Art De La Guerre

[Za Otlichiye]

Thinking about this it occurred to me that if the enemy can hit more than one side, you could look at the center of the enemy base and decide which quarter (in saltire) it was in (so long as it wasn't on the 45 ).

[Zoltan]

@SteveR
So u and ur opponent agreed how u would play it during the game and everyone was happy! Doesn't sound like this was a life or death question that any material bearing on the outcome, or ur enjoyment, of the game. I like that!

[Zoltan]

[elsleyra]

Zoltan,

Thanks for your response and be assured that I am very much enjoying my ADLG gaming.

I am, however, more confused than I was. I'm also hopeful that I won't need to keep dicing for "how to in apply the rule today" when playing against a new (to me) opponent when there are obviously two different interpretations out there for an aspect of the rules. Obviously, if it's a regular opponent, we'll reach an agreement on how we'll play it until and unless other guidance becomes available.

Yes, I referred to the Unit Orientation diagram on p9 and the definitions below that diagram to determine that the LI was NOT directly in front of my LC, but was on its flank and on its rear. Part of the LI’s front edge was also in the top left “FRONT” area per that diagram and I took this to mean that the LI was also in front of the LC.

When I look at the two prioritised points to determine the most threatening enemy I only see references to “in front”, not to “directly in front” (as is used in the definitions of zone of control p35 & flank contact p41 and the rules for Resolution of uncontrolled charges p45 & Target priority p56). Is this use of "in front" thought to be a translation error?

I note that if an enemy approaches a unit at an angle (so the front edges aren’t parallel) it can ZoC the front of that unit without being even partially directly in front. I had read the first point as meaning that if an enemy was not in front but not directly in front of a unit, it could still be the most threatening enemy even if there was another enemy ZoCing the unit from further away but partially directly in front or if there was another enemy closer but with no part in front of the line extending the unit's front edge. in front but not directly in front and further away.

If “in front” must be read as “directly in front” in the two prioritised points, then enemy ZoCing only parts of the unit’s flank or rear can be the MTE ahead of a unit ZOCing its front from in front, but not directly in front. At least an enemy ZoCing a unit from in front but not directly in front will have part of the unit’s flank edge in its ZoC, so it won’t miss out on consideration in the second point.

I think I’ve now updated my rulebook to include all of the errata from 10-Aug-2022. Re the errata note on p37:
- The pdf I have states "A unit that attempts to evade when it has an enemy ZoC on its flank must first make a quarter turn”. ie No mention of “flank or rear”.
- I assume this only applies if the MTE does not also have a ZoC on the unit’s front (perhaps? from directly in front) and does not have more of the unit’s rear edge in its ZoC than the flank edge.

Any advice appreciated.

SteveR,
re your "one other point", I assume your bow unit was not quite in position E, but had part of its front edge beyond the straight line extending the (new) Front (previously Rear) edge of the Medium Cav and no part directly in front of it. Otherwise I’m even more confused than I thought I was.

All,
Keep having fun,
Ron

[Zoltan]

@elsleyra - I recommend that you make contact with experienced Australian adlg players like Murray Evans (in Newcastle) or Shaun Drummond (in Queensland) to talk through your rules questions. A personal chat can be much more effective to resolve rules questions than lengthy posts in this forum, which to a great extent has lost its audience. 🤔

[Hazelbark]

[quote="elsleyra"]

[SteveR]

@elsleyra

First of all Ron I am sorry for having jumped into this thread and added to your confusion. You are correct, my unit was in a position which allowed it to contact either the front or the flank of the enemy unit. Position E allows contact on either the rear or the flank edge.

Normally diagrams are more clear to me than words, however in the case of types of contact I find the words more helpful because a common situation is that a unit meets the requirement to contact both the flank or the front edge and this exact position is not shown - a unit would have to straddle B1 and B2 for this to be true. This is where I was.

If an enemy can only contact one edge there is no ambiguity regarding evasion or exiting a ZOC

If an enemy can contact more than one edge there is also no ambiguity regarding evasion - the charging player chooses the edge which will be conformed to and this drives the direction of the evade.

[Zoltan]

@SteveR
Za's OP appeared to be a scenario concerned with Movements Allowed when in a ZoC rather than Exiting a ZoC having been charged. The first scenario brings in the MTE rules; responding to a charge does not. Just saying.

[Za Otlichiye]

Dan, perhaps starting at the beginning would help?

It's a very simple question. You are in a ZoC and wish to exit. The enemy is positioned so that it can charge more than one edge of your unit. In what directions may you exit?

The discussion of MTE has raised some additional questions, but it doesn't really help answer the OP because, however useful as an analogy, it is talking about something else.

[SteveR]

@ Zoltan - Agreed. However the evasion process is the same for each.

@Za I have no direct knowledge of what is going on behind the curtain but silence often means they are trying to figure it out before speaking. Or that they consider it de minimus. So we'll see if or how it shakes out.

I have run across this before and as I said it happened again last weekend. So I don't consider it an edge case but it is also not a key aspect of the rules.

[Zoltan]

[Mike Bennett]

I agree the words and interpretation you quote are clear even for ZoCs on two edges. That only leaves the question of whether it is intentional, and of course we can only go with what is written without an errata change.

[elsleyra]

[Zoltan]

@elslyra - many thanks I've corrected my typing error. But my key point remains unaffected - in the OP scenario where one enemy imposes a ZoC on both front and flank edges of an opponent, and the opponent wishes to retreat out of the ZoC, the flank ZoC takes precedence (per the errata) and the retreat evade move commences with a quarter turn. The errata explicitly prohibits a retreat to the rear (which would otherwise imply that the front edge ZoC took precedence).

[elsleyra]

Firstly, many thanks to the various contributors above. Much of my confusion on this matter has now been addressed.

From here I’ll just note that I think we need to be careful re the interpretation of when a unit has “an enemy ZoC on its flank”.

If two units are at a slight angle, an enemy ZoC can include part of a unit’s flank without the enemy being on the flank of the unit (per the definition on p 9).

Even more extreme, if a ZoCing enemy is directly in front of a unit and with its front edge parallel to the front edge of the unit, but offset even slightly to one side, its ZoC (ie the 1UD square starting from its front edge) can include part of the flank edge of the unit.

From what I understand of the ethos of ADLG, it would be inappropriate to require an evade to exit a ZoC to include a quarter turn in either of those cases.

Ron