Evade with enemy in the way

[dave_r]

Got a bit of a strange one last night. I had a unit of cavaly that was sat in front of some bowmen, a unit wangled it's way behind me and then charged. I wanted to turn 90 deg, wheel so that I was parallel with the charge (as I can only evade directly away cos it was a valid flank charge) and then use the free base width movement to avoid enemy as per the evade section.

In the diagrams at the back it then states that all other bases just drop in behind. Just like this:



However, Mr Hamilton went berserk and said it wasn't allowed, but couldn't actually find anywhere in the rules to prevent it?

Can we have further guidance please?

[hammy]

I should point out that Mr Ruddock couldn't find anywhere in the rules that allows a single element column to evade with a kink......

I realise that this is an unusual situation as evading in a column is odd to start with. My argument is simply that the rear bases of the evading group have to move sideways more than 1 base width and that is simply not allowed to evaders.

Here are the photos I took:

Possition after 90 degree turn


Front element wheels to evade path


Dave then argued that the lead element slid sideways part of a base and the now kinked column just ran round the end of my line of archers and that as the rear elements hadn't reached the wheel point they didn't actually have to move sideways more than a base width (or at all).

I argued that this was complete an utter garbage.

[rbodleyscott]

However, Mr Hamilton went berserk

I am not surprised.

The bases that drop behind are not exempt from the requirement to not shift more than a base.

[frederic]

So what happens in this case ?

[hammy]

So what happens in this case ?

IMO the evaders try to run away, find that enemy are in the way, stop 1 MU away from the enemy or in this case don't actually move anywhere and get hit in the rear and die (well go from dirsupted to fragged automatically then fight with 2 dice against 4 at --, lose and die).

[SirGarnet]

OK, working through the book (pages 66-67), it appears from the photos that Dave was right if the direction of charge of the chargers was directly forward.

The direction of charge of the chargers makes a big difference as to whether in this kind of situation the target Cav

(a) because it is closer to the direction of the charge, must move forward towards the Bows and then stop evading since they cannot get round by a one base shift of the BG, or

(b) because it is closer to the direction of the charge, it must
(1) turn 90 degrees into a 4 deep column as required by bullte 5, page 66 (in photo),
(2) wheel to face the direction of the charge as required by the same bullet (in photo),
(3) move far enough to contact the Bow obstruction,
(4) shift (the one base frontage) up to a base width to the right under bullet 1, point 2, on page 67,
(5) continue forward the rest of its move, the column following the same path behind.

This seems to be the situation here.

I think on shifting you are thinking of Point 3 of the same bullet, which is the contraction rule, saying "Provided that they do not shift more than one base width sideways, bases that cannot get past an obstruction can be moved to the rear of those bases that have been able to complete their evade move." However, the BG is already in column from the turn and can move forward with the BG shift allowed above and no contracting bases to the rear is needed, so this bullet and its restriction on individual bases does not apply.

The kinky column rule on page 23 seems pretty clearly to apply whenever a BG is one base wide.

If the chargers had come in at a charge direction angled more to their left (I believe not allowed here for their flank charge because they start within 1 MU of the target) then (a) would apply.

Either way they should get hit.

Very interesting situation. I hope this is clear.

Cheers,

Mike

[philqw78]

I agree with Dave. Also the rear bases do not shift sideways during the wheel, they are going straight forwards when the front base shifts and follow it. Though to keep continuity the rear bases would have to shift in the opposite direction as the column kinked.

[hammy]

I agree with Dave. The rear bases do not shift sideways, they are going straight forwards when the front base shifts and follow it. Though to keep continuity the rear bases would have to shift in the opposite direction as the column kinked.

If the bases at the rear of the column are going straight forwards they are not as required in the evade rules moving directly away from the charge......

[philqw78]

The BG is. And your answer would preclude a lot more evades that must first turn, then wheel, to get away. As the rear of the wheeling unit follows the front bases so is not moving away from a charge either.

[hammy]

The fundamental issue is simply can an evading BG that happens to be a single element column kink and slide to avoid an obstruction. IMO the answer is no although I can see how you can argue Dave's point. If I was called on to umpire in a tournament I would definitely rule that a sliding kinky single element column is not a valid evade.

[SirGarnet]

If the bases at the rear of the column are going straight forwards they are not as required in the evade rules moving directly away from the charge......

I don't see a rule saying the individual bases do that - it's the BG that is "evading in the direction of the charge" following a series of specific mechanical rules which sometimes cause bases to move on a non-linear path.

Anything incorrect in my analysis above or is that airtight?

[lawrenceg]

It seems to me that in the absence of the blocking enemy, the column would have moved as Dave wanted to do it, i.e. each base wheels when it reaches the point that the first base wheeled. This is the normal way that a column moves.

The issue is over what is allowable as a "shift sideways".

One could argue that no single direction is sideways for all bases as they are facing in different directions, so no shift is allowed. It may be possible to do the shift before the wheel, depending on the space available, or, indeed, before the 90 degree turn. THe latter option may be precluded by the wording "the battlegroup must first turn 180 or 90 degrees"

Alternatively one could argue that if the front base shifts sideways then the whole BG moves as a rigid body, most bases shifting diagonally.

Or you could make each base shift sideways at the point where the front base shifted. I don't see any rule that says all bases must shift at the same time. In the case of an evade with shift and contraction, the shifts are clearly not all at the same time.

I note that if both enemy BGs had charged, the evaders would split the angle and evade out to the side. It seems unrealistic that an advantage should be gained by charging with only one BG.

Incidentally, I note that all evaded bases "must end in edge to edge and corner to corner contact with another base of the battlegroup." This would prevent you ending in a kinked column if the kink was at the first or last element, but not if you had at least two bases each side of the kink.

I think we would benefit from some author clarification here.

[SirGarnet]

The fundamental issue is simply can an evading BG that happens to be a single element column kink and slide to avoid an obstruction. IMO the answer is no although I can see how you can argue Dave's point. If I was called on to umpire in a tournament I would definitely rule that a sliding kinky single element column is not a valid evade.

Under that rule, the BG must follow the one legal evade path when charged from this direction and it ends at a mandatory wheel by the BG which under the normal movement rules must create a kink. I gather you would rule the evade mus stop before the wheel, meaning the BG turns and stops. This would mean any evasion involving a 90 turn into a one-wide column that was not already pointing in the right direction would have to stop at that point. This would affect a lot of situations.

There is the interesting language on p67 saying that to shift sideways "All bases must end in edge to edge and corner to corner contact with another base of the battle group. The battle group cannot split."

Is this some kind of authorization for the rear ranks to line up behind the front base in corner and edge contact rather than kinking because this is an evade?

Or does this prohibit a wheel and kinking unless at the end of the evade all the bases are in edge and corner contact with another, so if the move is insufficient they stop without wheeling?

It is obviously directed at normal 2+ wide formations to ensure they evade in formation, but a kinked column is a legal formation so it would seem inconsistent.

[hammy]

I note that if both enemy BGs had charged, the evaders would split the angle and evade out to the side. It seems unrealistic that an advantage should be gained by charging with only one BG.

as the BG to the front was longbowmen with no swordsman capability I think that charging with them would seem odd.

Incidentally, I note that all evaded bases "must end in edge to edge and corner to corner contact with another base of the battlegroup." This would prevent
you ending in a kinked column if the kink was at the first or last element, but not if you had at least two bases each side of the kink.

Aha, I think this is the key to the issue. It rather means that evaders even if in a single element column don't kink. You just move the front base as required then the other bases fall in behind as long as they don't move sideways more than one elements width.

I think we would benefit from some author clarification here.

Well in the third post in this thread Richard would seem to be agreeing with me.

A good rules reason and a page to point out to Dave for him to missread (something he is good at ) would be nice but I think your "must end in edge to edge" quote is the key.

[philqw78]

I think we would benefit from some author clarification here.

I don't think one is needed as those of us not getting emotional (Hammy ) have followed the rules

RBS:..bases that drop behind are not exempt from the requirement to not shift more than a base

They didn't

Mike:...The kinky column rule on page 23 seems pretty clearly to apply whenever a BG is one base wide......following a series of specific mechanical rules which sometimes cause bases to move on a non-linear path.

The rules

hammy:.....IMO the answer is no

Emotion without proof

Me:........I am in no way emotional about seeing Hammy shot down

Oh bugger

[grahambriggs]

The fundamental issue is simply can an evading BG that happens to be a single element column kink and slide to avoid an obstruction. IMO the answer is no although I can see how you can argue Dave's point. If I was called on to umpire in a tournament I would definitely rule that a sliding kinky single element column is not a valid evade.

There's a diagram in the rules of some Numidian LH having to contract to go through a hole in a line of foot whilst evading (bear with me). I believe the diagram is drawn showing a gap of about a base and a half but with a a LH base lined up with the gap. The LH evade and file into a column to squeeze through the gap.

But what happens if the LH are not so neatly lined up with the gap - i.e. there is a gap of at least a base width but no LH base is lined up with it?. Well, they shift by the minimum needed for one base to enter the gap and all the rest file in behind, even those that have to move more than one base width.

I think that's the case here. The guy who worries about shifting no more than a base width is the first base to get there. Everyone else forms column behind.

Presumably the answer is to choose a charge direction thast casues a 180 degree turn not 90.

[philqw78]

"must end in edge to edge and corner to corner contact with another base of the battlegroup."

It rather means that evaders even if in a single element column don't kink.

Providing they END in such contact they are OK. Again you would disturb other bits of the rule mechanisms on movement

[SirGarnet]

Aha, I think this is the key to the issue. It rather means that evaders even if in a single element column don't kink.

I think he meant that they can kink if the kink does not end up isolating one base, even though in a context other than evade a kink anywhere is legal movement.

You just move the front base as required then the other bases fall in behind as long as they don't move sideways more than one elements width.

Under the moving to the rear subbullet the sideways limitation would apply, but I think that begs the question since you can use that subbullet only if you can't get past the obstruction by the normal evade move. So it still comes down to whether a column can kink to evade. I don't think anyone is disputing that the front of a BG can shift to avoid obstructions as part of a normal evade move under the preceding bullet.

The moving to the rear option is also not available when there is NO obstruction, so the only option for a BG in or forced to turn into column is to move into a temporarily kinked column - if that is prevented, the BG can't complete an evade and is caught (through the geometric skills of the opponent).

[dave_r]

Tragically, the Interent connection went at work, so I have been unable to join in on the fun that I have started...

- A BATTLEGROUP can only shift one base width to avoid obstacles. Nothing in there about bases I think
- I noted the diagram at the back about the Numidian Light Horse, but this was ignored by the other party
- If I threw high enough on my VMD to "unkink" my column then would that have been legal?
- If I didn't what would happen?

If the umpire is going to rule on his "Natural Sense of Justice" rather than "Rules as Written" where does that leave us?

[philqw78]

It appears you could have a single kink so long as each base is in edge to edge with another in the BG so, for your 4 base BG, a kink in the middle is OK.