Art De La Guerre

[daveallen]

I was planning to draw a diagram for this, but realised the one on page 51 covered most contingencies.

So I'll go through what I think are the right ways for red (if it was LC) to exit the various ZoCs:

(With explanations if not obvious)

A - rear only
B1 - rear only
B2 - flank only
C1 - rear or flank (because C1 is on the flank even if not able to charge it)**
C2 - flank only
D - front only
E - front or flank (because the diagram is wrong and the lower "flank line" should be vertical not horizontal)

** I'm not sure on this one and can see a case for "rear only."

Dave
_________________
Putting the ink into incompetence

[Ramses II]

Great use of the diagram. 
I totally agree with your analysis. 

To your supplementary question, why do you think that C1 might cause the unit to exit only to it’s rear?

[daveallen]

It all comes down to what is meant by "to its front" and "on its flank" and which, if any, takes precedence.

I've taken "on its flank" to mean the ZoCing unit is at least partially behind the flank, but it could mean it must be able to charge the flank.

As C1 can't charge the flank I can see situations in which an umpire could rule either way unless we have a clearer indication of what the rule means.

Dave
_________________
Putting the ink into incompetence

[Ramses II]

Ok, if C1 were moved slightly to the right such that it was beyond the line extending up from the flank of the red target, I believe C1 would be permitted to contact either front or flank of the red target. 

That being the case, I suggest that the direction of exiting an enemy ZoC effectively works the same as evading from a charge; ie red must exit (or evade) away from the most threatening unit in a direction that is diametrically opposite to that threat. 

This approach also follows the principles of simplification and coherence behind the rules. In which case, red would only exit to it’s rear from C1, since C1 only threatens its front, even though part of C1 is behind the flank. 

[daveallen]

Now this is just getting confusing.

I think we're treading on dangerous ground when we start inferring intentions that go beyond the rules as written. Something we've both done here.

Maybe we need a ruling on this question from the TD.

Dave
_________________
Putting the ink into incompetence