Slitherine

kal5056 wrote:
Again disagreement is probably why we play wargames. We could all get together and scrapbook if we want to play nice.

Gino
SMAC

Thanks for putting up with my rant Gino. At least we should be able to get clarification from the authors as to whether p. 23 was intended to cover expansions, which ought to resolve the issue. Authors?

BTW, I'm fairly sure that you CAN charge a unit in the flank when within 1", it just doesn't count as a flank charge. It counts as a frontal charge...

iversonjm wrote: BTW, I'm fairly sure that you CAN charge a unit in the flank when within 1", it just doesn't count as a flank charge. It counts as a frontal charge...

I assume you are actually talking about wheeling in a charge onto the flank when starting within 1MU - as you can charge when starting within 1 MU - and indeed if you wheel it does not count as a flank charge, but can be made.

iversonjm wrote:

kal5056 wrote:
Again disagreement is probably why we play wargames. We could all get together and scrapbook if we want to play nice.

Gino
SMAC

Thanks for putting up with my rant Gino. At least we should be able to get clarification from the authors as to whether p. 23 was intended to cover expansions, which ought to resolve the issue. Authors?

BTW, I'm fairly sure that you CAN charge a unit in the flank when within 1", it just doesn't count as a flank charge. It counts as a frontal charge...

Yeah that is what I meant....but in the rear it counts as a flank charge even if you wheel.

Gino
SMAC

kal5056 wrote:Yeah that is what I meant....but in the rear it counts as a flank charge even if you wheel.

Gino
SMAC

It doesn't count as a flank charge if in the rear.

philqw78 wrote:

kal5056 wrote:Yeah that is what I meant....but in the rear it counts as a flank charge even if you wheel.

Gino
SMAC

It doesn't count as a flank charge if in the rear.

A charge into the rear that wheels within 1mu DOES count as a flank charge.

The rules states that you cannot wheel within 1MU to create a FLANK charge it does not say you cannot wheel to within 1 MU to create a FLANK or REAR charge.

Gino
SMAC

kal5056 wrote:

philqw78 wrote:

kal5056 wrote:Yeah that is what I meant....but in the rear it counts as a flank charge even if you wheel.

Gino
SMAC

It doesn't count as a flank charge if in the rear.

A charge into the rear that wheels within 1mu DOES count as a flank charge.

The rules states that you cannot wheel within 1MU to create a FLANK charge it does not say you cannot wheel to within 1 MU to create a FLANK or REAR charge.

Gino
SMAC

I think you'll find a charge in the rear counts as a rear charge and a charge in the flank counts as a flank charge. Except when you wheel within 1 MU in which case it isn't a flank charge either. But would still be a rear charge

I guess I am saying this poorly.

If you must wheel within 1 MU to hit a flank of a BG it does not count as a flank charge for purposes of POA's
However if you wheel within 1 MU to hit the Rear of a BG you do get the benefit of the rear charge for purposes of POA's

I did not mean to hijack this thread. I just offered an example of when a rule can be played one way by a lot of people for a long time and suddenly pointed out as incorrect.

Gino
SMAC

kal5056 wrote:I guess I am saying this poorly.

If you must wheel within 1 MU to hit a flank of a BG it does not count as a flank charge for purposes of POA's
However if you wheel within 1 MU to hit the Rear of a BG you do get the benefit of the rear charge for purposes of POA's

I did not mean to hijack this thread. I just offered an example of when a rule can be played one way by a lot of people for a long time and suddenly pointed out as incorrect.

Gino
SMAC

We all know what you mean Gino, we are just winding you up. Steve Payne found out this very rule to his cost at the ITC in Lisbon....

Oh I see. Wasn't aware of that. Too bad for Team USA.

Gino
SMAC

(Ideally that would also mean it should be covered by a FAQ or something.)

Wouldn't that be nice. Don't get your hopes up. The authors seem to have lost interest in the current version.

Rear charge within 1 MU is covered in the errata. 1st page at the top.

berthier wrote:Rear charge within 1 MU is covered in the errata. 1st page at the top.

Yes but a frontal charge in the flank isn't

And a frontal charge in the flank is particularly addressed in the FAQ #4 iii

iversonjm wrote:Okay, time for a nice Thanksgiving rant.

Sorry to disrupt thanksgiving. Those rants are best served to the family member sitting two to your right.

To begin with, Dan, I’m fairly sure that you (but perhaps it was Crouteau) taught me this prevent-expansion-by-side-overlap trick, although I have no memory of whether you engineered it deliberately. I do recall, however, that when you (or Crouteau) pointed out the rule on p. 23, it was crystal clear. “In general, troops must be in a rectangular formation” and”there are four exceptions to this general case.”

I doubt it was me, we haven't faced each other in awhile. Crotteau is the smary lawyer type.
However i won't plead innocent to trying to beat you. Not recalling the specific example I generally don't recall citing p 23 being unable to expand out of normal in recorded memory. I perhaps fall into the lenient category and have probably allowed to much feeding bases in, unless they are physically blocked. I have a vague recollection of some exchange betweeen you and I at Historicon about formations. But as we did not face each other it was kibbitzing and honestly don't remember details, but it was something about regular formations. But i think it was post game discussion. I do CLEARLY remember you saying after you looked it up, that i was right. This also was likely FOGR.

iversonjm wrote: I should be able to know that when I play a game in a tournament in Boston, or Austin, or Manchester, or Antarctica, that I am playing the same game, by the same rules, and I can do the same things and get the same results.

agreed

A “malicious” tactic is one that I think up and use against you. A “smart” tactic is one you think up and use against me.

Could not disagree more. I disagree with this kind of relativism in many places. I had a whole lot of game examples, but the wifi konked and the thoughts are on the ethernet.

There are clever bastard moves. There are moves that I should have known better about. (see the rear bit or the ruddock count all the bases eligible to fight bit, etc). Then there are gross cheese distortion of the game. The classic in another rule system was the abilty to deploy in such a way that it was virtually impossible to legally contact for close combat. That tactic as it was deployed with agressive malice on unsuspecting new players was detrimental to the hobby.

You and i in Austin and i believe a year or two back in Lancaster where we both employed cunning moves for advantage, but none were taken from loopholes in the rules. Both of us had some clever stuff. Neither of us IIRC were malicious.

iversonjm wrote:I just want to know what the rule is before the issue comes up. What I don’t want is the loosy-goosy system of bringing the ump over to determine if a situation is sufficiently “malicious” to allow an expand.

Agreed

But if anyone who posted on this thread ever tries to tell ME I can’t expand into an illegal formation, rest assured that I WILL punch you in the nose.

Now we see the lawyer trick.
We all were talking about "feeding bases" into contact. You want permission to "exapnd" you 1 base wide column of pike 8 widths in a manuver phase. Don't go inserting a new clause in the contract Mr Lucifier. We know your tricks.

philqw78 wrote:The green BG charged to contact. It looked a lot like this



Can it expand in the melee?


My opponent said no, as there was no room. I said there clearly was. As in:



He said this was not legal contact so there was no room as I could not conform. So we rolled a dice, I lost and I had to be outnumbered 2:1 for a turn until he conformed to me. It didn't really matter as I broke both BG of sheep worriers anyway.

Whats your opinion, even better if you own some rules.

IMHO you should be allowed to expanded.

Here goes my reasoning if you where 3x2 rather than 2x3 that is the formation you would have been in therefore a legal formation, and you are not blocked by a base from a unit you are not in combat with, so conforming should have lined the units therefore there would be space for you to expand into. hope that makes sense.

I guess there is no hope to actually get an author's ruling on expanding before the National Team Tournament in January?

Rob

Check out page 70 second column in parentheses "a battle group must reform before it can make any voluntary movement EXCEPT to feed more bases into an existing melle." Chris Johnston found that saturday and I think it ends this debate. I am paraphrasing because my book is not handy.
Gino
SMAC

kal5056 wrote:Rob

Check out page 70 second column in parentheses "a battle group must reform before it can make any voluntary movement EXCEPT to feed more bases into an existing melle." Chris Johnston found that saturday and I think it ends this debate. I am paraphrasing because my book is not handy.
Gino
SMAC

I just read it and you are close enough to the actual wording. That helps but doesn't totally end the discussion. We can't find anything that specifically allows a BG that is formed to feed more bases into a melee and become unformed in the process. This is the part that needs clarification from the authors.

NOTE: At this point it appears that "most?" umpires would rule to allow the unit to become unformed while feeding more bases into a melee to prevent geometrical ploys.