Who can fight?

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Mon Jan 16, 2012 4:59 pm

grahambriggs wrote:I don't think any of this leaves you without a gap. So perhaps this is in conflict with the BG definition section?

A front rank base comes off. Then replace that base with one out of the middle, then shuffle up would still leave the LH in contact if only by 10mm.

When it happens to a line of 4 knights in contact at both ends it gives a bit of a get out. The knight base that took most hits is removed, replaced and then shuffle up to fill the gap, getting away from the BG doing most hits.

I think there may be something in there about the enemy being able to shuffle up as well though. Not sure.

gozerius · Post by **gozerius** » Mon Jan 16, 2012 8:39 pm

That is covered by allowing a BG which is corner contact to shift sideways to line up in his maneuver phase. A BG which was facing in two directions might find itself subject to a second flank attack if the base removed was the base facing the side, which is why the losing player gets to decide which way to shuffle.

One thing we did not discuss about this is what happens to the 3rd knight base as it is contacted on the side by the LH expanding. This is what I believe the OP originally tried to do in image 1, which is why the bases are not lined up. Were I ruling on this I would not allow the expansion, as there is not enough room.

But let us assume that in a similar situation where the LH did have enough room to expand, they would contact both knight 2 and 3. According to the turning rules, since both knight base 2 and 3 were contacted, they would both turn. and would have to be at least as wide as before they turned, so would be side by side in the same rank as 4, rather than one behind the other. The LH would then shift to line up fully with 3 and 4.

geoff · Post by **geoff** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 7:19 am

dave_r wrote: When you resort to insults you have already lost the argument. Usual post from Geoff in that the dummy comes out of the pram when something happens he doesn't like.

I agree regarding insults and after reviewing my post admit it was unacceptable. Maybe you could review your own posts and note the insulting tone of many of them and modify your own behaviour for the future.
Regarding your dummy comment, I resent it. Anyone who knows me will tell you it is Teddy who is thrown out of the cot....there are no dummies involved.

Geoff

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:41 am

gozerius wrote:That is covered by allowing a BG which is corner contact to shift sideways to line up in his maneuver phase.

Corner to corner contacts do not conform. The only way to get into combat from corner to corner is to charge.

grahambriggs · Post by **grahambriggs** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 1:33 pm

gozerius wrote:That is covered by allowing a BG which is corner contact to shift sideways to line up in his maneuver phase. A BG which was facing in two directions might find itself subject to a second flank attack if the base removed was the base facing the side, which is why the losing player gets to decide which way to shuffle.

So if the LH do the most casualties, the base facing them is lost. I suppose the knight base next to them would end up having to turn and partially be in contact with the LH (not sure the base loss rules strictly allow this but it seems the action that breaks the rules least). If the Knight movement turn is next they just stay there, if the LH movement turn is next the LH would have to try to line up.

dave_r · Post by **dave_r** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 2:27 pm

geoff wrote:
dave_r wrote: When you resort to insults you have already lost the argument. Usual post from Geoff in that the dummy comes out of the pram when something happens he doesn't like.
I agree regarding insults and after reviewing my post admit it was unacceptable. Maybe you could review your own posts and note the insulting tone of many of them and modify your own behaviour for the future.
Regarding your dummy comment, I resent it. Anyone who knows me will tell you it is Teddy who is thrown out of the cot....there are no dummies involved.

Geoff

No probs. I was trying to remove opinion from the argument and get a definitive view. This can sometimes come across as abrupt.

During a game its easy you just call the umpire to sort it out

well unless the umpire is an author....

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 3:00 pm

dave_r wrote: well unless the umpire is an author....

Or called Dave

shadowdragon · Post by **shadowdragon** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 3:21 pm

dave_r wrote:No probs. I was trying to remove opinion from the argument and get a definitive view. This can sometimes come across as abrupt.

During a game its easy you just call the umpire to sort it out well unless the umpire is an author....

Removing opinion from a debate amongst wargamers??? A Sisyphian task if there ever was one!

For my American friends:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sisyphus

gozerius · Post by **gozerius** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 6:59 pm

philqw78 wrote:
gozerius wrote:That is covered by allowing a BG which is corner contact to shift sideways to line up in his maneuver phase.
Corner to corner contacts do not conform. The only way to get into combat from corner to corner is to charge.

Please reread the situations covered in the section "In contact, but not committed to close combat". They cover side edge to side edge contact as well as corner to corner, not counting as an overlap.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 7:33 pm

gozerius wrote:Please reread the situations covered in the section "In contact, but not committed to close combat". They cover side edge to side edge contact as well as corner to corner, not counting as an overlap.

D'oh. So you can.