Art De La Guerre
Bienvenue sur le forum de discussion de la règle de jeu l'Art De La Guerre
 
FAQFAQ RechercherRechercher Liste des MembresListe des Membres Groupes d'utilisateursGroupes d'utilisateurs S'enregistrerS'enregistrer
ProfilProfil Se connecter pour vérifier ses messages privésSe connecter pour vérifier ses messages privés ConnexionConnexion
Impetious cavalry pursuing into elephant
Page 2 sur 2 Aller à la page Précédente  1, 2
Poster un nouveau sujet   Répondre au sujet
 Art De La Guerre Index du Forum > Rules questions V3
Auteur Message
Icaunais
Légat


Inscrit le: 21 Sep 2012
Messages: 649
MessagePosté le: Ven Déc 29, 2017 9:53 am    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
I agree with fdunadan because Art de la Guerre has not been written for devious mind.
Looks to me like this point will soon appear in the FAQ.
_________________
Mes Figurines 15mm
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
daveallen
Tribun


Inscrit le: 28 Jan 2016
Messages: 742
Localisation: Rugby & CLWC
MessagePosté le: Dim Déc 31, 2017 12:17 am    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
fdunadan a écrit:
Only one support unit is autorised on each flank of a melee. So you declare the LI as supporting the fight (and the unitI behind is no longuer a support) and so when your LI is charged, he can evade... and the unit behind act as support for the fight...
simple, elegant, and respecting the spirit of the rule.

I see your point. However, we've a long history of giving the rule as written primacy over any alleged "spirit."

I'm not convinced you can say a unit in position to support a melee isn't supporting it. Just because you can only get one plus per flank doesn't mean there can't be more than one support per flank.

In the same way you can have five archers shooting at a target, but only the main shooter and three others actually count.

Anyway, as soon as the LI turn to evade they give up their role as supports and so it falls to the unit behind to do the supporting.

If you want it to be otherwise I think you need a formal ruling rather than an ad hoc argument.

Dave
_________________
Putting the ink into incompetence
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
Ramses II
Magister Militum


Inscrit le: 17 Juil 2015
Messages: 1160
Localisation: London
MessagePosté le: Dim Déc 31, 2017 2:00 am    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Hmm, this is a rather grey area.
RAW, The text on ‘Support’ tends towards the provision of bonuses for those units that are actually providing support, rather than those additional units that may also be in position to provide support in their absence. However I do sympathise with daveallen‘s view that should the LI move away (or be destroyed), the unit to their immediate rear would be counted as providing support (until subsequently engaged).

Personally, I would argue that the Technical Board might consider the consequences of adding a FAQ to the effect that all units in position to provide support should be considered to be ‘in Support’, though they only provide +1 for each flank and rear irrespective of the number of units that are actually ‘in support’

So in this position that we are discussing ;
. . MC

. . LI MC
HI HI HI

1) the Medium cavalry charge the right hand Heavy infantry, causing the neighbouring infantry and LI to be considered to be ‘in support’
2) the other MC charge the LI which may no longer evade, because the HI behind them are now ‘In Support’ blocking their evade - so they are destroyed
3) the MC do not pursue onto the HI
4) assuming the other MC survive the second round of melee (unlikely) they disengage and run away.

Note, in the original question, the cavalry were Impetuous and forced to pursue onto an elephant. Assuming they survive two rounds of melee, they could also disengage from the elephant even though they were impetuous.

Does that cover everything?
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
daveallen
Tribun


Inscrit le: 28 Jan 2016
Messages: 742
Localisation: Rugby & CLWC
MessagePosté le: Dim Déc 31, 2017 8:56 am    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Ramses II a écrit:
Does that cover everything?


Not really. To avoid confusion, I'll start a new thread to deal with the different question being asked now.

Dave
_________________
Putting the ink into incompetence
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
Viking709
Auxiliaire


Inscrit le: 15 Jan 2015
Messages: 87
MessagePosté le: Dim Déc 31, 2017 5:50 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
2) the light infantry can slide to the left and evade thru the HI that is not supporting. There would have to be another MC to hit the other HI on the left to lock the LI into a non evade situation
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
Luddite
Archer


Inscrit le: 15 Nov 2017
Messages: 52
MessagePosté le: Dim Déc 31, 2017 7:24 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Given the prevalence of this "elephant guarding" tactic, this seems to be a priority to resolve.
_________________
http://luddite1811.blogspot.co.uk/
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé Visiter le site web de l'utilisateur
Ramses II
Magister Militum


Inscrit le: 17 Juil 2015
Messages: 1160
Localisation: London
MessagePosté le: Lun Jan 01, 2018 12:10 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Viking709 a écrit:
2) the light infantry can slide to the left and evade thru the HI that is not supporting. There would have to be another MC to hit the other HI on the left to lock the LI into a non evade situation

Or another MC on the left of the unit that charges the LI to prevent it from sliding away.

However, this reinforces the need for the debate.
See the continued discussion Here
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
Dickstick
Légat


Inscrit le: 17 Juil 2016
Messages: 680
Localisation: West Bromwich
MessagePosté le: Lun Jan 01, 2018 5:50 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Do we wish LI to be never able to screen units to their rear effectively.

Be careful of where you are going with this.

Some of us are old enough to have seen how this mental road took DBM down from " three point whatever sank your boat "


ADLG is a breath of fresh air

Please don't fart on it.
_________________
Player 747 don't call me Jumbo
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
  
 Art De La Guerre Index du Forum > Rules questions V3
Page 2 sur 2 Aller à la page Précédente  1, 2
Poster un nouveau sujet   Répondre au sujet Toutes les heures sont au format GMT

 
Sauter vers:  
Vous ne pouvez pas poster de nouveaux sujets dans ce forum
Vous ne pouvez pas répondre aux sujets dans ce forum
Vous ne pouvez pas éditer vos messages dans ce forum
Vous ne pouvez pas supprimer vos messages dans ce forum
Vous ne pouvez pas voter dans les sondages de ce forum