Slitherine

It was adjudicated that the po's were defended.

Hence my request for a clarification. I would also Luke it clarified if pp's can be placed in a threat zone.

None of this is a grumble about the decision on the day, it just feels wrong and could get ruled differently at a different time, which would be very annoying.

The POs are counted as FF vs mounted and again from page 121 "Troops count as defending a FF if they are in contact with its rear edge" so I agree the POs were defended according to the definition.

It is in the FAQ that Portable Obstacles can be placed in a restricted area.

Paul[/quote]

It was adjudicated that the po's were defended.

Hence my request for a clarification. I would also Luke it clarified if pp's can be placed in a threat zone.

None of this is a grumble about the decision on the day, it just feels wrong and could get ruled differently at a different time, which would be very annoying.

The POs are counted as FF vs mounted and again from page 121 "Troops count as defending a FF if they are in contact with its rear edge" so I agree the POs were defended according to the definition.

It is in the FAQ that Portable Obstacles can be placed in a restricted area.

Paul

dave_r wrote:It doesn't count as a rear charge - therefore you move to the front don't you? Just like if you hit a BG in the flank that isn't a flank charge - you get moved to the front of the file you hit?

It's certainly a muddy section of the rules, and could do with clarification.

As I see it:

- the chargers think it's a rear charge "For a charge to qualify as a rear charge, the first part of the enemy battle group contacted must be the rear edge of one of its bases."

- but the crossbows don't treat it as such "troops attacked across fortifications they are defending (see the Special Features section) never count as being charged in flank or rear."

So a bit contradictory. But I suspect that means - do your charge as if it were a rear charge but it won't be at ++ poa and the XB won't disrupt.

Once you hit them, you don't need to swing round to the front in Movement - that's only for fudgy flank charges: "A charge which does not qualify as a flank or rear charge can still contact the flank edge of an enemy base, provided that it was not already in melee to its front. Such a charge does not count as a flank or rear charge, and is treated as a normal charge on the enemy front. In the manoeuvre phase the chargers must, if possible, align with the enemy front"

And also, in the PD section "The front edge of the PD is treated as the front edge of the battle group" so you stay fighting them.

Amusingly, that bit also says "including for measuring shooting ranges". So once the XB had turned round you could have had fun arguing they need to maesure shooting from the rear edge of the BG

Bit broken, isn't it?

grahambriggs wrote:Bit broken, isn't it?

Certainly appears that way.

A bit like the blokes army on table two who was meant to be holding out for a draw.

dave_r wrote:

grahambriggs wrote:Bit broken, isn't it?

Certainly appears that way.

A bit like the blokes army on table two who was meant to be holding out for a draw.

Or the bloke offering lessons Friday night.

hazelbark wrote:

dave_r wrote:

grahambriggs wrote:Bit broken, isn't it?

Certainly appears that way.

A bit like the blokes army on table two who was meant to be holding out for a draw.

Or the bloke offering lessons Friday night.

Well, let us look at the facts. I gave you a load of lessons on Friday night - end result - 5th place out of 44 at the Challenge.

In your previous competition without my guidance you finished 13/34.

What does that tell you

hazelbark wrote:

dave_r wrote:

grahambriggs wrote:Bit broken, isn't it?

Certainly appears that way.

A bit like the blokes army on table two who was meant to be holding out for a draw.

Or the bloke offering lessons Friday night.

Well, let us look at the facts. I gave you a load of lessons on Friday night - end result - 5th place out of 44 at the Challenge.

In your previous competition without my guidance you finished 13/34.

What does that tell you

dave_r wrote:What does that tell you

It tells me you are having trouble dealing with your defeat.
Perhaps you need a beer to console your troubles?

It tells us that Dave is wounded by the arrows of contempt that are being shot by others if he has to post his defence twice

You teach somebody all they know and this is the thanks you get. I am genuinely hurt.

dave_r wrote:You teach somebody all they know and this is the thanks you get. I am genuinely hurt.

OK Dave when we meet for our game on Monday I'll let you thrash me. Then we can play toy soldiers. Then, after you've used some 'harsh' interrogation techniques on me, we can play FoG.

It should probably say that troops count as defending fortifications if in

"front edge and alinged contact with the rear edge of the fortiifcation"

And I think all is then clear is it not?

over to the pedants assocation international for testing.

Si

What if it is continuous fortification surrounding the BG. A BG cannot deploy facing in more than one direction. Though it could form Orb when enemy get close enough

<International_Pedant_Mode>

I think Fortifications are OK, the definition of when they are defended is clear and what happens in response to flank/rear contacts is defined and would cover the enclosed BG situation. The hole is in regard to Portable Obstacles and I think Simon's proposal would cover what happens in response to the flank/rear charge and would also allow the BG to have turned but not left the POs behind.

Defenders within a fortification could of course only form orb if equipped with an appropriate pointy stick.

</International_Pedant_Mode>

shall wrote:It should probably say that troops count as defending fortifications if in

"front edge and alinged contact with the rear edge of the fortiifcation"

And I think all is then clear is it not?

over to the pedants assocation international for testing.

Si

Perfect.

Making this kind of call is always tough for an umpire - particularly as it was probably one of the top table games.

FWIW I think you were hard done by Dave.

I agree with Olivier - the BG has moved away from the PO's - it is no longer in front edge contact with them - so they should have been removed.

philqw78 wrote:What if it is continuous fortification surrounding the BG. A BG cannot deploy facing in more than one direction. Though it could form Orb when enemy get close enough

The quotation in the army list notes makes it clear that Han foot did surround themselves with defences when faced by mounted. So it seems reasonable that they should get all round protection.

Or at least protection on the sides where the have obstacles even if not facing that way.

Had another poser with this lasy night V dave.

I charged him in the flank and front. The flank had no PO the front did. So in the melee those contacted to flank counted as fighting in 2 directions those fighting (defending) across the PO do not count as fighting in 2 directions.