Slitherine

Hi Gents

BG x is an eight element BG of light foot in a single element widecolumn kinked at 90 degrees, facing upwards. If charged by BG A who are facing down, what formation does x adopt prior to its evade move, since some bases will have to turn 90 degrees and some 180 degrees.


AAAAAA

x
x
x
xxxxx

A very good question. I can see three possible answers: 1) that the bases turn 90 or 180, as appropriate, so that they are facing away from direction of the charge and evades in that same formation; 2) that the bases turn 90 or 180 as appropriate, the BG reforms on the current head of the column (see p66) and evades from there; or 3) that it can evade to its initial rear, following the path of the kink in reverse.

I am not sure which is correct, as there is nothing in the rules (that I can find) dealing with evades by kinked columns. Were I an umpire presented with this issue, I suspect that I would choose option 2 and/or 3 above.

Marc

I think baby shark 3 is not an option. In all other situations the front base of the kink is what determines.

So in this case it eitehr flees to the rear of the ehad of the column or it is a flank charge and flees in the direction of the charge.

do the rules not allow for just two two options?

a) evade away in the direction of the charge

b) evade directly to the evading battle group's rear

since b) is a bit far-fetched in the kinked column situation, I think it has to be a), with the front base of the kinked column doing its max move +/- the VMD and the other bases falling in in front of that base, as they started further away from the enemy

Martin

Yep those are the two options.

But no you don't reform at the start of the evade so you don't telescope away from anyone. And there is a specific rule and diagram in there about where you measure from when charged on the flank or rear.

I believe its evade to their own rear or towards their friendly table edge if charged frontally, directly away from the chargers if charged on the flank or rear.
Other than that I think it would be based on the facing of the front of the column regardless of how the kinked stands are in relation to the charge.

deadtorius wrote:I believe its evade to their own rear or towards their friendly table edge if charged frontally, directly away from the chargers if charged on the flank or rear.

Evaders go directly to their own rear or directly away from the charge, wheeling or turning first if necessary. Those charged in flank or rear can only go directly away from the charge again wheeling or turning first.

My own thought is that they would all turn to face directly away from the enemy charge ending up in the following formation.

x
x
xxx
xxx

This would give the BG the same 'footprint' that it had before turning. After completing its evade move it could then reform in the following manoeuvre phase.

Thanks to all who replied

yes philqw78 you are right, they can evade in the direction of the charge unless charged in flank or rear they can evade directly to their own rear, for some reason I thought that referred to their own table edge, thats what one gets for not looking it up first (page 66)

Caledonian wrote:My own thought is that they would all turn to face directly away from the enemy charge ending up in the following formation.

x
x
xxx
xxx

This would give the BG the same 'footprint' that it had before turning. After completing its evade move it could then reform in the following manoeuvre phase.

That would be a sensible umpire ruling in this one case, but what indeed is the general answer?

From the rules perspective, the simple answer for most evades is that if charged directly from the front it turns 180 and then evades in that direction.

But the turn ends in a block of the same width and depth facing the opposite way but "with its new front edge on the line of its old rear edge."

Thinking not just about 90 degree or other kinks, what does "on . . . old rear edge" mean here?

1. Turn all the bases around so the tail is the head now and evasion is actually off to the right? But that does not turn the BG to face in the opposite direction, and it just encourages kinky columns to set up clever "rearward" evade paths and time spent thinking about geometry rather than battle.

2. Form a non-kinked column behind the front element, turn 180 and evade back full? This moves the back elements a long way to the left at no cost and then enjoy evade movement as well. Also geometric abuse as a teleport technique. This can't be right either.

I think I would have to go with

3. Like 2, but deduct the straight line distance the back element takes to get in position from the total distance of the following evade movement (could be zero). Anyone letting the enemy get into position to charge this formation is at risk of getting hit if evading. Works similar to a wheel deducting the distance for the front corner that moves the most.
This is clear and gets to the right result.

NOTE: If a 90 degree turn is required for the evade it is a lot easier, since the kinky column is going to shrink to a 2 deep formation facing either left or right. Not nearly the same problem but I'd probably still want to deduct unkinking distance as part of the evade.

remember when turning in an evade or rout the closest base to the charger/pursuer cannot get further away in the turn IIRC.

NOTE: If a 90 degree turn is required for the evade it is a lot easier, since the kinky column is going to shrink to a 2 deep formation facing either left or right. Not nearly the same problem but I'd probably still want to deduct unkinking distance as part of the evade.

Indeed. That's arranged by the rule that the side edge nearest the chargers becomes the rear edge for a 90 turn. There's still going to be travel from the other end of the column as it collapses in as part of the 90 turn.

I expect the relevant side edge would have to be that nearest to chargers side edge of the part of the column being charged. Still a single clear solution no matter which direction the charge is from. Measuring the extra travel due to a kink prevents shenanigans.

But, what if there are different chargers against both parts of the column (on either side of the kink) . . .

. . . where's my protractor and aspirin??

I agree with the Aspirin.... sure I saw it on page 132, if a supremely difficult situation arises take 2 aspirin.....

2 chargers means the column would have to flee on an angle splitting the 2 cahrging units which requires a scientific calculator.....

2 chargers means the column would have to flee on an angle splitting the 2 cahrging units which requires a scientific calculator.....

Spot on Deadtorius!

Which all adds up to show that the authors could never possibly legislate for every bizarre scenario that we are able to get our BGs into. So that when these do arise we just need to try and adopt a sensible and pragmatic approach to resolving them.

Pete

If the principle of where they go is agreed then calculating angles is just a matter of implementation satisfactory to the players. No scientific calculator is needed - just a child's protractor.

Since kinked columns are outside the normal order of nature in FoG, confirming the principle or the sense of the thing needs author-itative input.

Mike