The join between the pike units splits the medium foot unit.
Code: Select all
MM
MM
MM
PPPKKK
PPPKKK
PPPKKK
PPPKKK
Moderators: hammy, philqw78, terrys, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Design, Field of Glory Moderators
Code: Select all
MM
MM
MM
PPPKKK
PPPKKK
PPPKKK
PPPKKK
No, you needGrumblingGrognard wrote:Does the medium foot (M) unit provide resupport for BOTH pike blocks (P and K)?
The join between the pike units splits the medium foot unit.
Code: Select all
MM MM MM PPPKKK PPPKKK PPPKKK PPPKKK
Code: Select all
M
M
M
M
M
M
P P P K K K
P P P K K K
P P P K K K
P P P K K K
Mathemagically speaking, if the edge of the right file is behind the left front BG, it's impossible for the edge of the left file to be behind the right front BG . . . unless . . .GrumblingGrognard wrote:
From your post, it would seem that you believe the edge does not, and you may be right. Honestly, I would prefer that the edge was enough for support so as to avoid extreme column-like formations where they would not likely be used (IMO).
If you consider two bases side-by-side, would you say that part of the edge of one is behind part of the edge of the other? If you move one of them straight back, does this change?GrumblingGrognard wrote:Yes, that section is understood. I guess it just comes down to whether the "edge" of a base counts for rear support or not. If it does the case can be made in my diagram that all six bases are already behind both pike blocks...if not (as you suggest) than NEITHER of of the pike blocks would get support in my diagram. And that really sounds wrong (from a real-life perspective).
From your post, it would seem that you believe the edge does not, and you may be right. Honestly, I would prefer that the edge was enough for support so as to avoid extreme column-like formations where they would not likely be used (IMO).
GG
True enough - I would think that just providing fairly wide gaps for evasion or routers would not require the careful placement required when shifting a base width is the limit, but I expect there is good and sufficient reason after testing for the tighter approach.lawrenceg wrote:You also have to be careful to allow rout or evade paths for the front BGs. IMO this is an area where the rules did not succeed in their aim of making the player think about only the details that the general would have to think about.