Auteur |
Message |
harryKonst
Archer
Inscrit le: 04 Juil 2017 Messages: 63
|
Posté le: Sam Mar 30, 2019 6:04 pm Sujet du message: |
|
Page 37, continuing a charge. top left page. If there is going to be a clarification, (which I didn,t know so far) its fine. You have it in your hands and is about to be announced? |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
harryKonst
Archer
Inscrit le: 04 Juil 2017 Messages: 63
|
Posté le: Sam Mar 30, 2019 6:12 pm Sujet du message: |
|
Yes, I saw it now, I wrote wrong page number. It is on page 36 and 37. The move to contact someone as a support is totally legal.That's not my argument of course.The argument is that when this happens simultaneously with a charge (corner to corner) on another enemy unit you can choose the support option instead of the charge. Again, if you have a clarification, glad to read it. |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Zoltan
Centurion
Inscrit le: 18 Jan 2015 Messages: 443
Localisation: Wellington, New Zealand
|
Posté le: Sam Mar 30, 2019 7:01 pm Sujet du message: |
|
If Y was a light infantry unit (or a LMI bow) wanting to move into a support position with X, and B is NOT light troops (or troops LMI bow aren’t permitted to contact frontally), would Y be permitted to make corner to corner contact with B even though it opts to support Y? |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Ramses II
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 17 Juil 2015 Messages: 1160
Localisation: London
|
Posté le: Dim Mar 31, 2019 10:03 pm Sujet du message: |
|
Zoltan a écrit: | If Y was a light infantry unit (or a LMI bow) wanting to move into a support position with X, and B is NOT light troops (or troops LMI bow aren’t permitted to contact frontally), would Y be permitted to make corner to corner contact with B even though it opts to support Y? | I would say NO.
Whenever a unit moves into contact, it must make a 'legal' move, so must comply with the other restrictions (eg the unit restrictions that you quote, enemy ZoC, etc). |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Commodore
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 23 Aoû 2012 Messages: 1195
Localisation: London
|
Posté le: Lun Avr 01, 2019 8:51 am Sujet du message: |
|
After DT check :
For this specific case, if unit Y move in corner to corner contact with both A and B, as B is not fighting anyone, it is a legal contact and Y has to conform to B.
It is not optional, it is mandatory. _________________ "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead"
Cdr Farragut,Mobile 1864 |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Zoltan
Centurion
Inscrit le: 18 Jan 2015 Messages: 443
Localisation: Wellington, New Zealand
|
Posté le: Lun Avr 01, 2019 5:52 pm Sujet du message: |
|
Commodore a écrit: | After DT check :
For this specific case, if unit Y move in corner to corner contact with both A and B, as B is not fighting anyone, it is a legal contact and Y has to conform to B.
It is not optional, it is mandatory. |
So all the experts have been playing this incorrectly. 😬 |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
AlanCutner
Tribun
Inscrit le: 03 Nov 2014 Messages: 710
Localisation: Scotland
|
Posté le: Lun Avr 01, 2019 7:47 pm Sujet du message: |
|
This needs to be added to the FAQ as most of us have been getting it wrong. |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Mike Bennett
Centurion
Inscrit le: 11 Nov 2017 Messages: 489
Localisation: Carnforth, Lancashire, UK
|
Posté le: Lun Avr 01, 2019 8:26 pm Sujet du message: |
|
If X and Y were a group which hit A on the edge and B on the corner only would Y still split from X and align on B |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
harryKonst
Archer
Inscrit le: 04 Juil 2017 Messages: 63
|
Posté le: Mar Avr 02, 2019 10:30 am Sujet du message: |
|
Mike, in Greece since we started playing ADLG , about two years ago, we all played it this way. In our example when units X and Y as a group, contact units A and B (B on its corner by Y) the units split, because we have 2 different charges that have to be resolved. We never considered unit Y to stay in support position in spite its charge on B. |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
AlanCutner
Tribun
Inscrit le: 03 Nov 2014 Messages: 710
Localisation: Scotland
|
Posté le: Jeu Avr 04, 2019 9:53 pm Sujet du message: |
|
Variant on a theme.
Units X and Y charge as a group but are offset vs A and B so they both contact A, with X having the main contact. Y does not contact B at all at this stage. X and Y used all their movement to make contact. They now conform using the extra 1UD allowed. So Y slides across, now contacting B - I assume it therefore becomes a charge on B and must conform. However it doesn't have enough movement to fully conform so just moves as far as it can, fighting in that position.
Correct? |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Zoltan
Centurion
Inscrit le: 18 Jan 2015 Messages: 443
Localisation: Wellington, New Zealand
|
Posté le: Sam Avr 06, 2019 5:56 am Sujet du message: |
|
AlanCutner a écrit: | Variant on a theme.
Units X and Y charge as a group but are offset vs A and B so they both contact A, with X having the main contact. Y does not contact B at all at this stage. X and Y used all their movement to make contact. They now conform using the extra 1UD allowed. So Y slides across, now contacting B - I assume it therefore becomes a charge on B and must conform. However it doesn't have enough movement to fully conform so just moves as far as it can, fighting in that position.
Correct? |
No.
The TD has made it clear that if Y contacts B it is considered a new charge/melee situation and Y must fully conform to B. In your variant example this implies Y must slide sideways by more than 1 MU in order to fully conform; and yes certain people (he knows who he is) might say this is another example of a rules inconsistency. But it’s likely to be an infrequent occurrence and surely its not the end of the world?
I guess if I were short of pips I could use this as a device to get two charges in when I only had enough pips for one charge. Blessed are the cheesemakers! |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Ramses II
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 17 Juil 2015 Messages: 1160
Localisation: London
|
Posté le: Sam Avr 06, 2019 8:47 am Sujet du message: |
|
Just for completeness, I have already raised this and an even more extreme example with the TB. |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Hazelbark
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 12 Nov 2014 Messages: 1534
|
Posté le: Lun Avr 08, 2019 7:14 pm Sujet du message: |
|
Zoltan a écrit: | Commodore a écrit: | After DT check :
For this specific case, if unit Y move in corner to corner contact with both A and B, as B is not fighting anyone, it is a legal contact and Y has to conform to B.
It is not optional, it is mandatory. |
So all the experts have been playing this incorrectly. 😬 |
Was travelling. Just saw this. Yes appears so, including the author have been doing it wrong.
Well we will see when the DT FAQ is released in English.
Effectively you can now cover 1 UD wide gaps it appears. |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Zoltan
Centurion
Inscrit le: 18 Jan 2015 Messages: 443
Localisation: Wellington, New Zealand
|
Posté le: Lun Avr 08, 2019 7:55 pm Sujet du message: |
|
Hazelbark a écrit: | Well we will see when the DT FAQ is released in English.
Effectively you can now cover 1 UD wide gaps it appears. |
Implication appears to be that you can’t pass through a 1 MU gap between two enemy units; as soon as your unit kisses the corner of an enemy unit you are obliged to conform and MAY NOT pass through the 1 MU gap.
Where I destroy an opponent in a melee line creating a gap, in my turn I have the option (non impetuous) to pursue into the gap. If I chose not to pursue, during my next move (assuming the melee is still going) am I prohibited from advancing into the 1 MU gap or indeed moving straight through it and out the other side?
But as you say, let’s wait for the holy writ... |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
AlanCutner
Tribun
Inscrit le: 03 Nov 2014 Messages: 710
Localisation: Scotland
|
Posté le: Lun Avr 08, 2019 8:38 pm Sujet du message: |
|
Zoltans post raises another query. A unit kills its opponent and pursues into the gap. One of the enemy units its now in side edge contact with also kills its opponent so is now unengaged. Is it mandatory to conform to the unit that pursued?
I think the TB ruling has complicated things and is a mistake. |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
|