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
The Light Infantry [and Light Cav] Trap
Page 1 sur 4 Aller à la page 1, 2, 3, 4  Suivante
Poster un nouveau sujet   Répondre au sujet
 Art De La Guerre Index du Forum > Rules questions V3
Auteur Message
daveallen
Tribun


Inscrit le: 28 Jan 2016
Messages: 742
Localisation: Rugby & CLWC
MessagePosté le: Dim Déc 31, 2017 9:27 am    Sujet du message: The Light Infantry [and Light Cav] Trap Répondre en citant
NOTE: This is an argument that started on a thread about Impetuous troops pursuing, but has a more general application so I'm bumping it onto its own thread.

The situation is this:

HIHI

HILIHI
HIHIHI

The red HI have engaged the blue HI with the blue LI and the central blue HI in overlap position.

The question is can the blue LI evade when charged by the unengaged red HI?

One view is:

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.


This is to be a bit too clever with the rules for me.

Surely if a unit is in a position of overlap it is engaged in melee. The fact that the unit actually fighting can only get a single plus per flank regardless of how many units there are on the flank shouldn't mean you can pick and choose which units are in melee.

For instance, could the blue player claim only the HI was supporting the melee? Would this then allow the LI to shoot the red HI it faces?

I await further discussion and hopefully an official clarification either way.

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


Inscrit le: 01 Nov 2014
Messages: 1462
Localisation: Londres Centraal.
MessagePosté le: Dim Déc 31, 2017 12:43 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
IMO, if you want to spend 3 AP to kill one LI and also have 2 of your HI fight with an overlap against them, the rules as written do, and should, allow you to choose to do so.
_________________
www.madaxeman.com
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé Visiter le site web de l'utilisateur
daveallen
Tribun


Inscrit le: 28 Jan 2016
Messages: 742
Localisation: Rugby & CLWC
MessagePosté le: Dim Déc 31, 2017 1:53 pm    Sujet du message: Re: The Light Infantry [and Light Cav] Trap Répondre en citant
Thank you Tim, your support means a lot to me Wink
_________________
Putting the ink into incompetence
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
ethan
Signifer


Inscrit le: 12 Nov 2014
Messages: 347
MessagePosté le: Dim Déc 31, 2017 2:13 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
madaxeman a écrit:
IMO, if you want to spend 3 AP to kill one LI and also have 2 of your HI fight with an overlap against them, the rules as written do, and should, allow you to choose to do so.


I agree with Tim here.
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
AlanCutner
Tribun


Inscrit le: 03 Nov 2014
Messages: 706
Localisation: Scotland
MessagePosté le: Dim Déc 31, 2017 3:57 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Associated question.

If the contact is

HIHI

HILI
HIHIHI

I assume here the LI can evade. Although the HI behind is an obstacle, the LI can slide to avoid blocking friends (P38, last bullet point), so can evade through the right hand HI.
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: Lun Jan 01, 2018 1:07 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
You are correct. P38 allows a unit to slide across the face of a blocking friendly unit. However, consider the following modified position

. . MC MC
MC
LI
HI HI HI

The point is that the LI can no longer evade through the ZoC of the flanking MC. So, is it able to evade through the HI to it’s rear or not? There are several possible thoughts
  1. The HI is deemed to be supporting the melee to its left, so may not be interpenetrated by the LI(p43).
  2. The LI is deemed to be supporting the melee to it’s left.
    Since only one unit may support a melee, the HI are not supporting the melee and may be interpenetrated.
  3. Although the LI may be deemed to be the support for the melee, as soon as the moves, that support is transferred to the HI behind, thus blocking the evade of the LI.


The above may be synthesised to this slightly more familiar position

. . MC MC
MC
LI
MI EL

So, can the LI evade or not??
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: Lun Jan 01, 2018 2:46 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Except evaders ignore ZoCs.

See also above comment on the implications of allowing a player to pick and choose which overlapping units are in melee.
_________________
Putting the ink into incompetence


Dernière édition par daveallen le Lun Jan 01, 2018 3:35 pm; édité 1 fois
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: Lun Jan 01, 2018 3:32 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
The point of this thread is to establish the legality of a tactic, not its utility.

However, it doesn't take a lot of imagination to see situations where it's worthwhile. For instance:


HIHIHI

HIHILILIHIHI
HIHIHIHIHIHI

Guarantees four victory points for relatively little risk.
_________________
Putting the ink into incompetence
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
Kal5056
Javelinier


Inscrit le: 26 Mar 2017
Messages: 17
MessagePosté le: Lun Jan 01, 2018 5:18 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Wouldn't the light infantry have been forced to evade when the first unit came into side edge contact with it? Makes the whole point moot if it does

Gino
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 5:53 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
No combined it should.

But could be a way out of the problem.
_________________
Player 747 don't call me Jumbo
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: Lun Jan 01, 2018 9:54 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
This is one of those rules effects like the Elbows of Death that look odd at first, but add colour to the game.

And like the EoD there are several simple counters:

it doesn't work if there are three LI

it's probably not worth the effort for one LI, especially as it's going to be nearly impossible to line up the middle charger in a way that will allow it to pursue into the HI behind the LI.

finally, if you do have two LI pasted on the front of an HI line, separate them by a base width. Again it's almost impossible to thread a charge between them without giving either cause to evade. So you're back to deciding if it's worth the risk to a single LI kill.
_________________
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: Lun Jan 01, 2018 11:37 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Thanks for the corrections guys and the continued discussion

fdunadan‘a point was that in each case, the LI could be deemed to be the unit providing the support, thus they could evade through the HI behind.
The wording on Support is carefully phrased in this direction, and does not mandate the use of a particular unit as ‘the support’, or being in position to support etc.

Your own view (and I suspect most people’s) is that the LI cannot shoot as they are supporting / in melee, (and they cannot be the target of shooting for the same reason).
In which case the HI behind them may not be declared to be ‘supporting’, unless and until the LI move away (at which point they may shoot).

Is this where AdlG is even less tricksy than other sets that have apparently evolved such deadly anatomical parts as elbows, buttocks etc?

On a different note, this example and interpretation would seem to have ramifications for other similar situations where there are two friendly units one behind the other, the leading unit being capable of shooting, but prevented from doing so by supporting a melee . . .
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: Mar Jan 02, 2018 11:42 am    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Do we need an amendment to the rules for a situation that's unlikely to crop up in even one percent of games? **

I think we 're at risk of driving a coach and horses through the rules to deal with a situation which is, imo, not substantially different to the Elbow of Death trap in outcome or principle.

First of all, the proposed solution [that the player can choose which unit on the flank is the "supporter"] leaves the way open for the front unit to shoot in a position where it's generally accepted, at present, it can't.

If you go down this route there's the tricky situation created when the LI ceases to be the supporter, but hasn't yet emerged from the new supporting unit.

We could, I suppose, argue that technically melee has not yet commenced so neither unit can be supporting it.

On the whole, I'd like to see the rules as written upheld, but if we do get a different ruling then I trust it will encompass all the anomalies as well.

** Even something that rare will start cropping up in competitions soon enough (40 players x 5 = 100 games) so it's worth clearing up if only to stop the poor umpire's brain overheating. Wink

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


Inscrit le: 01 Nov 2014
Messages: 1462
Localisation: Londres Centraal.
MessagePosté le: Mar Jan 02, 2018 2:32 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Sadly, I agree with Dave

This is going to be a very rare, and very AP-intensive situation, which is not without it;s own inherent downsides and which is very easily countered by the "defender" pushing their LF forwards a little.

"Fixing" it would create other complexities including as Dave has spotted, also might allow players to artificially manufacture the ability to shoot or be an ineligible target.

I suspect the actual takeaway from it might be to highlight that the wording in the rules as to whether "corner to corner" contact in a charge actually makes Light troops flee or not could be improved at the next iteration.
_________________
www.madaxeman.com
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé Visiter le site web de l'utilisateur
Luddite
Archer


Inscrit le: 15 Nov 2017
Messages: 52
MessagePosté le: Mar Jan 02, 2018 6:59 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
When the regular "elephant herding" tactic seems to involve this formation:

LI
MI EL MI

Is it really going to be that rare?

...and on a general point, the "are corners contact" point comes up in our games quite a bit.
_________________
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
  
 Art De La Guerre Index du Forum > Rules questions V3
Page 1 sur 4 Aller à la page 1, 2, 3, 4  Suivante
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