Art De La Guerre

[Andy Fyfe]

Hi Guys,

Consider the following situation; a WWG is in melee with two units on one of its long edges (diagram 1).

Unit 1 (same side as WWG) attacks unit B in the flank (diagram 2).



Does Unit B lose a cohesion from multiple combat?

Does it depend which unit (A or B) was the primary unit in the previous combat phase (chosen by the phasing player each melee phase)?

I suspect unit B would have to be the primary unit for it to lose a cohesion point as all other units are in simple support vs a WWG.

What happens if Unit A was the primary unit in the red players turn but then in the blue players turn he choses unit B as the primary melee unit?

I don't think unit B loses a cohesion point as multiple combat only happens during charge, confirmation or pursuit.

Andy

[lionelrus]

1 est en soutien de mêlée, il n'a pas besoin de faire une charge pour arriver dans cette position (c'est un soutien) et B perd un point de cohésion, ses facteurs de combat sont à 0 (-1 avec la perte de cohésion).
Pour les mêlées suivantes, tout dépend du joueur en phase.
Si c'est le rouge, alors il peut faire combattre B en combattant principal contre le WWG avec A en soutien simple.
Ou faire combattre A contre le WWG, auquel cas B combat contre 1 avec tous les malus ad hoc.

Si le bleu est en phase, il décide quel unité va combattre le WWG comme adversaire principal, avec les mêmes conséquences.
_________________
"Quand on a pas de technique, faut y aller à la zob"
Perceval à Yvain et Gauvain.

[vexillia]

[Andy Fyfe]

[Neep]

[Let me correct this some more.]
Page 61 says WWg cannot "provoquer" multiple attacks. Page 67 says the phasing player gets to decide which is the main unit and which is the support. So either:
WWg and A fight neither with support. 1 fights B with a +1 situation modifier and B fight back with a 0 basic factor (unless B is LH, or LI if they are in terrain;-)
OR
WWg and B fight. 1 provides melee support 1+basic factor, and B fights back with a 0 basic factor (etc). A negates the WWg's +1 support.

As WWgs do not have a ZoC, I believe B can turn to face 1 next turn (if it survives). WWg would then provide simple support to that melee.

[lionelrus]

[Andy Fyfe]

[KevinD]

1. So if the WWg player says B is the main combatant in the melee, then, B takes a cohesion hits and fights at 0 -1 (Cohesion) + 1 (Support from A) and WWg gets its factor plus Melee Support (basic factor) from 1 plus + 1 (for flank)

Or

2. If he says A is the main target then WWg fights A with normal factors on both sides and 1 fights B: 1 gets factor (including charge bonus) + 1 for flank and B is 0 for being attacked in flank.
2a. (Assuming no one is destroyed) Next turn B conform its front versus 1 (I guess unless he declares B the main unit vs the WWg in which case everyone stays as is.)

(All of this assumes 1 is not a Light unit.)

Is this correct?

[Neep]

Multiple attack = cohesion hit. All the rules are about whether the cohesion hit happens or not. If WWg can't cause multiple attacks then they cannot cause the cohesion hit.

I have no idea whether B must or rather can turn. I guess in the absence of a clear rule, they should get the choice.

[lionelrus]

[Neep]

Lionel, fair enough. Sometimes my rhetoric squeezes out my meaning. The rules do present "multiple attack" as a certain condition, and then additional conditions that will cause a cohesion hit. My point is that the condition of "multiple attack" does not persist - you must check it each time. And it has no effects other than to permit the possible cohesion hit loss. Thus you could combine all the conditions together and have one rule defining when the cohesion hit occurs. This is a semantic point and perhaps uninteresting.

But WWg cannot cause a multiple attack so they must simply be left out of the calculation. B does not take a cohesion hit.

Safety bicycles are a boon. So are safety razors.

[madaxeman]