Art De La Guerre

[Zoltan]

[Mike Bennett]

Ok, but even a slight angle, combined with the smallest offset, would put a zoc on the flank. By a literal reading would this require a 90 degree turn and evade for the outermost target unit, whilst his buddies went straight to their groups rear?

Such an evade might then be across the face of a charging group that was actually almost directly infront, making catching the outermost evader pretty much a certainty.

[Zoltan]

[SteveR]

I have always taken the errata clarification to make it clear that a unit evades to the flank if the enemy is on that flank, and that it may not instead evade to its own rear. I do not think that it is intended to say that if a ZOC covers both the flank and the rear (or indeed the flank and the front) that the flank is always the preferred direction to run.

Particularly in the lattter case that would be most peculiar.

However I have been wrong before.

[Za Otlichiye]

I don't mean to hector Dan. The more the merrier, especially national referees. I'm worried if we start numbering the trees, we will lose sight of the forest. Which is a bit of an awkward intro as I go into full anorak mode here:-)
*****
I have no idea what that erratum was about and posted that back in August. I came away with the impression it was about orienting units which could not evade. Now I'm back to having no idea.
*****
Okay this is TLDNR territory. Let me start with the conclusions.
The answer is yes you have a choice. Why? Because there is no clear procedure or priority to determine a single direction. In fact, the free Evasion usually gives two choices; Why would paying CPs be less? And in AdlG you move your own units. (Except when you cheat and overstuff an ambush marker. Then your opponent moves your units. Clearly punitive.)

The gory details
The exiting rules differ according to whether the unit can evade or not. In one case you turn your back and flee. In the other you face the enemy and carefully and slowly back out. Both start with an orientation and are similar to an Evasion. So it makes sense to look at Evasion first.

Most of the time the direction of the Evasion is easily determined. The Charge direction has been set and we can see where the target will be struck. If in front the target 180s. If (legally) on the flank or rear a quarter turn or no turn. Note that you may Evade and Exit(evade) with a group. But there are complications:
1. What if two sides are hit by a group charge?
2. What about orienting to the charge?
3. What if a corner is hit (and the charger could conform to either edge)?
For analyzing an Exit, we can ignore 1 because the MTE is always a single unit. (Note page 36 says it's your choice if more than one enemy unit equally qualifies as MTE.)
Note that an Evader orients before moving into contact (page 41, diagrams 47 and 48 - although I vaguely recall some discussion about this??). In another thread, Lionel decided that an exiting unit could not wheel to the direction of the MTE because it was not being charged. That seemed reasonable, but now I'm not sure, as one can wheel an Exiter the same way and it's part of the Evade process. There is one additional problem though. A group Charge is always in a single direction. MTE's might come from various directions and make orienting to all of them impossible. Anyway, the point is that this clearly can give an Evader a choice of direction, so it's quite reasonable that an Exiter would also have a choice.
That leaves us with 3, and what do you know, the same question exists in the Evasion process. As you can often flee in two directions, why not three?

We can model the Exiting process for evasion able units the same way. Assume the MTE will advance straight ahead at our unit. Sure, there may be intervening terrain or friendly or enemy units that make a charge unlikely or even impossible. But we are only determining direction. If the unit would strike a side (as legal) we are all set. If it would strike a corner, well, it's the same issue for Evasion and it looks like a choice. And maybe a third choice if you accept orientation toward the direction of the assumed "charge".

And lastly, the issue of evasion incapable units. They "pivot". As best I can recall, pivot is only used elsewhere in Conformance and seems synonymous with wheel albeit without cost. (Oh, for an OCRed PDF...) So it looks like the unit orients to the direction of the MTE. Note that we cannot Exit a group this way, it must be individual units, so the problem of determining enemy direction, as noted above, is absent. Narratively quite reasonable given the slower and closer movement.

Okay those that enjoy this, dig in! those that don't, well...

[lionelrus]

[Zoltan]

[lionelrus]

[Za Otlichiye]

I'm sitting here trying to write up this question for my Q&A summary, and I think maybe I was stumbling over a couple of difficulties in the rules and errata.
"On the flank" is defined on page 9. It is obviously missing "or directly to the rear of the enemy" at the end of the sentence. An enemy "on the flank" is then equivalent to an enemy "allowed to charge the flank". Understanding the errata to mean "has the most threatening enemy on the flank" then all is clear. You must 1/4 turn if the enemy can attack your flank. Otherwise you orient to the front or rear as appropriate. Good? [Looks like Steve was trying to tell me this...]

[elsleyra]

I think most of the uncertainty that gave rise to, or was exposed by, this thread came from reorientation being driven by the ZoC rather than by the most threatening enemy per se.

If the errata note had been “A unit that attempts to evade when its most threatening enemy is on its flank ...” instead of “A unit that attempts to evade when it has an enemy ZoC on its flank ...” then all would have been well-defined and there would have been no discussion about whether a unit not on the flank of an enemy could exert a ZoC on the flank of that enemy etc.

I’ll also note that a unit directly to the rear of an enemy is, by the definition on p9, on the flank of that enemy. So, a unit using an evade to exit the ZoC of an enemy to its rear must make a quarter turn. It is not permitted to evade directly to its front (as it could if it were being charged). The only potential choice would be a quarter turn to one side or the other and then only if the enemy were perfectly aligned behind it.

Ron