Phil's River of never breaking.

[hazelbark]

At the ITC we had a good one.

Opponent (phil) send a flank march of an FC and 2 BGs of CV on the side with a river (that he put down to get the bowling alley effect with a road he put down). We diced it was difficult.

So turn 2 he get his flank march.
(sorry the whole story is good not just the rule point)
Turn 3 he starts to double move on and I say, remember they only move 1 MU.
He says I thought they moved 2. I don't have my rule book you sure.
I look. Yep. 1 MU.
He looks at me and says they can't come on.
I say, they come on oen base deep. Whoops. Bases are 30 mm. whoops.
Phil says I'm going for a smoke.

So the rules don't say what happens. Other than they keep trying to get on. (we rolled and they did not straggle)
SO...
Q1 Does he get the benefits of the 2 BGs bulking his army and no penalty for them being unable to arrive.
Q2 Did he do it intentionally to barely avoid a total humiliating defeat and settled for just a sound thrashing?

[hazelbark]

PS my thought is they should count as straggling. Note the commander could come on.

[philqw78]

I had brought up a couple of things along the same lines on this forum previously.

As the rules stand you can send enough stuff on flank marches so that your army can never be broken

There are at least 3 occasions where flank marches can never arrive. Previous to this I thought there was only 2.

[philqw78]

On this point

Q2 Did he do it intentionally to barely avoid a total humiliating defeat and settled for just a sound thrashing?

You will be biting the pillow next time we meet Dan.

[hazelbark]

You will be biting the pillow next time we meet Dan.

Promises. Promises.

[nikgaukroger]

As the whole thing is caused by the artificial edge of the world I think I would have ruled that the BG can make it's first on table move as 1 base depth - but that it had to arrive 1 base deep because of this.

[grahambriggs]

Well, I call that a nasty lawyerly trick.

The rule is "Any battle groups that cannot fit onto the table this turn must arrive in their side‟s next turn or the first turn thereafter when space is available"

Since you say they could double move, they can move 2x1MU. Thus they can fit on.

Even with a single move, why did you think the troops can't come on? Just because the bases don't completely fit? I'd argue that they can fit as most of the bases are on. And even if that is ruled out, they will enter next turn: the rule allows them to arrive in the next turn, whether they fit or not, as I read it.

Perhaps you have read the section on troops LEAVING the table and thought it applied to troops ENTERING the table?

Still, if umpiring I might rule in your favour as:

- to flank march on that side is the act of a Grade A donkey of the first water.
-it's Phil.

[philqw78]

Cobtrary to Dan's belief, and I find it hard to believe that he is an arrogant Yank (but it seems he could be ), I did want the troops to come on table.

[hazelbark]

To clear up a few things.

I did want them to come on so I could break Phil's army and demote him to ruddock status as a subject nation.

I did not think they didn't come on, until Phil pointed that out. Then we were trying to find clarity in the rules.

I could see lots of way to wangle the troops on or count them as lost. What I don't think is right but the rules suggest is they are neither on, but they help keep his army from breaking.

Note for the record. I am sure Phil had a plan that if they came on they would have valiantly tried to inflict losses.

[zoltan]

But surely if Phil (truly) wanted them to come on, and you wanted them to come on, you could have simply agreed the rules were an arse, moved the bases on and discussed it in the pub later?

Seems oddly public spirited of Phil to let the rules get in the way of a good wheeze!

[philqw78]

Well, I call that a nasty lawyerly trick.

But surely if Phil (truly) wanted them to come on.......Seems oddly public spirited of Phil to let the rules get in the way of a good wheeze!

I am F pissed off that anyone thinks I did this deliberatley to avoid defeat.

[hazelbark]

I am F pissed off that anyone thinks I did this deliberatley to avoid defeat.

You absolutely did not do it for this reason. I'd call you a gentleman, but you might take that as an insult. Now Dave R will say sh*t about you is another matter.

For all, it was clearly a cock up. The issue was the rules had a hole.

[hazelbark]

But surely if Phil (truly) wanted them to come on, and you wanted them to come on, you could have simply agreed the rules were an arse, moved the bases on and discussed it in the pub later?

Well it hadn't occured to me and I suspect that Phil had the same reaction, we could agree to ignore the rules.

I think we both were shocked about the situation and frankly looked to the rules for guidance and found none.

It was more of a slack jawed moment than a cunning wheeze.

[grahambriggs]

An impassable river might have been interesting: "No troops can enter. Any troops forced into it are destroyed"

[ericdoman1]

Hi

Wondering if Tim has a "Dave's Pants" equivalent for FOG on his site.

Well I am going to start playing a little bit more, maybe and so there should be plent of those from me.

Could they have come on with boats, waders, bridging equipment LOL

Based on my very limited knowledge of FOG-TT, I would umpire that as stragglers or even lost therefore a min of 2 bps lost. Not sure what happens if a commander is lost.

Reading the rules as we speak.

See you at Derby and BTW anybody playing FOG-TT in South Wales. Preferably about 15 miles from the Rhondda valleys.

Cheers

Eric

[gozerius]

It would be simpler if an army's break point was based on APs on table. Then an army with 9 BGs initially deployed and 3 on a flank march would break after 9 APs until the arrival of the flank march, 12 after it's arrival. Assuming no flank marching BGs straggled. This would be consistant with the current loss of 1 AP when an unbroken BG leaves the table.

[grahambriggs]

It would be simpler if an army's break point was based on APs on table. Then an army with 9 BGs initially deployed and 3 on a flank march would break after 9 APs until the arrival of the flank march, 12 after it's arrival. Assuming no flank marching BGs straggled. This would be consistant with the current loss of 1 AP when an unbroken BG leaves the table.

Not sure if that would be simpler - the current system is simple enough.

This change would make flank marches a worse idea. And, in my opinion, they are quite nicely balanced at present. There are some circumstances and armies that they can be a good idea with. But not so much as to spoil the game.

[ethan]

There just needs to be a simple "an army which fails to bring BGs which have rolled to arrive counts them as straggling."