Slitherine

Yesterday we had an interesting situation:

A 7 base BG of HF, two bases deep (4 and 3) is approached from the rear by a cavalry and a LF BG. The cavalry BG moves up just short of the rear-left corner of the HF BG. The LF moves up to the other rear corner on the right of the HF BG where there is only one base due to a previous loss from shooting.

In its turn, what can the HF BG do to face the units to the rear. It clearly cannot turn 90 degrees to face the cavalry as it does not have the space to do so. The question is can it turn 180 degrees? By doing so the new first rank of the BG has three bases and the new second rank has four. Unfortunately the LF are in the way and the fourth base of the second rank cannot move forward to the first rank to adopt a legal formation. Is this right?

Julian

I think the rule is the same by analogy to that you cited for the 90 degree turn, that a turn can't be made without room.

However, the purpose of that restriction for 90 degree turns is that BGs and indeed actual military units can end up with a different footprint on the ground, and it prevents a BG that lacks room from turning and displacing itself or other BGs to make room, with potential side effects.

I expect the same language was not included in the 180 turn because the 180 turn is necessarily executed in the BG's own original footprint, and your situation may have been missed - or thought cheesy geometry that was not worth adding a long sentence to address. It is cheesy in that being inside the phantom base footprint vs. outside represents no military difference as in reality the actual troop ranks are going to be fairly even - so it shouldn't have a different rules result.

I'm NOT saying it's intentional abuse - there were too many geometric logjams in early DBM you could just stumble into not to realize that geometric nits can never be totally exterminated in readable rules. I think FoG does a fine job of making them odd rarities, but this is one.

Accordingly, as player or umpire I'd say the HF can turn 180 if they pass any required CMT and the LF are displaced back enough to make room or a little farther. Since the Cav failed to charge the foot from the rear and knock them down a level, having the foot face about is only to be expected. Let justice be done.

Cheers,

Mike

I'd also say a definate bit of cheese missed by the writers. They should be allowed to turn 180.

philqw78 wrote:I'd also say a definate bit of cheese missed by the writers.

Hang them high!

rbodleyscott wrote:

philqw78 wrote:I'd also say a definate bit of cheese missed by the writers.

Hang them high!

Who? The cheese merchants or the rule writers?

philqw78 wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote:

philqw78 wrote:I'd also say a definate bit of cheese missed by the writers.

Hang them high!

Who? The cheese merchants or the rule writers?

The rules writers of course.

rbodleyscott wrote:

philqw78 wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote: Hang them high!

Who? The cheese merchants or the rule writers?

The rules writers of course.

Can we add that with the punch in the face to the FAQ ?

If you let 2 units of enemy LH get that close you should be prevented from turning and suffer the consequences. It's just like turning 90 , or to a lesser extent, the "prevented breakoff"rule IMO.

And further....a unit that can evade by making a 180 degree turn and move away, CANNOT do the same moves otherwise??

I'd check up on evades as the mechanism may be slightly different.