Art De La Guerre

[Mark G Fry]

If there are 2 hostile Light Foot engaged in frontal combat, in a wood, and one of these units is charged in the flank by a heavy enemy unit, and the LF unit being charged chooses to evade, which direction does it evade in?

Logic says that it evades away from the charging heavier unit, as that is the cause of the evade.
However, the LF it is fighting to its front is technically the most threatening enemy.

Thanks
Mark

[Mike Bennett]

If it is in melee I am pretty sure it cannot evade. So if in the open the heavy foot contact then auto destroys

[Ramses II]

Correct Mike. See p47, Troops that may not evade. 

So here, the LI may not evade because it is in melee, and when hit on the flank by heavier enemy it loses a  cohesion point, has it’s base value reduced to zero, (and loses any special abilities), even though the heavier unit is potentially penalised by the terrain. 

If the flank attack does not rout the LI immediately on contact, it is not likely to survive for long . . .

[Mark G Fry]

Hi Mike / Ramses II

I have to say that that was my long-held interpretation/belief of the rule in this case (which is very specific).

However, at a recent International competition I played a number of Spanish, Portuguese and French players all of whom were adamant that LF in melee to their front only (& not flanked), could evade. Which was backed up by the umpire and a number of experienced players in surrounding games.

I was wondering if there might be some misinterpretation/mistranslation across the various language versions of the rules, maybe? But I was a bit dumfounded by this, but played along as I seemed to be in a minority, especially as we were playing 'blitz' at the time & I was looking to try and gain as many hits as I could in the time-remaining.

IMHO it did lead to some rather strange game moves - so I am pleased to know my understanding was in-fact correct.

As Ramses states - my LF were hit in the flank by enemy MC - which dropped me a level and as I already had a Cohesion loss, destroyed me.
However, to add insult to injury, my opponent then broke his own LF off mine (as we now know incorrectly) and that caused the routing LF to route away from the MC that had hit them in the flank, putting a Cohesion loss (caused by a route-through) on my other LF jav that was supporting them ... I draw a veil over this sorry mess.
NB: I should have played the error in my own favour and evaded from the MC ... but habits die-hard

But it would be good to understand if this is just a common misunderstanding or a genuine rules translation issue?
Many thanks
Mark

[Ramses II]

Hi Mark, much depends on the circumstances. In isolation, light troops that are charged may try to evade. BUT, they may not evade if they are in melee. 

There is however a different situation. Assume there is some cavalry in frontal contact with a slower enemy, and a second unit moves into flank contact. Then the cavalry is permitted to disengage from frontal contact from slower enemy. This is permitted. (See p40)

LI may disengage from foot in the same way - could you be referring to this??

As to the last point, as we now know, the enemy LI should not have moved until the beginning of the pursuit phase, where your LI are deemed to rout to their rear, not away from the flanking MC

[Mark G Fry]

Many thanks - I am in 100% agreement that the rules state (on page p47) quite clearly that any unit in melee or melee support cannot evade.

However, the Disengage rule on p40 is potentially a challenge to this, as it allows a LF unit to 'disengage' from any foot or elephant units, even if they are moving at the same speed.
It also states that a disengage action is a difficult maneuver for unmanouverable units and that will cost 2CPs. However, it does not appear to state how much it costs for an ordinary unit (see below) and whether it costs anything at all. This might be where the misunderstanding is occurring - with an 'evade' from frontal melee being confused with a unit disengaging from a melee. But that can only happen in a players own bound then.

So, in the example I quoted - my LF jav are fighting an enemy LF jav, on the edge of a Wood, and they are supported to their flank (inside the Wood) by another of my LF jav.
My LF jav in combat has received a CP loss in a previous round of combat.

-------|LF
MC> |LF+LF
-------|

In my opponents turn he charges a unit of MC into the flank of my LF jav. I cannot evade, as I am in melee frontally, but I also cannot disengage, as I am not the phasing player.
The enemy MC hit my flank - giving my LF another CP loss and destroying that unit of LF.
My opponent then 'disengages' (not evades) his LF that my (now destroyed) LF was fighting to its front. The sequence of play is important here, as is the PIP cost of making the 'disengage' move.
However, as my (now destroyed) LF jav is no longer fighting the enemy LF jav that was to my front, I must turn and face the MC that hits my flank. That means that when the LF jav routs it must do so away from the MC and passes through the other LF jav that was acting in simple support.

I think what might have caused my misunderstanding was probably a 'language' issue - what my opponent & the umpire were referring to as 'evade' was actually a 'disengage' which makes total sense.

NB: Whilst it does not specifically state it on p40 (or I cannot see it) I am assuming that it will cost 1 PIP to enable a unit or group of (non-unmanouverable) units to disengage?
Many thanks
Mark

[Mad Max]

Yes, 1 pip to disengage in this case
_________________
Maxime, Ch'tis Stratège de l'Artois
pas vraiment ch'ti, pas vraiment stratège, pas vraiment amateur d'art non plus

[Ramses II]

For a standard unit or group, the cost is one CP to disengage. 

So it seems plausible in your case that your opponent paid 1CP to charge the MC into the flank of an existing melee to inflict a cohesion loss, destroying your LI, and then paid a another CP to disengage his LI from the melee, directing the rout into another of your LI. 

Very ‘sneaky’ and clever if you have CP to spare - but them’s the rules as they say 

[Mark G Fry]