'as if it had just broken' at the end of the JAP phase.
In otherwords the BG is removed and the tests all occur at the same time - at the end of the JAP phase.
4) The base to be removed is the one ' nearest to the shooters'
Other bases are only moved to fill vacant front rank positions. These must be from a none front-rank base if there is one, otherwise any base may be used.
5) All pikes contacted in this way count as if in 4 ranks.

terrys wrote:3) A 2-base battlegroup that loses a base continues fighting until the end of the JAP phase.

If it is Elite or Superior. Average or Poor are autobroken immediately and hence make an immediate rout move, then another in the JAP before being removed.

terrys wrote:MY opinions...

1) The 'pinned BG's movement is restricted to the moves allowed in respect to the original single pinning BG.
The fact that you move into another BG's pinning range doesn't change the fact that you are still restricted by the original restriction. When you move into the pinning range of the second BG, you could (for no obvious reason) choose to also be restricted by that BG as well.
All the restrictions listed refer to 'that' enemy battle group, which is the battle group that was pinning you at the start.

So that means that if you start outside of a RA you can never be affected by a RA. Doesn't feel right to me.

terrys wrote:2) Routers make their move. Pursuers make their move. The routers are removed

Seems right to me. There have been some variable comments from people on the thread, so might need FAQing.

terrys wrote:3) A 2-base battlegroup that loses a base continues fighting until the end of the JAP phase.
It is removed at the end of the JAP phase.
It will immediately cause a test on nearby BGs 'as if it had just broken' at the end of the JAP phase.
In otherwords the BG is removed and the tests all occur at the same time - at the end of the JAP phase.

This is right if the BG is superior or elite. Otherwise the loss of a base causes an autobreak (not a break from only having 1 base).

terrys wrote:4) The base to be removed is the one ' nearest to the shooters'
Other bases are only moved to fill vacant front rank positions. These must be from a none front-rank base if there is one, otherwise any base may be used.

This makes the most sense to me. The wording of the rules just seems to indicate that it only applies to close combat.

terrys wrote:5) All pikes contacted in this way count as if in 4 ranks.

Indeed. My point is that the FAQ could be updated to include the PoA for the 1st rank. It's a simple addition to aid in the clarification. I'd also add a bit there saying the reason for this seeming unintuitive base fighting twice is to prevent cheesy tactics of hitting pikes at an angle and getting an advantage. What looks like cheese initially is actually cheese prevention.

Thanks for replying Terry.

bddbrown wrote:

MikeK wrote:

bddbrown wrote:If not, then it seems BGs starting outside a restricted area should therefore ignore restricted areas they move into. Which opens up some very nice cheese. This came up at Oxford doubles the other weekend as that sneaky Dave Handley tried to "push the envelope".

Can you illustrate the cheese? BTW, I'd suggest the expression "tried to squeeze the cheese" -- "pushing the envelope" evokes the heroic daring of test pilots, which is much too positive, rather than trying to squeeze cheese-like paste "food" products out of a tube, which is suitably icky.

Well essentially if the argument goes that you are limited to RA at the beginning of your move, you are setting the predict that if you start outside the RA you can move through it and ignore it. That is fine so long as everyone knows that is the case, but it becomes cheese when new players are exposed to it because it is counter-intuitive. I personally don't mind either way. I normally get stung by something once in a game and then remember it from there on in. Invariably I then use it to my advantage in more than one game.

My view on the situation that Hammy ruled on (I was sitting on the next table and saw) is as follows:

As you are only in one RA at the start of your move, that is the only one you can choose to respond to. If your move then enters another RA, your BG can of course continue to respond (only) to the first RA.

What you can't do is switch to responding to the 2nd BG.

There is absolutely nothing in the rules to suggest you can switch which RA you respond to half way through a move.

rbodleyscott wrote:

bddbrown wrote:

MikeK wrote: Can you illustrate the cheese? BTW, I'd suggest the expression "tried to squeeze the cheese" -- "pushing the envelope" evokes the heroic daring of test pilots, which is much too positive, rather than trying to squeeze cheese-like paste "food" products out of a tube, which is suitably icky.

Well essentially if the argument goes that you are limited to RA at the beginning of your move, you are setting the predict that if you start outside the RA you can move through it and ignore it. That is fine so long as everyone knows that is the case, but it becomes cheese when new players are exposed to it because it is counter-intuitive. I personally don't mind either way. I normally get stung by something once in a game and then remember it from there on in. Invariably I then use it to my advantage in more than one game.

My view on the situation that Hammy ruled on (I was sitting on the next table and saw) is as follows:

As you are only in one RA at the start of your move, that is the only one you can choose to respond to. If your move then enters another RA, your BG can of course continue to respond (only) to the first RA.

What you can't do is switch to responding to the 2nd BG.

There is absolutely nothing in the rules to suggest you can switch which RA you respond to half way through a move.

Well the rules don't say anything about the timeframe where an RA applies. They infer that an RA can apply at any time during a move. Otherwise an RA would not apply if you started outside it and moved into it. There is no exclusion saying if you start in one then this is exclusionary to any others. I think the rules are pretty clear, just not in the way you are saying they are!

bddbrown wrote:

There is absolutely nothing in the rules to suggest you can switch which RA you respond to half way through a move.

Well the rules don't say anything about the timeframe where an RA applies. They infer that an RA can apply at any time during a move. Otherwise an RA would not apply if you started outside it and moved into it. There is no exclusion saying if you start in one then this is exclusionary to any others. I think the rules are pretty clear, just not in the way you are saying they are!

The point is that at the start of your move you are only in one RA so can only choose to respond to that. By the time you enter the second RA you have already made the choice - the rules say nothing about choosing twice.

Anyway if I cannot convince you, you are at least warned how I will rule if umpiring.

So that means that if you start outside of a RA you can never be affected by a RA. Doesn't feel right to me.

I didn't say that.
I agree with Richard.

Essentially:
If you start in the restricted area of a single BG, that BG affects you throughout the rest of your move.
If you start in the restricted area of more than one BG, you select which one affects you the rest of the move.
If you start outside and subsequently enter a restricted area, it will affect you for the rest of the move.
Entering a second restricted area has no effect on your move.

There is an argument that if your enter the RA of a second single BG that it should restrict you as well, but we'd be getting into too many complications to compute.

terrys wrote:If you start outside and subsequently enter a restricted area, it will affect you for the rest of the move.
Entering a second restricted area has no effect on your move.

There is an argument that if your enter the RA of a second single BG that it should restrict you as well, but we'd be getting into too many complications to compute.

I don't think it's too complicated in the case where you already moved out of the initial RAs and then choose to get into a fresh RA.

There are two ways to get out of a RA (though you still need to be partly in front of the pinning BG in each case):

1. Conform to an overlap position against another enemy battle group, which gives the BG little latitude in what it can do and is unlikely to cause mischief.

2. Move somewhere ending farther away from the pinning BG.

Once you are out of the RA, you are no longer pinned - you just need to end your move partly in front of the original pinning BG.

If you voluntarily move within the RA of a new enemy BG, the question is whether you can ignore them and move as you please, or once within them are fiurther pinned under the definition at the beginning of p74 (as well as the requirement that your move end partly in front of the original pinning enemy, since the move is void if you don't do that)?

The first option is mandated by the "pinned by more than one enemy" bullet if it means to cover the entire movement phase. If not, then the definition of pinned means new pinning RAs should restrict movement past them, which I suspect will be pretty easy to enforce and minimize cheesemaking.

I think a FAQ would make it clear, such as in the first case

"The pinning enemy battle group to which a battle group responds is determined at the start of its move and it is unaffected by pinning and restricted areas of any other enemy battle groups for the remainder of its move." or in the second case

"If a battle group moves outside of the restricted areas of all enemy battle groups pinning it at the start of its move and then enters the restricted area of a different enemy battle group, it will then be pinned and respond to that battle group as well as meeting the requirement that it end its move partly in front of the original pinning battle group."

Mike