Good afternoon:
1. In my shooting phase a hit an opposing reformed infantry unit (small) that is in square 4 times - an outcome move and a cohesion loss.
2. The outcome move is taken - the opponent rolls a 3.
3. The opponent moves his square three inches away from the firing - the unit is now in tactical. BUT does it turn to face the rear having equaled or exceeded its movement? It was in a square when fired at - squares can only move 1 inch - and it has exceeded that - BUT the rules state that a square forced to take an outcome move go three inches and end in tactical - it has equaled that as well. BUT as the unit has changed into tactical (as a result of the outcome move), it has not exceeded a 6 inch move and therefore does not have to turn about?
My reading of the rules leads me to believe that the last option is correct as the outcome move does not say at what time in the firing phase you assess the formation of the target unit - therefore a move of 6+ must be forced in order to make the unit face the rear.
However I am far from convinced about this, what are the views of others?
A square is shot into retirement...
Moderators: philqw78, terrys, hammy, Blathergut, Slitherine Core
Re: A square is shot into retirement...
Wow, good question Kit............just when you think most things have been addressed.........
There definitely seems to be an inconsistency in the rules on this one.
In a normal move a square can only ever move 1MU.
If an outcome move is equal to or greater than a unit's move it ends facing away.
Therefore any retirement by a square would see it facing away, as you can't roll less than 1.......but squares face in all directions, and can only move 1MU as a square.
Yet the 4th bullet point on p.62 implies that a square can retire 2MU and remain as a square, which in itself appears pretty generous.
My immediate reaction is to say that any retirement of greater than 2MU should see the square in tactical facing away - not only are they moving further than their normal allowance, they are changing formation while they do it.
But I agree, the rules are far from definitive about this one.
There definitely seems to be an inconsistency in the rules on this one.
In a normal move a square can only ever move 1MU.
If an outcome move is equal to or greater than a unit's move it ends facing away.
Therefore any retirement by a square would see it facing away, as you can't roll less than 1.......but squares face in all directions, and can only move 1MU as a square.
Yet the 4th bullet point on p.62 implies that a square can retire 2MU and remain as a square, which in itself appears pretty generous.
My immediate reaction is to say that any retirement of greater than 2MU should see the square in tactical facing away - not only are they moving further than their normal allowance, they are changing formation while they do it.
But I agree, the rules are far from definitive about this one.
Re: A square is shot into retirement...
We will see what Terry thinks.
But from first principles the thinking behind making a unit that retires further than its normal movement allowance is that it has done it so hastily that is unable maintain its best order, and original dressing and of course facing.
A FoG(N) infantry unit in square is implicitly more than one square and its facing, as has been pointed out, is not only multiple but the alignment of the individual Btn squares’ facings in the footprint of the unit may not even be symmetrical relative to each other. So it is not so much “Where is the rear?” as “From where did the threat, or firing ,come that gave rise to its retirement ?” (If that is multiple than you have a choice I guess, or bisect the angle).
So logically a square that retires more than its allowed movement distance as a square must cease to have been a square at some point during that movement and given that up to 75% of the unit will have not been facing at, or towards, the threat or firing, causing it to retire , it is even more likely to end up facing away from the original position, so my view would be it ends in tactical facing away from the threat or firing source.
It is even clearer when you think of a retiring infantry unit passing through friends which is not feasible if it is in square, except through deployed guns maybe.
But from first principles the thinking behind making a unit that retires further than its normal movement allowance is that it has done it so hastily that is unable maintain its best order, and original dressing and of course facing.
A FoG(N) infantry unit in square is implicitly more than one square and its facing, as has been pointed out, is not only multiple but the alignment of the individual Btn squares’ facings in the footprint of the unit may not even be symmetrical relative to each other. So it is not so much “Where is the rear?” as “From where did the threat, or firing ,come that gave rise to its retirement ?” (If that is multiple than you have a choice I guess, or bisect the angle).
So logically a square that retires more than its allowed movement distance as a square must cease to have been a square at some point during that movement and given that up to 75% of the unit will have not been facing at, or towards, the threat or firing, causing it to retire , it is even more likely to end up facing away from the original position, so my view would be it ends in tactical facing away from the threat or firing source.
It is even clearer when you think of a retiring infantry unit passing through friends which is not feasible if it is in square, except through deployed guns maybe.
-
BrettPT
- Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
- Posts: 1266
- Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:52 am
- Location: Auckland, NZ
Re: A square is shot into retirement...
Working through the relevant rules on pages 62-3, a square which retires 3MU remains in square. My call would be that if it retires more than 3MU, it is in tactical facing away.
Reasoning:
1. "The minimum distance for a Retire move is 3MU" - so the square's retirement move will always be at least 3MU.
2. "Infantry in Square retiring more than 3MU end their move in tactical" [bold added]. So if retiring exactly 3MU, a square remains in square - facing is irrelevant. If going further than 3MU they end (not carry out) their move in tactical. I would fall on the side of arguing this choice of words (ie "end" in tactical rather than 'retires in tactical') implies the retirement move is as a square, which falls apart and forms into tactical at the end of the retirement move. An arguable point though.
3. "A unit that makes an outcome move equal or greater than its normal move distance ... ends facing the direction of movement" Normal move distance for a square is 1MU, so if you accept (2) above, the unit faces away at the end of the retirement.
Sound reasonable?
Cheers
Brett
Reasoning:
1. "The minimum distance for a Retire move is 3MU" - so the square's retirement move will always be at least 3MU.
2. "Infantry in Square retiring more than 3MU end their move in tactical" [bold added]. So if retiring exactly 3MU, a square remains in square - facing is irrelevant. If going further than 3MU they end (not carry out) their move in tactical. I would fall on the side of arguing this choice of words (ie "end" in tactical rather than 'retires in tactical') implies the retirement move is as a square, which falls apart and forms into tactical at the end of the retirement move. An arguable point though.
3. "A unit that makes an outcome move equal or greater than its normal move distance ... ends facing the direction of movement" Normal move distance for a square is 1MU, so if you accept (2) above, the unit faces away at the end of the retirement.
Sound reasonable?
Cheers
Brett