GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters at year's end: 1000!
20 Days Left
Fratta Polesine, (RO)
I evidenced some troubles with ORDERLY WITHDRAWAL (6.4): down here I suggested some possible solutions.
a.) When CHARIOT TURNOVER (6.8) OPTIONAL RULE is used Orderly Withdrawal should be permitted only when the unit attempting withdrawal has a higher Movement Allowance than the Rate of Speed of any approaching enemy Chariot/BW unit(s).
See (6.81) for definition of Rate of Speed.
b.) When the non active unit is approached by an enemy CH-2+RI stack, players should compare the Movement Allowance of the units attempting Withdrawal to Movement Allowance or Rate of Speed of the slower unit in the enemy CH-2+RI stack.
c.) Chariots or BW units that carried out ORDERLY WITHDRAWAL should check for Chariot Turnover losses on table 6.92 when rule 6.8 is used.
Indeed the OW movement of chariots BW units can be compared to Fire & Rune for the sake of rule 6.8.
May be an OW column is to be added to table 6.92.
d.) A non phasing unit adjacent and in the front hex of an enemy active unit should not be allowed to attempt OW. Indeed something like that was introduced in other volumes of the Series where ZOC is used.
Without this point we have some odd results. For example a CH-3 (MA=7) non phasing unit has been approached by an enemy active CH-2 unit (MA=9): it cannot try OW because of the higher MA of the approaching unit. Now, the active CH-2 unit moved adjacent to the non phasing CH-3 unit: CH-3 is in the front hex of the phasing CH-2 unit.
Later, an active RI (MA=6) unit approached the non phasing CH-3 unit: without the emendation I suggested , the CH-3 unit can Orderly Withdraws in front of the slower RI unit approaching it.