Slitherine

Does a BG have to maintain a legal formation when feeding bases into a melee?

Eg - the BG starts as 4 bases in column. Due to intervening enemy it can only feed 1 base into melee, giving it 3 bases in 1 file and 1 base in the other.

_________________
Pete

I'm climbing Mount Kilimanjaro in November to raise money for Cancer Research UK. Please visit our Just Giving page if you wish to make a donation. Thanks for your support. http://www.justgiving.com/Paul-Jackson1

Yes is my view - there is no exemption to this in the section on formation. Of course we may alter that in vs 2.0 in due course. Not sure it needs and FAQ as I think I am just confirming that we should play it as it is written. But let me know if wrong.

Si

How do you measure the "Shortest Neccessary Movement" to conform after impact when a Pivot is involved in the movement?
1) Simultaneous Pivot and Movement or
2) Pivot first then movement

Thank You
Gino
SMAC

Again personal view is just measure the distances. I have always measured the front 2 corners and taken the shortest move. Again if we need an official FAQ on it I will confirm with RBS and TS.

Si

shall wrote:

How do you measure the "Shortest Neccessary Movement" to conform after impact when a Pivot is involved in the movement?
1) Simultaneous Pivot and Movement or
2) Pivot first then movement

Thank You
Gino
SMAC

Again personal view is just measure the distances. I have always measured the front 2 corners and taken the shortest move. Again if we need an official FAQ on it I will confirm with RBS and TS.

Si

I think you three might need to do a FAQ on this Si. Some people think it's front corners, some the centre of the element, etc, etc.

Ok will bounce that across to the private forum and agree something and FAQ it.

Si

Can a BG that is sacking a camp but has not passed the CMT to stop looting evade a charge from an enemy battle group?

On the one hand, the rules say troops eligible to evade can as long as they are not in close combat to their front.
On the other hand, troops who are looting cannot move away from the camp until they have passed a CMT in the JAP to stop looting.

I've played no, but looked at the rule when Marc stated yes, since they aren't in close combat, on another thread. I couldn't find an entry already in the FAQ.

Do light foot have to pass a CMT to charge unbroken non-skirmishers when not in open terrain?

There is nothing in the rules on page 60 that say they do. I don't know whether there is a general rule somewhere but I would expect it to be here. In the sequence of play there is a line to remind to make a CMT for skirmishers wishing to charge non-skirmishers.

Do light foot have to pass a CMT to charge unbroken non-skirmishers when not in open terrain?

I do not believe they do.

What's the status on the new FAQ?

See thread with the title above. There needs to a a definition of how to reduce dice when then can't be reduced in proportion to their original numbers.

hazelbark wrote:What's the status on the new FAQ?

How about by Christmas?

hazelbark wrote:

hazelbark wrote:What's the status on the new FAQ?

How about by Christmas?

Nudge.

petedalby wrote:

Do light foot have to pass a CMT to charge unbroken non-skirmishers when not in open terrain?

I do not believe they do.

Mainly because they can't!!!

LF cannot charge any non-skirmishers in the open. Even if they are fragmented. And it is a rear charge.

dave_r wrote:

petedalby wrote:

Do light foot have to pass a CMT to charge unbroken non-skirmishers when not in open terrain?

I do not believe they do.

Mainly because they can't!!!

LF cannot charge any non-skirmishers in the open. Even if they are fragmented. And it is a rear charge.

The orginal question asked if the light foot when NOT in open terrain.

Page 60 1st bullet only states that ligt foot cannot charge or intercept unbroken non-skirmishers in OPEN Terrain (even flank or rear). So Ruddock's declaration is wrong.

berthier wrote:

dave_r wrote:

petedalby wrote: I do not believe they do.

Mainly because they can't!!!

LF cannot charge any non-skirmishers in the open. Even if they are fragmented. And it is a rear charge.

The orginal question asked if the light foot when NOT in open terrain.

Page 60 1st bullet only states that ligt foot cannot charge or intercept unbroken non-skirmishers in OPEN Terrain (even flank or rear). So Ruddock's declaration is wrong.

No it isn't. My declaration is 100% correct. It might not have been a declaration that answered the question, but it is still correct....

Your declaration did not answer the original question and you still have not done so.

berthier wrote:Your declaration did not answer the original question and you still have not done so.

Don't need to, it's already been answered.

You were incorrect when you said I was wrong too

berthier wrote:

dave_r wrote:

petedalby wrote: I do not believe they do.

Mainly because they can't!!!

LF cannot charge any non-skirmishers in the open. Even if they are fragmented. And it is a rear charge.

The orginal question asked if the light foot when NOT in open terrain.

Page 60 1st bullet only states that ligt foot cannot charge or intercept unbroken non-skirmishers in OPEN Terrain (even flank or rear). So Ruddock's declaration is wrong.

Firstly, it is the location of the target unit that matters, and if it is not in open terrain then no test is needed to charge. I don't believe the terrain type occupied by the LF is relevant, provided they are in charge reach.

Can we clarify the text of the reforming rules?

As it stands at the moment, it is possible to claim that a unit 4 wide and 2 deep that has been charged in flank and front, and now has two bases facing flank and the remaining six facing forwards, who drive off their frontal opponent, can reform to be 4 wide and two deep facing the flank unit.

This is because they are required to conform to the flanker, or not conform at all, and the text says they must be in as near as possible the same formation as before they lost formation.

It is clear from earlier discussions on this forum that that wasn't the intent - the reforming unit should retain it's original footprint (forming column facing flank in the example above) - but it isn't what the text actually says

When assessing dice lost for Shooting, is the calculation made per shooting BG or per target BG. This has been going in circles and could do with some clarification.

viewtopic.php?t=24645