Art De La Guerre

[Za Otlichiye]

An enemy element approaches from the quarter, straddling the line extending the front edge of your unit, and puts your unit in its ZoC.
The enemy could strike either your front or your flank edge.
You might withdraw straight back; or make a 1/4 turn and withdraw sideways. Do you have the choice?

(A possible alternative would be to rotate parallel with the front edge of the enemy unit, but this appears to be ruled out by recent answers,)

[Zoltan]

It's completely clear - obey the MTE priority rules p.35.

[elsleyra]

From what I can see, the MTE priority section on pages 35 and 36 identify which is the MTE and note that a unit may "Retreat to exit a ZoC" per the section on page 37.

Assuming the enemy element described in Za Otlichiye's question below was the MTE, I don't think the MTE priority section helps resolve the question.

The Exiting a ZoC section on page 37 states
"A unit or group capable of evading can exit an enemy ZoC in its own turn by making an evade move without an enemy charge (see p 47)
- The initial reorientation is done only relative to the ZoC of the most threatening enemy
- Follow points 1 to 5 of the evade procedure"

The Evading unit's orientation section of the Evade procedure on p 47 states
"The evading unit is reorientated, in the opposite direction to the charge indicated by the opponent:
- If the unit is charged on its front edge, the evading unit makes a half turn.
- If the unit is charged on its flank, the evading unit performs a quarter turn."

In this example, the unit is not being charged on either its front edge or its flank, but an initial reorientation must occur for the evade to happen and the rule is that this must be done "only relative to the ZoC of the most threatening enemy". That ZoC and the position of the MTE are such that the MTE could charge either the front edge or the flank of the unit that wishes to evade and parts of both the front edge and the flank will be in the ZoC. It's easy to image circumstances where the evading unit might wish to do its initial reorientation one way or the other... and where the owner of the MTE might wish it to do its reorientation the other way.

I can't see anything in the rules that provides a definitive answer on how the reorientation must be done and so assume the owner of the evading unit gets to choose.

I look forward to someone explaining why I'm wrong.

Ron

[Zoltan]

The initial reorientation must be made with respect to the MTE’s ZoC.

The MTE’s front ZoC takes priority over the MTE’s flank ZoC.

Ipso facto the evader reorientates with respect to the MTE’s front ZoC. There’s no choice to be made.

It’s really that simple and there’s no need to fret about this infrequent scenario posed by the OP.

[lionelrus]

correct!
_________________
"Quand on a pas de technique, faut y aller à la zob"
Perceval à Yvain et Gauvain.

[KevinD]

Zoltan & lionelrus - thanks for clarifying.
This seems reasonable, but where do the rules actually say this?
I have no confidence a player or ref looking at the rules would come to this conclusion (unless I’m missing something -quite possible).

[Za Otlichiye]

Thanks Zoltan, that's a cleverly inventive interpretation. It is not completely clear.
Subjectively, I might be befuddled, hasty, or amused, but I do not ask questions about what is completely clear.
Objectively, the MTE rules set a priority between different units. And unfortunately, while on the flank, on the rear, directly in front, and most in front are all defined, the crucial words in front are not. Therefore, we have the same question when it comes to MTE. If one unit is on the quarter straddling the line extending the front edge, while another is directly in front but further away, which is MTE? (I'd suggest an unobstructed charge path should take priority, but that opens the door to the most impetuous, etc. etc.)
That said, an analogy with the MTE rules and their bias to the front is not unpersuasive.
The counterpoint is Ron's suggestion that allowing the player to choose the better direction is more narratively satisfying.
And I thank the chief ref of France for his opinion.

[Za Otlichiye]

Ok, like I said, I sometimes post questions because I'm (easily) amused.

What if the unit is straddling the line extending the rear edge such that it could charge either flank or rear?

[Zoltan]

KevinD & Za - honestly you two are real characters. I have this mental picture of each of you hunched over the rule book, alone in a darkened room, desperately trying to find some hair to split.

Instead of writing so much about these rules I recommend you play lots of games in person with your fellow Americans. They’ll happily teach you the rules.

The rest of us simply don’t give a damn about all this minutiae you continue to raise - we’re too busy enjoying our games and having fun. We don’t give a rat’s arse about how some “referee” might rule on this or that point. Hell, we never even need referees - that’s soooo last century DBX style thinking.

[lionelrus]

[elsleyra]

Zoltan & lionelrus, many thanks for providing the clarification. It is much appreciated.

I’m afraid I don’t fit the mental picture above. I’m just someone very much enjoying getting back to ancients wargaming after a break of over 35 years and am trying to climb the learning curve re understanding of and familiarity with the ADLG rules.

A situation like the one outlined in the start of this thread happened in my (10th ever other than solo) game yesterday. One of my Light cavalry bow was trying to skirt around a marsh but was ZoC’d by a Light infantry javelin that moved from behind my flank and rear to finish in a position where its ZoC covered my entire flank edge and it had a tiny part of its front edge in front, but not directly in front, of my unit. That means it counted as in front of, to the flank of and to the rear of my unit (as the base depth for my unit was less that 1UD). Per the clarification, that means its only option to “Retreat to exit the ZoC” was an evade move to its rear. All good so far.

In a more general sense, I think the clarification means that the priorities for determining which is the most threatening enemy are also used to determine which edge of the unit that wishes to evade to exit the ZoC is treated as the edge for determining any initial reorientation for that evade.

Am I correct in understanding that, if the Light infantry javelin had been a tiny distance further away at the start of its move and had not been able to reach a position in front of my unit, but had ended up with a ZoC covering some of my unit’s flank edge and some of its rear edge, then whichever of those edges had the greatest length contained within the ZoC would be treated as the edge being charged? (It would have interesting if that was my rear and the evade could have been in the direction I wanted to go in the first place.)

Thanks in anticipation,

Ron

[Zoltan]

Welcome back Ron! Great to hear about a specific example that occurred in an actual game.

You've stated that in your example the enemy LI is NOT directly in front of your LC. I take that to mean that if you laid a 40 x 40mm ZoC marker along the front edge of your LC unit the marker would NOT touch the enemy LI. If I am correct, in determining the LC's MTE the LI would NOT meet the MTE first priority's criteria of being "in front of the unit" (your LC).

The LI does, however, meet the second MTE priority of "the nearest enemy whose ZoC covers the largest part of a unit's flank or rear edge". As the LC is ZoCd on its flank edge it will first make a quarter turn to reorient before evading away from the LI's front edge. Please see the official p.37 rules errata: "A unit that attempts to evade when it has an enemy ZoC on its flank or rear must first make a quarter turn. It may not evade to its rear....."

Enjoy your ADLG gaming!

[lionelrus]

[Za Otlichiye]

Z,
you are welcome to PM me if you wish to discuss something other than the questions.
What does it matter who found the problem, or how they found it? It remains a non-trivial problem no matter if we ignore it, or skirt around it, or wave our hands, or pretend it isn't.
The only ethical response is to post it in this, the appropriate folder, so others can be aware of it. Then civilly explore it while we patiently wait for resolution.

Za
--------------------------------------------
Transmit the message, to the receiver,
Hope for an answer some day
I got three passports, a couple of visas,
You don't even know my real name

Talking Heads - Life During Wartime

[SteveR]

This exact situation came up in a tournament two days ago.

I had a unit in position "E" in the diagram on page 41. This means it could contact the enemy on either of two edges. It was exerting a ZOC on the enemy unit.

My unit was a bow, the opponent was a Medium Cavalry unit.

My opponent wished to evade out of the ZOC.

Which direction should he go?

As we saw it there were three choices.

A. Owning players choice
B. Player exerting the ZOC's choice
C. Direction determined by the majority of the ZOC on the Unit - the edge with the most ZOC covering it.

My opponent thought it should be "C"

I thought it should be "A" based on the analogy of the charge - if there is a charge the charging unit chooses which edge he will conform to. In this case there is no charge so I thought my opponent should have the choice.

We played it that way, however on reflection I thing my opponent's original position is more correct.

Anyway this is a real issue and I came on here to ask the question. But see it was already raised.

(one other point - it was actually the front of the enemy and not the rear as shown on the diagram. But in position E even if the enemy unit were facing down on the page, the unit can contact the front or the flank. Unlike position C1. If the rear is always the preferred evade direction then there still is the same ambiguity if it is the rear and side edge which are in question)