Art De La Guerre

[Ramses II]

LoL, I like ‘common sense’ as well. 
 


The point here is whether the rear line can be contacted legitimately (ie assuming the front line can evade in some way). If so, then it may choose to evade if the front line also evades. So far so good. 

The order that the lines evade becomes less relevant at this point, because we have established that it is possible. 

Where interpenetration does not occur, the order is irrelevant; the two lines go their separate ways. 
Where interpenetration occurs, the front line moves through the rear line, then the rear line potentially moves back through the front line. Little change to the final position of the lines. 

The only case to examine is where the rear line is ‘an obstacle’ that the front line can avoid. Here I suggest that the players may apply “common sense” as they discuss and agree on what will possibly happen before making any decisions about the target(s) of the charge, and how these targets will react. 
Personally I would have no problem with the rear line moving first, thereby reducing its capacity to obstruct the front line.  . . 

[Zoltan]

I agree that the case to consider in this thread is the OP that talked of friends within 1UD and on an angle being an obstacle to a LC evade, thus trapping the LC to get smashed.

My common sense says that regardless of any angles the second line of cavalry is on, the LC can interpenetrate them in an evade front edge to front (or rear) edge, but not front edge to flank edge. My common sense says this is what "oriented in the same or opposite direction" means. My common sense says that lack of perfectly parallel lines does NOT cause an evade-preventing obstacle. There's no need for any slight wheels by the LC before they interpenetrate their friends - it's just NOT common sense.

I do NOT think trapping an opponent's troops in front of their friends is an intended design feature of ADLG. It's a gamesmanship trick that will discourage new players. We just don't need that rubbish in our game (anymore).

[AlanCutner]

The 'common sense' to me seems to be that the cavalry are not an eligible target in the first place, once its accepted the LC cannot evade through them. So the possibility of HC evading to clear the way for a LC evade disappears.

[Zoltan]

@Alan - I still don’t accept that the LC can’t evade through the HC as that is based on an unreasonably strict interpretation of “oriented in the same or opposite direction”.

Case A:

HCHCHCHC
LCLC

ELEL

Friendly HC are less than 1UD from LC and perfectly parallel. The LC are just within 3UD of the Elephants. The Elephants charge the LC. No one disputes that the LC can turn 180 degrees and interpenetrate the HC in an evade move. 

Case B:
____HC
__HC
HC
LCLC

ELEL

Friendly HC are less than 1UD from LC and on an angle. The LC are just within 3UD of the Elephants. The Elephants charge the LC. The HC should NOT be considered an obstacle preventing the LC from interpenetrating them, and thus cancelling an evade move option by the LC.

I see no material difference between these two cases that warrants different game play on the table.

[AlanCutner]

I agree it would make more sense to allow the LC to wheel to interpenetrate the Cv. Especially as it would be allowed if the charge direction had been toward the Cv. But apparently thats not the rules.

[SteveR]

Hi Zoltan,

The material difference in the two cases you cite is that in one case the rules allow for interpenetration and in the other they do not. If "same or opposite" does not mean "exactly parallel" what does it mean? Because allowing "almost" parallel is effectively the same as allowing it in any direction, the same as interpenetrating LI. How close to parallel is close enough to not be unreasonably strict?

I had a friend who used to call me out on using the term "exactly parallel" to describe a situation as a redundancy. One is either parallel or not.

Also diagrams are difficult on here, but in the second case you present it looks like one of the LC could evade - it appears to me that a slide of 1 UD would allow it to have its ZOC free of a friend it cannot interpenetrate.

[Zoltan]

[Ramses II]

Ok, we agree the issue is whether evading LC may interpenetrate mounted friends that are at an angle. 

RAW, this is not permitted if the friends are within 1UD.
(The LC do not have enough space to manoeuvre, so find themselves trapped by their friends). 

To me, the question is whether the LC may interpenetrate having moved at least 1UD, without first having made a slide?

I would say that this is permitted. Do you agree?

[Zoltan]

[SteveR]

@ Ramses

Once the evade is not blocked in step 3, if the LC encounters mounted it is not aligned with later it follows the process in step 6 of page 39.

First it slides up to 1 UD to avoid the friends however if this will not allow it to pass it may instead wheel by up to 90 degrees. Since the wheel must be the minimum possible doing so to allow interpenetration seems reasonable to me.

[Zoltan]

@SteveR - but I think you and I may agree, we have not yet been able to get past step 3!

[Ramses II]

Zoltan, perhaps we are coming at this from the wrong perspective.

While men may easily change formation or make allowances to permit other men to interpenetrate their formation, animals are less easy to control. So one might well expect a time delay for cavalry to interpenetrate LC (or visa versa) while the riders manoeuvre around each other. 

The rules effectively impose this penalty by requiring both a slide and then a wheel before interpenetration occurs when the two formations are at an angle to each other. So perhaps there ought to be a 1UD penalty imposed for all cavalry interpenetration?!

As to whether the two lines are “perfectly parallel” or not, I guess one could always assume that this is never the case unless the two lines were physically touching each other. . . . 
 

[Zoltan]

@Ramses II

In the case where the HC and LC are touching (a neatly aligned group) no one would disagree that if charged the LC could turn 180 degrees and interpenetrate the HC in an evade move:

HCHCHCHCHC
    LCLCLC

Yet if we put the tiniest angle on one end of the HC line (say 1 degree), so that at one end the HC front corner touches a LC base and at the other end there is a gnat’s todger of a gap between the HC and nearest LC, then suddenly the HC form an obstacle preventing the LC from interpenetrating them. This is not “common sense”. Just let the LC go through I say!

[Ramses II]

. . . . And let the gnats keep their todgers out of it (or accept the painful consequences) 


However here you hit the rule-writer’s dilemma of how much is permissible; if 1 degree, why not 2, or 4, or 10? And how do you measure this? (I know all our troops have laser-guided theodolites in their backpacks). 

Sadly, while I sympathise with the sentiment, those are the rules, 

[Zoltan]