Slitherine

AA___________BB
AA___________BB
__AA
__AA

A has wheeled so the front of the BG is facing down the page, at the kink the last 2 ranks of A are still facing right. B is knights within 4MU facing left. If the knights charge is this a flank charge


Apologies if this has been asked before. Dave said it had been asked and that B could not flank charge as BG A wasn't facing in the direction it was going (now down the page) but in all the directions the bases were facing. Meaning that if it continued to wheel it could form cantabrian circle and never be charged in the flank

I had a different opinion to Dave, though that may be stating the obvious

Time for some more pictures:



In this instance, the Blue BG clearly has a base behind the flank of the front of the Red column. Surely that means that it is able to charge the flank? Dave's logic is that the red column also counts as facing in the direction of the rear base and therefore the Blue BG would also need to have a base behind the line extending the front of that base. To borrow one of Phil's favourite expressions, this is complete arse.



This shows a BG that IS facing in two directions, caused by turning bases following a flank charge. In this case any charger must satisfy the condition of being behind both fronts. Blue 1 meets this condition and could declare a Flank or Rear charge, however Blue 1 only has a base behind the flank of the bases facing up the table, not those facing to the right and so cannot declare a Flank Charge.

But I am grateful to Dave for kindly providing examples of the kind of weaselly nonsense that I warned about near the start of this thread!

kevinj wrote:Time for some more pictures:

This raises the great column debate! According to lawrenceg your column may not be kinked correctly:



Stands back. Fetches popcorn.

Nice try Martin, my kink is analagous to the one in Lawrence's 3rd example, except in my picture the leading base has travelled an extra distance equal to one base depth!

When you say "complete arse" can you show me where it states this in the rules?

I can very readily show where it states the charge is not considered a flank charge.

I will accept that the term "complete arse" does not appear in the rules.

Where does it say that this would not be a flank charge?

kevinj wrote:I will accept that the term "complete arse" does not appear in the rules.

Where does it say that this would not be a flank charge?

The bit that states "if a BG is facing in more than one direction then the above condition must be met for all facings".

Where the statement above talks about being behind the flank of a base.

Where does it specify that a kinked column is facing in more than one direction? Unless you can provide a rule reference I will continue to believe that the BGs facing is that of its front rank base or bases.

kevinj wrote:Where does it specify that a kinked column is facing in more than one direction? Unless you can provide a rule reference I will continue to believe that the BGs facing is that of its front rank base or bases.

So what you are stating is that a BG charged in its rear that only turns its rear ranks is not fighting in two directions?

No, I am stating that a column with a kink is facing in the direction of its front rank base for the purposes of establishing if a potential flank charger is behind the flank and that the direction faced by any base behind this that is not the same does not count as facing in a different direction.

kevinj wrote:No, I am stating that a column with a kink is facing in the direction of its front rank base for the purposes of establishing if a potential flank charger is behind the flank and that the direction faced by any base behind this that is not the same does not count as facing in a different direction.

I would logically state that the BG has bases facing in more than one direction, therefore it is facing in more than one direction.

You are seemingly using a spurious argument that differs depending upon the situation to achieve the result you want?

dave_r wrote:

kevinj wrote:Where does it specify that a kinked column is facing in more than one direction? Unless you can provide a rule reference I will continue to believe that the BGs facing is that of its front rank base or bases.

So what you are stating is that a BG charged in its rear that only turns its rear ranks is not fighting in two directions?

Out of order.
Dave please stick with pedantic point. You are addign a situation that includes new part of the rules.

dave_r wrote: I would logically state that the BG has bases facing in more than one direction, therefore it is facing in more than one direction.

You are seemingly using a spurious argument that differs depending upon the situation to achieve the result you want?

Actually Dave it could equally be logically stated that you are twisting the rules for game-like purposes to achieve a Gamey-advantage that will continue the cycle of degrading interest in the game.

continue the cycle of degrading interest in the game.

Yes, you can't buy the rules in a shop so it will have fewer and fewer people playing.

Never mind, I have decided to write my own free rule set , publish on line and anyone can print for free.

I've just started writing it but it looks promising so far
Rule 1
Dave is wrong

I would logically state that the BG has bases facing in more than one direction, therefore it is facing in more than one direction.

And I would state that, logically, this is nonsense.

You are seemingly using a spurious argument that differs depending upon the situation to achieve the result you want?

No, I have consistently stated that the relevant front facing is that of the lead base of the column. It was you that added the spurious case of a BG charged in the rear.

dave_r wrote:

kevinj wrote:Where does it specify that a kinked column is facing in more than one direction? Unless you can provide a rule reference I will continue to believe that the BGs facing is that of its front rank base or bases.

So what you are stating is that a BG charged in its rear that only turns its rear ranks is not fighting in two directions?

it is because the rules explicitly state that it is, hence a minus in combat.

The rules also give the circumstances when a BG must face 2 or more directions.(except orb)

They cannot do it voluntarily.

kevinj wrote:Nice try Martin, my kink is analogous to the one in Lawrence's 3rd example, except in my picture the leading base has travelled an extra distance equal to one base depth!

Ah! The "I've moved it on a bit" defence.

Enjoying the popcorn?

kevinj wrote:Enjoying the popcorn?

Hmmm
Is this pick on Ruddock hour , or is Dave are now living in a house made of glass.
So as not to pick on Dave (as usual)

1. I think its already been pointed out by more than 1 person, that unless you move units correctly at the point of wheel, then things get "bolloxed up".
2. If you move around in columns close to the enemy, I think the rules were redesigned so you will lose. (because you did something really really stupid )
and ......
3. Dave... I remember Hammy once said in your direction "it does not say in the rules that I can't jump up and down on your figures either "

So I think we should initaite the "pointy stick" rule at this point.... if someone is being cheezy, then a sharp poke in the ribs with the aforementioned stick will stop that

S