IanS
Gladiateur
Inscrit le: 23 Juin 2019
Messages: 37
|
 Posté le: Sam Mai 23, 2026 2:46 pm Sujet du message: Conforming in Multilple attacks |
 |
OK this happened today and me and my opponent were on different sides of the argument.
We have Camels like this:
C3 C1 <E1
...... ^
......C2 <B1
So we have three camels with no 2 facing up - side on to the bowmen. In my opponents turn the bowman has hits C2 in the side and the Elephant has hits C1 in the front.
C1 is killed in one turn and the bowmen do a wound. The elephant HAS to pursue and is now in C2 front.
In my turn I charge with C3 so it now looks like this:
C3E1
...^
...C2B1
The elephant is facing C3 in the front and C2 in the side. My opponent said C2 HAS to conform to B1 in my go I said I don't have to because I am engaged in the front melee supporting the new charge.
Who is correct and why? We could not find the definitive rules and nearly came to blows  |
|
Zoltan
Légat
Inscrit le: 18 Jan 2015
Messages: 542
Localisation: Wellington, New Zealand
|
| Posté le: Sam Mai 23, 2026 7:49 pm Sujet du message: |
|
These days I simply can’t be bothered trying to work out what those cryptic letters, numbers and dashes mean. Misinterpretations of the questions often lead to incorrect answers.
Suggest you post on the ADLG FB site with proper photos so we can actually see what’s happening. |
|
Neep
Centurion
Inscrit le: 09 Jan 2023
Messages: 400
|
| Posté le: Dim Mai 24, 2026 3:36 pm Sujet du message: |
|
Apologies, I got that incorrect.
See p 52 Conforming units in melee. Per p 60 a unit is "in melee" when it is the main unit of a melee. So a unit in melee support must always conform to an attacker on flank/rear.
Even if C3 evaded, I think the "already" forces C2 to turn, because it has not fought the El yet (and has fought the bow already).
Dernière édition par Neep le Mar Mai 26, 2026 4:02 pm; édité 3 fois |
|
Andy Fyfe
Vétéran
Inscrit le: 14 Fév 2024
Messages: 170
|
| Posté le: Lun Mai 25, 2026 9:10 pm Sujet du message: |
|
| IanS a écrit: | OK this happened today and me and my opponent were on different sides of the argument.
We have Camels like this:
C3 C1 <E1
...... ^
......C2 <B1
So we have three camels with no 2 facing up - side on to the bowmen. In my opponents turn the bowman has hits C2 in the side and the Elephant has hits C1 in the front.
C1 is killed in one turn and the bowmen do a wound. The elephant HAS to pursue and is now in C2 front.
In my turn I charge with C3 so it now looks like this:
C3E1
...^
...C2B1
The elephant is facing C3 in the front and C2 in the side. My opponent said C2 HAS to conform to B1 in my go I said I don't have to because I am engaged in the front melee supporting the new charge.
Who is correct and why? We could not find the definitive rules and nearly came to blows |
Hi Ian,
If I understand your diagram correctly, the elephant is in combat with camel C3.
Camel C2 is on the flank of the elephant and the Bowman is on the flank of camel C2.
Camel C2 would be melee support on the elephant but it has an attacker on its flank so it conforms to fight the bowman on its turn.
Elephant fights C3 and Bowman fights C2.
Note; the elephant did not have to pursue after destroying C1 as "Pursuit causes the unit to move along an enemy's front" (namely the Bowman) is an exception to the mandatory elephant pursuit.
Andy |
|
FAQ
Rechercher
Liste des Membres
Groupes d'utilisateurs
S'enregistrer
Profil
Se connecter pour vérifier ses messages privés
Connexion
