Is this legal?

[iversonjm]

FMMMMMMMM

In the above, F is a field fortification, deployed 15" in from the rear edge in the center third of the board, and facing toward the board's SIDE edge (which would be to the left.

MMMMMMMM is a unit of medium foot facing toward the enemy rear edge (which is at the top), deployed between the "flank lines" of the fortifications 15" from the rear edge of the board.

Is the foot unit entirely "behind" the fortifications, and thus legally deployed?

[philqw78]

Cheese emporia. If they were facing left they would be behind it I suppose, getting away with it would be different.

[iversonjm]

Cheese emporia. If they were facing left they would be behind it I suppose, getting away with it would be different.

It ain't easy being cheesy. Why would the facing of the foot matter? Surely the question of whether the foot is "behind" the fortification turns on the facing of the fortification, not the foot.

[philqw78]

It wouldn't really but at least the cheeseeologist would be able to add that the fortifications were in front of the BG as well as it being behind. So at least he was defending them.

[hazelbark]

This was discussed a long while back jsut after publication. And i think rbs argued it was inappropriate.

[ScotGore]

It wouldn't really but at least the cheeseeologist would be able to add that the fortifications were in front of the BG as well as it being behind. So at least he was defending them.

It would "spoil" the cheese if they had to face the fortification. The whole purpose of such a move would be to get a "forward" set up position and then be able double move from that point. If you have to 90 degree turn and normal move, then your cheese is wrecked, might as well start back at the regular deployment point.

Scot - PhC
Doctor of Cheeseology

[philqw78]

My cheese is obviously not of merchantable quality

on this occassion

[Mehrunes]

If you would do that in a game with me I would pack up my army and go...

[expendablecinc]

FMMMMMMMM

In the above, F is a field fortification, deployed 15" in from the rear edge in the center third of the board, and facing toward the board's SIDE edge (which would be to the left.

MMMMMMMM is a unit of medium foot facing toward the enemy rear edge (which is at the top), deployed between the "flank lines" of the fortifications 15" from the rear edge of the board.

Is the foot unit entirely "behind" the fortifications, and thus legally deployed?

as the rule is written - yes
but would any umpire rule in its favour - unlikely

if you acknowledge that :
FEEEEEEEEE
is allowed then so is

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEE{}EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

ie your entire army "behind" at least one fortification (one facing left the other facing right)

a simple change to replace 'behind' to 'defending' would fix it but dont know if this is in V2

[iversonjm]

if you acknowledge that :
FEEEEEEEEE
is allowed then so is

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEE{}EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

ie your entire army "behind" at least one fortification (one facing left the other facing right)

a simple change to replace 'behind' to 'defending' would fix it but dont know if this is in V2

I was wondering when someone was going to reach that conclusion. And yes that is the obvious implication.

Definitely something that has to fixed in v2.

[kal5056]

Could simply be fixed by kicking anyone that tries it in gonads.

Gino
SMAC

[hazelbark]

Could simply be fixed by kicking anyone that tries it in gonads.

Gino
SMAC

I think the "official" RBS proposal was punch in the nose.

[iversonjm]

Could simply be fixed by kicking anyone that tries it in gonads.

Gino
SMAC

I think the "official" RBS proposal was punch in the nose.

No, there is a real issue here that needs to be dealt with. Presumably there would be no problem deploying a column of troops behind a single fortification placed parallel to the rear board edge. How about a fortification placed at 45'? 60'? 89'? The boundary between permissible and impermissible ought to be defined.

[kal5056]

I think we should all agree that it means "Defending" and so only bases defending fortifications can be deployed. Perhaps allow a third rank for a little cheese.

Gino
SMAC

[expendablecinc]

Could simply be fixed by kicking anyone that tries it in gonads.

Gino
SMAC

I think the "official" RBS proposal was punch in the nose.

All good except that there is a graduation of offense and while its unclear it is hard to tell when to apply th epunch to the nose.


eg this all started a year ago when 'quite reasonably IMO' my opponent set up 4 FF in teh cetnre line at 15 inches, another BG defending them and another one 2 inches behind it. Arguing that both are fully behind the FF. Seemed all good as you dont need to be defending the FF.

FFFFF
AAAA

BBBB

Then the rear one wanted to be at an angle so they could march straight ahead and miss the FF on the first turn. still seemed ok.

Then what if they set up the rear BG facing 90 degrees to the left. Ie they start out hiding behind FF and pounce out to the left....


Then the frotn BG is removed completely - having a BG actually defending the FF is nto mandatory...


Then you switch the whole formation 45 degrees sor 90degrees. this is then exactly the same as my original hyperbolic leap to

AAAAAAAA{}BBBBBBBB

[gozerius]

Behind is such a big concept.

I personnally interpret "completely behind FF" to mean that the BG in question is to the rear of a line extending the rear edge of the FF and completely within lines extending the ends of the FF to the rear table edge. Thus the FF is fully interposed between the BG and the nearest points of the enemy deployment area.
So a single FF facing the side edge would not be sufficient for a BG to claim the increased deployment depth.

[gozerius]

Substituting the word "defending" rather than "behind" is insufficient to address this issue because a BG is defending a FF if it is in contact with the rear edge of the FF. There is no requirement that it be facing the same direction. In fact, the rules specifically state that the front edge of FF counts as the front edge of the BG defending them, including for shooting ranges. It further states that if not already facing the part of the FF being attacked the bases are turned to face.

[Mehrunes]

Then you simply change the definition of 'defending' ?
Come on, it's not that difficult.

[gozerius]

Better to clarify what is meant by behind fortifications, since this is the stumbling block. I favor the broader flexibility to deploy behind fortifications without being required to be in contact with them. But I also find that the loose way the rule is currently worded begs cheesy deployments.
If I build a line of FF across my front I should be able to deploy anywhere between them and my rear edge.
FF not facing the enemy deployment area should provide no deployment benefit.

[lawrenceg]

Behind is such a big concept.

I personnally interpret "completely behind FF" to mean that the BG in question is to the rear of a line extending the rear edge of the FF and completely within lines extending the ends of the FF to the rear table edge. Thus the FF is fully interposed between the BG and the nearest points of the enemy deployment area.
So a single FF facing the side edge would not be sufficient for a BG to claim the increased deployment depth.

You would probably need something like

All lines from the BG to the enemy rear table edge and perpendicuar to that edge, must pass through friendly field fortifications.

THis is probably more or less what was intended, although some fairly reasonable-looking deployments defending FF at a slight angle would be ruled out unless you extend the FF beyond the front edge of the BG.