feeding more base

zeitoun · Post by **zeitoun** » Mon Jun 15, 2009 8:53 am

A and B are CV battle groups.
C is HCH battle group.

This is C turn. C charge , then resolve Impact phase . In this situation he cannot conform. But Can he feed one base into combat to the left or the right?

zeitoun · Post by **zeitoun** » Mon Jun 15, 2009 8:59 am

http://zepload.com/images/1245059580_feeding.jpg

marioslaz · Post by **marioslaz** » Mon Jun 15, 2009 9:45 am

I would say yes, because even if you cannot conform, in melee you fight has you do it, so it ought to be legal

zeitoun · Post by **zeitoun** » Mon Jun 15, 2009 9:53 am

So do I , but I didn't find the rule to confirm that.

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Mon Jun 15, 2009 12:31 pm

This may seem harsh, but from your diagram the answer would appear to be no, because there is no room for you to physically expand.

In the following turn, your opponent would conform to you - and you could then match one of his overlaps.

Pete

Polkovnik · Post by **Polkovnik** » Mon Jun 15, 2009 12:51 pm

It seems to reward the angled deployment, but then I suppose it's also punishing the chariots for attacking in column. Expand before moving to charge range and the problem wouldn't exist.

zeitoun · Post by **zeitoun** » Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:11 pm

seems to reward the angled deployment, but then I suppose it's also punishing the chariots for attacking in column. Expand before moving to charge range and the problem wouldn't exist.

My opponent move his cavalry to this position. I could not deployed before. I thought it 'a a strange mouvement not in the spirit of the rule. It can be clarified with a confomation of the opponent if you can not conform during your turn or to let the Chariot deployed like they are conform.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:36 pm

For what its worth I think you can. But I haven't got the rules here to back me up. You have room to do it, you just won't be conformed.

rogerg · Post by **rogerg** » Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:42 pm

If 'C' had conformed it would have fed a base in. I have never played anyone who would object to that. It seems to me a clear use of the 'fight as if they had conformed rule'.

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Mon Jun 15, 2009 8:51 pm

I'd be happy to do this - and have it done to me - but I suspect there are others who would object.

In Phil's expansion the BG is now in an illegal formation.

Pete

marioslaz · Post by **marioslaz** » Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:59 am

petedalby wrote:I'd be happy to do this - and have it done to me - but I suspect there are others who would object.

In Phil's expansion the BG is now in an illegal formation.

Pete

Why? It would be in the same formation if in a charge the BG step forward some bases. See picture at p56.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:06 am

petedalby wrote:I'd be happy to do this - and have In Phil's expansion the BG is now in an illegal formation.

Pete

Why, it has three bases front rank and 1 rear rank which is legal.

shall · Post by **shall** » Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:55 am

This is fine...

You are expanding to remove an existing overlap
You are allowed to breech formation when you cannot conform

Si

zeitoun · Post by **zeitoun** » Tue Jun 16, 2009 7:19 am

thanks for all.

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Wed Jun 17, 2009 4:20 pm

Why? It would be in the same formation if in a charge the BG step forward some bases. See picture at p56.

Excellent point Mario - thank you - I hadn't considered that.

As with so many things we discuss on here, I've never seen it happen - but if it does I now know that I can call on Roger, Phil or Si to back me up!

Cheers guys,

Pete

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:35 pm

petedalby wrote:As with so many things we discuss on here, I've never seen it happen - but if it does I now know that I can call on Roger, Phil or Si to back me up!

Cheers guys,

Pete

Wholeheartedly