Disorder caused by a 'required extra move'.

[Big Al]

Hi Mike

If you read the first sentence of Retiring Units on page 73 it says:-

"A retiring unit must make a full move, or in some cases two full moves, as described on the results chart."

Every entry that involves a retire result on the results chart, or Break Test chart, states that the unit ends it's move disordered. There is no retire result where a unit doesn't end it's move disordered. Take another careful look at the chart.

The rule for evade directs you to the Retiring Units section for a description on how to effect an evade move. I realise that there is nothing in the text directly telling you step by step how the evade works. Instead, it directs you to different parts of the book for you to read. I can only assume that this was to save time and repetition, but cannot say for definite. However, essentially, what it means is that when a unit evades it follows the same rule as a retire move exactly.

I don't believe that you will find the answer you are looking for because it is not written out as you are expecting. Possibly, if it was written so that the Evade rule was written out in full first and then the Retire rule referred you to the Evade rule, it would have met your needs. Instead, the author saw fit to do it in reverse. I believe that this is the cause of your problem. I may be wrong, but that is how it seems from your wording.

[Alan Charlesworth]

Hi Al

I was the one who claimed that all the results on the Break Test Results Table said that retireing units were disordered. Mike disagreed and I was about to post a comment suggesting he read the chart again.

However, I discover that it is me who needs to read the chart again

There are three retire results on the chart. Two of them do say that the retiree becomes disordered, but the third, which I had missed, makes no mention of disorder. See the 7 or more line under the Cavalry result. So there appears to be no uniformity with the retire results. So if Evades are like Retires, which type of Retire are they like? A conundrum if if ever I saw one. I feel like I am reading koans.

By the way I have now found an older thread on the forum where this was debated before. No consensus was reached last time either!

Looks like we are back to stage one again

[grant]

Two threads and how many pages?????

Roll a die. 1-3, yes. 4-6, no.

Problem solved.

[Big Al]

Hi Al

I was the one who claimed that all the results on the Break Test Results Table said that retireing units were disordered. Mike disagreed and I was about to post a comment suggesting he read the chart again.

However, I discover that it is me who needs to read the chart again

There are three retire results on the chart. Two of them do say that the retiree becomes disordered, but the third, which I had missed, makes no mention of disorder. See the 7 or more line under the Cavalry result. So there appears to be no uniformity with the retire results. So if Evades are like Retires, which type of Retire are they like? A conundrum if if ever I saw one. I feel like I am reading koans.

By the way I have now found an older thread on the forum where this was debated before. No consensus was reached last time either!

Looks like we are back to stage one again

I apologise, Mike.
Ok, so, infantry skirmishers can only evade once and are always disordered. Cavalry, it would seem, can evade without being disordered, unless it cannot complete the action in a single move. I suppose that the logic behind that is that the unit is not being forced to retire, but has done so by choice.

[rigolgm]

It looks like that's the rule interpretation most of you might be settling on.

I think it's a red herring. The Evade rules about Retiring only point to the page 73 column on Retiring Units, not to the Break Table itself. In that column Retire in no way causes Disorder except in very specific circumstances. It has a little bit in the column pointing out exceptional circumstances when Retire causes Disorder - but they are particular circumstances involving two moves etc.

It wouldn't have that 'exception' detail if all Retires caused Disorder anyway. This seems really clear.

It points to the conclusion that Evade doesn't cause Disorder. This is why, right at the start of this thread, I was trying to find out if there was any overarching rule around the "double move causes Disorder" stuff that could also be applied to units Evading twice in a turn.

Infantry fleeing on a Break Test do indeed Disorder (as per the Break table) - but that's because they're panicking and being hurt, which we can imagine might be much worse than an orderly Evade.

I don't really have any other part to my argument. So I'll shut up! But I just wanted to make the above suggestion.