| |
Art De La Guerre
Bienvenue sur le forum de discussion de la règle de jeu l'Art De La Guerre
|
Art De La Guerre Index du Forum > Rules question V4
| Auteur |
Message |
daveallen
Tribun
Inscrit le: 28 Jan 2016
Messages: 742
Localisation: Rugby & CLWC
|
 Posté le: Dim Juin 13, 2021 10:57 am Sujet du message: Multiple Opponents |
 |
At risk of being told I'm just nit picking [I already know that  ) can I ask the DT to look at another issue arising from the changes in definitions discussed in the thread about Pursuit?
(http://www.artdelaguerre.fr/adlg/v3/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8702)
A new player made the point on Facebook that the rules as written say when a unit in simple support is able to turn on the flank of the enemy unit fighting the friendly unit it is supporting the enemy unit does not lose a cohesion point.
Of course, all us old lags know this is wrong, but, before you spit out your tea and write to remind me I'm an idiot, hear me out.
The rule was:
| Citation: | V3 P59 MULTIPLE OPPONENTS para. 2
When a unit already in melee with an enemy on its front edge is engaged in melee by a new enemy (other than light troops) on its flank or rear edge, it immediately loses one cohesion point, except if it is a War Wagon. |
It now reads:
| Citation: | V4 P61 MULTIPLE ATTACKS bullet point 1
When a unit already in melee, or in melee support, is attacked by a new enemy (other than light troops, ...) on its flank or rear edge, it immediately loses one cohesion point. |
So in what sense is the simple support unit a new enemy?
Then
| Citation: | V3 P50 Melee, sub para. Main unit:
When several units are in contact with the same enemy, only the main unit fights while other units give support to it. |
One unit fights and others support it. Simples.
When one of the supports turns on the flank of the enemy it is for the first time engaging in melee so it's not difficult to see that it's a new unit that hadn't previously fought, ie been engaged in the melee.
Now
| Citation: | V4 P60 Melee, sub para. Main unit:
... it can also happen that several units are in combat against a single opponent. In this case the main unit is determined. The other units only provide support to the main unit...
V4 P60 Melee, sub para. Melee:
A unit is in melee when it is the main unit in a combat. The other units participating in the combat are in support. |
So if support units are already participating in the combat how can they be a new enemy?
Now us old lags have told him he's wrong and that's not how it works. You see, we know the intent behind the rule from having played v3.
BUT
That's really not the way we should be answering questions from new players. It's likely to piss them off. Especially when they have a point.
_________________
Putting the ink into incompetence |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Hazelbark
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 12 Nov 2014
Messages: 1545
|
| Posté le: Mar Juin 15, 2021 12:17 am Sujet du message: |
|
Dave trying to understand. Let me repeat back to you only looking at v4.
A1
2
A is fighting 1 front edge to front edge. 2 was in simple support flank to flank against 2. Now 2 wants to turn onto A as melee support with all attendant effects.
a) p 61, 1st bullet
The reference to a "new enemy"
b) p 61, 4th bullet
There is no reference to a "new" here.
Does not (b) solve the situation and say the cohesion loss occurs? What am I missing? |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
daveallen
Tribun
Inscrit le: 28 Jan 2016
Messages: 742
Localisation: Rugby & CLWC
|
| Posté le: Mar Juin 15, 2021 6:49 am Sujet du message: |
|
| Hazelbark a écrit: | Dave trying to understand. Let me repeat back to you only looking at v4.
A1
2
A is fighting 1 front edge to front edge. 2 was in simple support flank to flank against 2. Now 2 wants to turn onto A as melee support with all attendant effects.
a) p 61, 1st bullet
The reference to a "new enemy"
b) p 61, 4th bullet
There is no reference to a "new" here.
Does not (b) solve the situation and say the cohesion loss occurs? What am I missing? |
That’s a bit of a stretch.
BP4 is about when a unit is hit by several enemy units "during the same phase." It covers that peculiar situation where, say, a knight is hit on one flank by a cavalry unit and then by a light infantry unit on the other flank. It also covers the more mundane situation where a unit in flank to flank contact with said knight following a melee conforms to the flank (for free) and another unit then contacts the knight frontally.
Neither case would cause a cohesion drop under BP1, the first because lights don’t cause a cohesion drop and the second because the knight wasn’t “already in melee†at the time of the flank attack.
If BP4 was intended to cover the situation described in BP1 then BP1 would be entirely redundant.
_________________
Putting the ink into incompetence |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Dickstick
Légat
Inscrit le: 17 Juil 2016
Messages: 682
Localisation: West Bromwich
|
| Posté le: Mar Juin 15, 2021 7:26 am Sujet du message: |
|
The first bullet point would be clearer if the words in brackets were removed for comprehension.
It reads "new enemy on its flank or rear edge".
So not a new unit to the fight but a new front edge contract on a flank or rear edge.
Does that help?
_________________
Player 747 don't call me Jumbo |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
madaxeman
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 01 Nov 2014
Messages: 1474
Localisation: Londres Centraal.
|
| Posté le: Mar Juin 15, 2021 8:08 am Sujet du message: |
|
| daveallen a écrit: | | Hazelbark a écrit: | Dave trying to understand. Let me repeat back to you only looking at v4.
A1
2
A is fighting 1 front edge to front edge. 2 was in simple support flank to flank against 2. Now 2 wants to turn onto A as melee support with all attendant effects.
a) p 61, 1st bullet
The reference to a "new enemy"
b) p 61, 4th bullet
There is no reference to a "new" here.
Does not (b) solve the situation and say the cohesion loss occurs? What am I missing? |
That’s a bit of a stretch.
(snip)
If BP4 was intended to cover the situation described in BP1 then BP1 would be entirely redundant. |
Erm... not wanting to be picky at all here, as I still have a niggling feeling that there "may" be something here to be looked at, however if I just read bullet 4 as-is, I can't see that it doesn't fully address what happens when a unit conforms from simple support to melee support?
Saying "that paragraph was intended to cover..." for bullet 4 is also surely doing the same "assumption of intent" thing that supposedly causes the problem with bullet 1?
In terms of bullets being redundant, I'm not sure I see that either.
Bullet 1 describes what happens when a new enemy charges in, and bullet 4 describes when someone turns in from an existing support position - players can see these as two different situations, as this discussion and the FB one demonstrates.
Am I missing something here, or are we over thinking it and missing what's been written in the rules - after all, we've all done that many times before !?
_________________
www.madaxeman.com |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Mike Bennett
Centurion
Inscrit le: 11 Nov 2017
Messages: 497
Localisation: Carnforth, Lancashire, UK
|
| Posté le: Mar Juin 15, 2021 9:45 am Sujet du message: |
|
| daveallen a écrit: | | Hazelbark a écrit: | Dave trying to understand. Let me repeat back to you only looking at v4.
A1
2
A is fighting 1 front edge to front edge. 2 was in simple support flank to flank against 2. Now 2 wants to turn onto A as melee support with all attendant effects.
a) p 61, 1st bullet
The reference to a "new enemy"
b) p 61, 4th bullet
There is no reference to a "new" here.
Does not (b) solve the situation and say the cohesion loss occurs? What am I missing? |
That’s a bit of a stretch.
BP4 is about when a unit is hit by several enemy units "during the same phase." It covers that peculiar situation where, say, a knight is hit on one flank by a cavalry unit and then by a light infantry unit on the other flank. It also covers the more mundane situation where a unit in flank to flank contact with said knight following a melee conforms to the flank (for free) and another unit then contacts the knight frontally.
Neither case would cause a cohesion drop under BP1, the first because lights don’t cause a cohesion drop and the second because the knight wasn’t “already in melee†at the time of the flank attack.
If BP4 was intended to cover the situation described in BP1 then BP1 would be entirely redundant. |
I agree ref BP4, but for me it is not important as BP3 is absolutely compelling. “Multiple attacks can occur during a charge, movement, conformation or pursuitâ€. Clearly conformation, as it is listed separately, does not mean the final part to line up as part of one of the other 3 types. This leaves conformation from one existing touching position to a new touching position, and by definition cannot be by a completely new unit that was not touching in the first place. |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
daveallen
Tribun
Inscrit le: 28 Jan 2016
Messages: 742
Localisation: Rugby & CLWC
|
| Posté le: Mar Juin 15, 2021 9:50 am Sujet du message: |
|
| madaxeman a écrit: | | Am I missing something here, or are we over thinking it and missing what's been written in the rules - after all, we've all done that many times before !? |
It's possible we're all missing something here and I'm happy to leave it to El Keator to sort out. After all, we're pretty clear on how it's played and the newcomers to ADG will probably accept it, for now, even if it niggles.
However, on the issue of bullet points (which I know you like  )
There are seven of them, excluding the special cases:
* 2 sets a conformation condition to qualify for a cohesion drop;
* 3 lays out four mechanisms for making a multiple attack;
* 5 & 6 deal with timing and consequences of the lost cohesion;
* 7 limits the cohesion drop to one per phase.
I'd say they're not relevant to this discussion. Which leaves:
* 1 describing how a unit already in melee loses a cohesion in a multiple attack;
* 4 describes how a unit also loses a cohesion point when it is engaged in melee... by multiple units.
[Side note - 1, 2 & 3 were paragraph 2 of the Multiple Opponents rule in V3, 4 was para. 3, and 5, 6 & 7 the remaining paragraphs.]
In my view the "also" in BP4 means it's describing a different case to that described in BP1, ie a case where the unit attacked is not already in melee. As was clear in V3.
I suspect we won't agree on that, and we don't have to, we'll both happily accept what EK and the DT tell.
But, FWIW, I think the problem here comes from the fact that in V3 the phrase "engage in melee" was precisely defined as having a front edge in contact with (and conformed to, mostly) an edge of an enemy unit, whether in melee or in support.
That phrase is no longer defined at all and now seems to be used interchangeably with attack and in combat.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
I'm reluctant to suggest a rewrite here because it's someone else's job, but with a nod to Richard's suggestion for a solution.
BP1's passive construction (things are done to a unit) also creates confusion. If instead it dealt with what the active player was doing it would be a lot simpler.
For example: | Citation: | | When a unit (other than light troops, artillery or WWg) first enters melee support against an enemy unit that s already in melee, the enemy unit immediately loses a cohesion point. |
That's it, the whole BP. Since melee support is defined elsewhere there's no need to mention flank or rear.
Okay, "enters melee support" is a bit clumsy, but you see how much simpler it is without the passive construction.
_________________
Putting the ink into incompetence
Dernière édition par daveallen le Mar Juin 15, 2021 7:41 pm; édité 2 fois |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
daveallen
Tribun
Inscrit le: 28 Jan 2016
Messages: 742
Localisation: Rugby & CLWC
|
| Posté le: Mar Juin 15, 2021 10:14 am Sujet du message: |
|
| Mike Bennett a écrit: | | I agree ref BP4, but for me it is not important as BP3 is absolutely compelling. “Multiple attacks can occur during a charge, movement, conformation or pursuitâ€. Clearly conformation, as it is listed separately, does not mean the final part to line up as part of one of the other 3 types. This leaves conformation from one existing touching position to a new touching position, and by definition cannot be by a completely new unit that was not touching in the first place. |
Firstly, the problem is about "new enemy" attacking a unit and that can be seen to mean an enemy not already party to the combat. So just touching is not the issue.
and
Secondly, there are circumstances where units in contact and able to conform are not party to a combat.
See the unit A6 in the first diagram on page 61 is in contact with B2, but not in combat with it. So when it conforms it would be "new enemy." Similarly, A5 & B1.
and then there's:
AX ... B
or
AX
B
A is Cavalry, X is a Knight and they are in flank to flank contact after a melee. A conforms and then B attacks the other flank of X in diagram 1 or the front of X in diagram 2. [edit] B could be light troops and thus would not cause a cohesion loss themselves in diagram 1.
Also, on a general point, by disregarding the obvious meanings of words and looking for fine points that affirm our positions we're straying into divining the runes Barker style territory here. These rules don't deserve that.
And I'm as guilty as the next man [see - "also means it's a different case" in my answer to Tim above] worse perhaps  . I've asked a member of the DT to look at it, hopefully we'll hear from them before we all head up to York. Failing that a simple declaration from the umpire(s) will do.
_________________
Putting the ink into incompetence |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Hazelbark
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 12 Nov 2014
Messages: 1545
|
| Posté le: Mar Juin 15, 2021 4:35 pm Sujet du message: |
|
| daveallen a écrit: |
That’s a bit of a stretch.
|
Oh and this other stuff isn't?
Ok, back to bullet 1. Pagre 61
If "new" was not there, then every turn of melee there would be another cohesion hit.
The "new" enemy on its flank, If a unit was not on its flank and then it is on the flank it is "new". |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
daveallen
Tribun
Inscrit le: 28 Jan 2016
Messages: 742
Localisation: Rugby & CLWC
|
| Posté le: Mar Juin 15, 2021 7:37 pm Sujet du message: |
|
| Hazelbark a écrit: | | daveallen a écrit: |
That’s a bit of a stretch.
|
Oh and this other stuff isn't?
Ok, back to bullet 1. Pagre 61
If "new" was not there, then every turn of melee there would be another cohesion hit.
The "new" enemy on its flank, If a unit was not on its flank and then it is on the flank it is "new". |
Clearly, we're not going to agree on this Dan.
Resorting to rationalisation to overcome the plain English meaning of a sentence is so old school. So I'm content to wait for the DT or El Kreator to come back with a fix or a clarification.
In the meantime we can play the rule as meant* if not as written
| Citation: | *
When a unit (other than light troops, artillery or WWg) first enters melee support against an enemy unit that s already in melee, the enemy unit immediately loses a cohesion point. |
_________________
Putting the ink into incompetence |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Dickstick
Légat
Inscrit le: 17 Juil 2016
Messages: 682
Localisation: West Bromwich
|
| Posté le: Mar Juin 15, 2021 10:49 pm Sujet du message: |
|
Here's how I see it.
The emphasis is more on the new flank/rear than the new unit.
Something in simple support like side to side not being a new unit is a red herring.
When simple support becomes melee support, we have a new flank/ rear attack.
_________________
Player 747 don't call me Jumbo |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
|
Art De La Guerre Index du Forum > Rules question V4
  |
Toutes les heures sont au format GMT |
|
Vous ne pouvez pas poster de nouveaux sujets dans ce forum
Vous ne pouvez pas répondre aux sujets dans ce forum
Vous ne pouvez pas éditer vos messages dans ce forum
Vous ne pouvez pas supprimer vos messages dans ce forum
Vous ne pouvez pas voter dans les sondages de ce forum
|
|
FAQ
Rechercher
Liste des Membres
Groupes d'utilisateurs
S'enregistrer
Profil
Se connecter pour vérifier ses messages privés
Connexion
