Page 1 of 1
feeding more base
Posted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 8:53 am
by zeitoun
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?
Posted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 8:59 am
by zeitoun
Posted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 9:45 am
by marioslaz
I would say yes, because even if you cannot conform, in melee you fight has you do it, so it ought to be legal
Posted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 9:53 am
by zeitoun
So do I , but I didn't find the rule to confirm that.
Posted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 12:31 pm
by petedalby
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
Posted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 12:51 pm
by Polkovnik
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.
Posted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:11 pm
by zeitoun
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.
Posted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:36 pm
by philqw78
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.
Posted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:42 pm
by rogerg
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'.
Posted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 8:51 pm
by petedalby
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
Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:59 am
by marioslaz
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.
Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:06 am
by philqw78
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.
Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:55 am
by shall
This is fine...
You are expanding to remove an existing overlap
You are allowed to breech formation when you cannot conform
Si
Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 7:19 am
by zeitoun
thanks for all.
Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 4:20 pm
by petedalby
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
Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:35 pm
by philqw78
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
