Art De La Guerre

[elsleyra]

'5 – Evade move' (p48) states
“If during the evade move, the unit encounters a new obstacle in its way it must try to manoeuvre to avoid or interpenetrate it. The manoeuvre is done when it arrives within 1 UD of the obstacle or the minimum more than 1 UD if a wheel is required.”

Is this intended to mean that the only occasions a unit can commence such a manoeuvre before reaching 1UD from an obstacle are when
i) the obstacle is an enemy unit and a 90 degree wheel would contact it, so the manoeuvre can commence a tiny distance earlier; or
ii) the evading unit has already used some of its permitted total of 90 degrees of wheeling and so can only wheel by less than 90 degrees to try to avoid the obstacle?

[Hazelbark]

So a couple points globally.
When someone starts to reframe a rule for a specific explanation of a circumstance, the right answer is not to rush in and answer. Because elsewhere people will then say that rule dis differnent. So when you ask for a global answer to a restatement, it doesn't actually work well generally.

So to venture in. However i am pointedly ignoring your "or" to walk through

1 certainly applies as the rule is written. I think we can agree on that.

Your question is what about a situation like you described in 2. So i gather there was an earlier gentle wheel to avoid one object and then the new second object was encountered. So the question is along the lines, if we used 30 degrees of the wheel at the first object but need to start using the remaining 60 degrees of the evade 2 UD before the second object, can we start the wheel then, meaning 2 UD from second object. Then yes i suppose that is possible. However you must adhere to p 49 bullets 3 and 4.

So if this earlier (at 2 UD) wheel indeed allows the evader to get its full move in (while complying with restrictions), then yes. However I would be cautious that this still adheres to the p 49 bullets avoids and minimum deviation phrases. If this is just being used to angle an evade to not be caught through geometry AND the p 49 bullets are not adhered to, i could see an umpire disallowing. This grey instruction to an umpire i am unofficiallly writing is the rule intent is clear. If the evader can get out this way, then yes, it is not required to go into a cul de sac when a clear way was available under the restrictions.

So your point 2 is a situation that is possible.

[KevinD]

One situation related to wheeling during an evade I’ve always had concerns wheeling when there’s a coast in front of the evader.

A. Suppose the evading unit (say LC going 5 UD) is evading moving perpendicular to the coast line which is 2 UDs in front of it. So the LC goes 1 UD and then wheels when 1 UD away from the coast. Does it (1) wheel 90 degrees to move parallel to the coast with one side in edge in contact with the coast or (2) wheel the minimum such that it can complete its movement allowance and end up not parallel to the coast but with its front corner (only, not its whole side edge) in contact with the coast?

B. I assume the owner can choose whether to wheel left or right when it’s direction of travel is perpendicular to the approaching obstacle. Is this correct? If going left or right would require a smaller angle of wheeling it would have to choose that direction, right?

C. If the evaders are a group (say 2 LC) will they wheel as a group (and remain a group) or does each wheel and then move separately ending up as a non-group?

[Hazelbark]

You should not let this keep you up at night.

A Likely everyone plays conventionally that it is a 90 degree wheel at 1 UD. Play it that way and enjoy the game and get more sleep.

B if there is no difference, owner decides.

C in this case the the 2 LH cannot group wheel at 1 UD, they break up individually.

[elsleyra]

[Neep]

This discussion pretty much covered everything I've been thinking about since the topic came up. Here's my two cents.

I think the core question is when is the decision to slide or wheel made?

Toying with the illustration on page 49 [One of the exemplary features of the AdlG rulebook is the quality of the drawings. They are very precisely measured and graphed. So, yeah, I made a copy, pulled out a compass, straight edge, and protractor and got busy;-) or at least enough to get a general sense.] I found that if you start the evade by wheeling at the leftmost corner of the enemy at the top of the page, you can save about 3/4 UD to get to more or less the same place as illustrated, and with a roughly 45 degree deviation from the straight north direction.

Three observations:
1. The difference is pretty minimal, as Dan noted.
2. Nonetheless, the wheel from the start goes further and closer to the original direction of the evade and would thus be preferred. Therefore the example implies you decide when you reach 1UD or the distance to clear a wheel, and cannot take the global situation into consideration.
3. Measuring this stuff is really tedious and not something that can be done very precisely on the tabletop.

The counterpoint to not losing sleep over very rare advantages, is if they are that rare all the more reason to provide arbitrary, simple, and strict procedures. Then they don't come up at all and nobody complains they are "wrong". Think how much the game benefits from Conformation, even if players complain about having to move into bad situations.

With that in mind, I'd suggest:

1. All movement rules apply, but a slide reduces MA. In particular if you slide you must be able to advance forward 1 UD at some point.

2. If an obstacle can be avoided by a slide, this occurs at 1 UD distance. To avoid an obstacle the new location must be clear forward for 1 UD.

If you can slide either direction, you must choose first the path that will allow you to use all your MA, then the path that will allow you maintain the least deviation from the original direction, then your choice.

3. If you cannot slide then you wheel, starting so that you would end up perpendicular to the obstacle and as close as possible i.e. just short of an enemy unit. You wheel until you expend your MA, or your wheel allowance, or your location is clear for 1 UD, or you are blocked. [That is to say you might make a partial wheel and end up well short of the obstacle.] [A practical way to achieve this when the obstacle is on a diagonal is to first wheel to the perpendicular at some distance (say 1 UD then displace sideways to the close position, measuring both and summing.]

If you can wheel either direction (example: chariots approaching the corner of a village on the bias.) you must wheel in the direction of least deviation, then follow the priorities as with a slide.

[*4. Evading groups follow the above procedure until they are blocked. At that point any sub-portion(s) that could continue moving must split off and do so. - Okay this is controversial and any discussion should probably move to another thread.*]

Boy I do like the sound of my own voice, don't I!-)

[KevinD]

“ At the first opportunity to reduce your deviation in a direction that is 1 UD clear, you must do so. You must follow the general contour of an irregular impassible terrain (Impassible and in some cases Woods).”

I don’t see the rules say that. I assumed they just keep going in the new direction.

[Neep]

Oh, you are right. Must have been channeling resolving non-melee contact. I'll amend it.

[elsleyra]

I am surprise at the view (shared apparently by at least Neep and KevinD) that difficult terrain should be treated as impassable by evading chariots. The definition of Impassable terrain (as a type of terrain) on p70 is “Impassable terrain is terrain that cannot be crossed or occupied by any type of troops.” So, while chariots cannot move in difficult terrain, it isn’t defined as impassable for them because other types of troops can cross it. Treating it as impassable would seem to me to have the same level of validity as treating other terrain that an evader can’t enter as impassable.

[AlanCutner]

[Zoltan]

There’s a difference between:

1. An Impassable terrain piece (no unit may ever enter it), and

2. A piece of terrain that can’t be entered in a specific situation by a particular unit (because it has insufficient movement).