Page 1 of 1
Burst Through
Posted: Sat Nov 26, 2011 2:42 pm
by RPHUey
We had a situation where an impact foot unit failed it's test not to charge, and it was forced to burst through a friently LF unit in front. The LF was disordered and displaced to make room for the charging unit. However, in order to displace the LF, two other heavy foot units behind had to be displaced as well to make room.
Question : If a unit is burst through and/or displaced during the Impact Phase, can it then move in the following Movement Phase?
Posted: Sat Nov 26, 2011 5:51 pm
by david53
Yes they can IIRC not sure the page don't have the rules with me.
Posted: Sat Nov 26, 2011 6:15 pm
by dave_r
david53 wrote:Yes they can IIRC not sure the page don't have the rules with me.
Start of movement - a unit may move as long as it did not charge in the impact phase. Being displaced is not charging (and neither is pursuing either)
Posted: Sat Nov 26, 2011 6:50 pm
by berthier
They can move. It's covered in tha FAQ.
Posted: Sat Nov 26, 2011 8:34 pm
by bbotus
berthier wrote:They can move. It's covered in tha FAQ.
The specific reference is FAQ v5.01, paragraph 6. DISPLACEMENT: "....A displacement is not a move....."
Start of movement - a unit may move as long as it did not charge in the impact phase. Being displaced is not charging (and neither is pursuing either)
Respectfully disagree on the "(and neither is pursuing either)". Look at FAQ Paragraph 4.ix: It says troops that charged, pursued or evaded in the impact phase cannot move in the manoeuvre phase. Now if you meant that troops pursuing in the last JAP? Then, yes, they could move in the next manoeuvre phase assuming they did not maintain contact.
Posted: Sat Nov 26, 2011 8:45 pm
by philqw78
bbotus wrote:Respectfully disagree on the "(and neither is pursuing either)".
Mr Ruddock said that and he deserves no respect
Posted: Sat Nov 26, 2011 9:02 pm
by bbotus
philqw78 wrote:bbotus wrote:Respectfully disagree on the "(and neither is pursuing either)".
Mr Ruddock said that and he deserves no respect
And yet, you address him as MR RUDDOCK! We, from the other side of the ocean have a lot to learn about the ways of you chaps over there
Posted: Sat Nov 26, 2011 10:01 pm
by philqw78
Addressing him as Ruddock would be rude. Calling him Dave may make him think we are friends
Posted: Sat Nov 26, 2011 10:14 pm
by dave_r
philqw78 wrote:Addressing him as Ruddock would be rude. Calling him Dave may make him think we are friends
You owe me sixteen quid.
Posted: Sat Nov 26, 2011 10:25 pm
by philqw78
Whatever Ruddock
Posted: Sat Nov 26, 2011 11:06 pm
by dave_r
philqw78 wrote:Whatever Ruddock
A hundred and sixteen quid then
Posted: Sun Nov 27, 2011 6:19 am
by hazelbark
Dave are you recalling your statement on pursuing given the citation?