Slitherine

Quick question... had a unit of 4 LH vs 4 LH head to head. The enemy also had a unit of Knights behind his LH approximately 2-3 MU away. The enemies LH has now broken and has turned it's inital 180 deg and wants to escape. Now my opponent states he is able to shift 40 mm still in contact with my LH. Now he is able to almost clear the Knights who are still in the way. The LH now shifts again into a column and not to the front of my LH. He has now completely missed the Knights where I thought he had to burst thru..... my contention is that this was impossible due to this being 2 shifts. Can I get an opinion besides madcams

mhohio wrote:Can I get an opinion besides madcams

mhohio wrote:my contention is that this was impossible due to this being 2 shifts.

They rout directly away from you. They may contract or not. But no base may shift a total of more than one base width in this process.

So they burst through if the LH can't pass by the knights by
(a) shifting up to one base width and then routing straight back or
(b) contracting to one wide and moving back without any base in total shifting more than base width to either side.

In a contraction by necessity the bases of one file have already shifted a base width, a contracted BG can't shift further in the same direction the contracted bases shifted, though it can shift back toward the middle since the bases all shift less than a base width. The bases appear to make 2 shifts, but the net shift is less than a base width.

Cheers,

Mike

If you shift a full base width you cannot then additionally drop back.

So if everyone was lined up then there is no single shift OR drop back that will allow it so the go straight through.

I don't have the rules in front of me, but they says something like you can shift up to one base.Then the next sentence is like provide they do not shift MORE than a base. This doesn't refer to a 2nd shift it is the same shift.

i.e. no single base can shift over 1 width using ANY combination of methods.

I could shift my left base 1 to the right. And my right base 1 to the left. But no base is shifting more than 1 width.

Your opponent is undoubtedly reading that additional option as In addition too when it really is in conjunction with the previous point.

situation with pics....

End of combat...



rout movement away from enemy and meets friends...



Shifts one base width....



And contracts....



pg 67 first bullet & 2nd + 3 indents...

1st question... are the indents totally separate...Meaning they stand on their own and do not relate to any others?

If yes, then re-read the last part in parenthesis under the 4th indent concerning legal interpenetrations.

If no, then couldn't one parse the 2nd & 3rd indent to co-exist. Meaning they can "shift sideways" one base width to get past obstructions and then subsequently (as long as they don't go more than one) be allowed to drop back one base.

Meaning a BG 4 or 5 wide would be limited to going over only 1 base width which might result in only being able to drop bases to an illegal formaion (3x1x1 and thus not allowed at all)

Madcam.

(Who only moved the knights there after reaching the agreement the LH could do the above.)

Madcam,
If I am ever on death row you will be the first call to defend me.
Gino
SMAC

Problem is you'd still fry

Neither helpful nor succient....

C'mon Nik for the benefit of us who are not part of the inner circle throw us more of a bone...

Trying to work out any issue prior to the next Con.

Your not earning your Single Malt today...

Madcam.

Err what about P67 left hand column third indent

"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 move"

In the top diagram on P165 it illustrates this but you will note that no bases have moved more than one base width sideways.

Hi Hammy,

yes, I stated pg 67 3rd indent earlier...

does it stand alone exclusive of all other bullets/indents? You'll note in the final picture, no base has shifted more than 1 base _during_ the contraction. Yes, earlier, but so what? One could shift, interpenetrate couldnt one? It does more than one of the indentations.

I put forth one can do a shift satisfying the 2nd indent and then again using the 3rd because the indents are related (see position on interpenetrations and the 4th indent on right hand column).

Madcam

Before you state when/if a situation where a base would have shifted more than one width consider








Hope that works...

edit: Good it did, obviously the sad faces are attempting to contract to avoid the rolling eyes friends. they can't achieve the contraction because the left most stand would have to move 80mm over to achieve a 3x2 instead of a 3x1x1.


Madcam.

madcam2us wrote:Hi Hammy,

yes, I stated pg 67 3rd indent earlier...

does it stand alone exclusive of all other bullets/indents? You'll note in the final picture, no base has shifted more than 1 base _during_ the contraction. Yes, earlier, but so what? One could shift, interpenetrate couldnt one? It does more than one of the indentations.

I put forth one can do a shift satisfying the 2nd indent and then again using the 3rd because the indents are related (see position on interpenetrations and the 4th indent on right hand column).

Madcam

No base may shift more than one base, full stop.

You can either shift sideways up to one base to avoid an obstruction OR you can shift sideways upto one base to follow a base that has found a way through.

kal5056 wrote:Madcam,
If I am ever on death row you will be the first call to defend me.
Gino
SMAC

Easier solution... move to Australia, we don't have death row. We release murderers after they've served 10 years of their life imprisonment instead. As you can see, Australia is so much more civilised than your country

Ian

I again put forward reading from the RAW the following:

Pg 67, left column 3rd indent -

"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 been able to complete their evade move..."

One _could_ read that, ignoring all else, as long as the BG is 3 bases or less in width and you do not shift more than one base width (Meaning from the center for Bgs 3 wide; either left or right for BGs 1 or 2 wide) during the contracting you satisfy the rule.

Notice there is no reference to the 2nd indentation. How have I violated the 2nd indentation when I can't find where it says you can't do both.

I understand you are saying either/or. I am attempting to show it can be both with the RAW.

Is there an interp somewhere I'm missing? I'm not trying to be contrary. Indeed, one could say with the 4th indent, right hand column leads credence to this...

"if the above (all, plural)would not allow..."

Madcam.

DaiSho wrote:

kal5056 wrote:Madcam,
If I am ever on death row you will be the first call to defend me.
Gino
SMAC

Easier solution... move to Australia, we don't have death row. We release murderers after they've served 10 years of their life imprisonment instead. As you can see, Australia is so much more civilised than your country

Yes I had an encounter once with an individual with a similar vita from Califonia. I would state my solution but I suspect I would be moderated.

madcam2us wrote:I again put forward reading from the RAW the following:

I understand you are saying either/or. I am attempting to show it can be both with the RAW.

Madcam you could come to your conclusion through a rapid read. However after careful digestion you would be wrong. WRONG.

So while your error is acceptable, take the correction in the good grace that you know you can.

Strawman!

I reject your comment due to its meaning...

My choices:

I can accept it and show grace in doing so

Or

Not and be the fool...

Nice options... Did you switch parties?

Dammit, where's the game a dull 4th grader could master?


Madcam

madcam2us wrote:
One _could_ read that, ignoring all else,

There is the problem "ignoring all else" - you cannot read snippets from the rules in isolation.

Anyway, IMO you cannot both slide and fall back if the combination of the two is greater than 1 base width - it has been discussed before and that was the answer then (from at least one writer IIRC), and is certainly how I'd rule it and is, to my knowledge, how it is played over here FWIW.

nikgaukroger wrote:Anyway, IMO you cannot both slide and fall back if the combination of the two is greater than 1 base width - it has been discussed before and that was the answer then (from at least one writer IIRC), and is certainly how I'd rule it and is, to my knowledge, how it is played over here FWIW.

Nik is correct. The total of all shifts (including that involved in "contracting") cannot exceed 1 base width. This is the official ruling, which has been given before. I guess we should add it to the FAQ - I must admit I thought it was already there.

Something along these lines:

v) SHIFTING WHEN EVADING

Can an evading battle group shift sideways to avoid friends and also drop back bases to pass them?

Yes, provided that no base shifts more than 1 base width sideways in total.

In effect, it can only happen if:
a) the BG shift is to the right, and the file dropped back is from the right hand side of the BG
or
b) the BG shift is to the left, and the file dropped back is from the left hand side of the BG.

Can anyone think of a situation where it could occur other than as above?

Good to nail it down as it keeps coming up. I would suggest the following, which might be pared down further.

v) SHIFTING WHEN EVADING (Page 67)

Can an evading battle group shift sideways to avoid obstructions and also drop back bases to pass them?

Yes, provided that as a result of dropping back and shifting taken together no base shifts a net distance of more than one base width from its original position.

In effect, shifting the battle group and dropping back bases at the same time can only happen where an obstructed file of bases drops back behind an adjoining file (dropping back is a base width shift) and the BG as a whole also shifts a partial base width back towards the side where the dropped file was. As a result, none of the bases have at any time shifted more than a net 1 base width. This can happen when passing through a narrow gap directly ahead of the battle group.

MikeK wrote:Good to nail it down as it keeps coming up. I would suggest the following, which might be pared down further.

Can an evading battle group shift sideways to avoid obstructions and also drop back bases to pass them?

Yes, provided that as a result of dropping back and shifting taken together no base shifts a net distance of more than one base width from its original position.

or

Yes, provided that as a result of dropping back and shifting taken together no base shifts a net distance of more than one base width sideways relative to its original position after any initial turn.

which is getting rather too long to easily digest, so, removing words that are redundant because they are in the original question:

Yes, provided that in total no base shifts a net distance of more than one base width sideways relative to its original position after any initial turn.