Art De La Guerre

[Theodoric]

From what I am seeing 90+% of people have been playing with the simple protocol that the rear follows and is not blocked.

And each specific example ruled on by Herve has supported this protocol, yet for some reason Dave you are on a crusade to make this an issue where no problem really exists.

[daveallen]

As you choose to attack me personally rather than engage with the points made by several people in this thread there is clearly no point in continuing this conversation.

I'm happy to await Hervé's further thoughts.

Dave
_________________
Putting the ink into incompetence

[MC_Delicatessen]

The scenario I think is important is where there is a breakthrough and pursuit in the middle of a line of combats.

It seems open but El Kreator seems to be hinting that it is not possible to then wheel/turn into an adjacent enemy because your rear corner would have to go through an enemy unit.

You would need to go right past the enemy line (out of support position) before turning/wheeling to roll up the enemy.. shurely not???

[daveallen]

The turn to flank isn't at issue here - you simply pick the unit up and put it down in its new orientation, there are no intermediate positions it has to flow through.

Dave
_________________
Putting the ink into incompetence

[MC_Delicatessen]

Did this ever get answered?

[Mars]

I'm guessing (since I don't know how long rule queries like this generally take to be resolved) we are to assume that as there has been no further comment from the author or the DT since the author's initial reply (to the effect that that wheeling where a rear corner of your base crosses an enemy ZOZ because of 'swing out', despite the front edge never entering that ZOC, is not permissible), that his initial reply / ruling still stands and there will be no further clarification? Be nice to get this off the 'threads to monitor' list.

I can't figure where the idea comes from that the move IS permissible by virtue of referring to an example that relates to wheeling through a FRIENDLY unit, especially where the author has replied that the diagram in question relates to a SPECIFIC situation and should not be extrapolated to other (e.g. this) situations.

[Zoltan]

Mars

1. No, there doesn’t seem to have been any further official commentary on this despite an earlier suggestion that it might be relitigated.

2. My reading of Hervé’s earlier post appears to be different from yours. I understood him to say:

When enemy units are in front corner to front corner contact (as a result of an earlier melee), the phasing player IS permitted to wheel away to break contact. In this scenario, despite the wheeler’s tail appearing to flick into the enemy’s ZoC, we ignore this as its an artificiality of using square/rectangular bases. This “ruling” relates to this specific scenario and shouldn’t be extrapolated to other scenarios. Other scenarios illustrated in the rule book relate to those specific scenarios and, similarly, shouldn’t be extrapolated further.

[Mars]

Zoltan

On reading it again I think you're right. Herve said:

"Hello

The question was related to a very particular case : units are in corner corner contact and perfectly aligned.
The active unit have to move otherwise it have to conform to the enemy
In this case, it is authorized to the unit to move by wheeling in order to remove the contact with the enemy.
It seems logical that this unit not in ZoC can move without entering in the ZoC.

Do not extrapolate than it is possible to overlap enemy unit.
This kind of move is not authorized"

Was trying to read though this post quickly to try and find the answer (the reason I prefer succinct 2-3 line FAQ entries rather than 4 page forum threads) and I think I misinterpreted Herve's answer. I thought the 'particular case' was the example base / wheel overlap in the book whereas it looks like he was referring to the FB post about this topic. I'll have to try and find the FB post, much as I hate FB.

Either way, folks shouldn't have to dig around in forums and Facebook groups to find FAQ answers, that's what the FAQ is for, particularly as FB search is downright abysmal! That there are clearly two distinct trains of thought on this one it certainly begs for clarification whether or not, in the absence of a FAQ entry, the answer is buried somewhere in FB. Visiting a forum and seeing a question that hasn't yet made an FAQ is fair enough, one would also expect to find the answer here too though, not to have to go and rummage around the quagmire that is Facebook to find it.

[Zoltan]

To be fair Mars, Ramses original post here simply reported the original question and correct answer here on the official forum “for the record”. The 4 pages of additional posts were completely superfluous and added mainly heat and very little light. Let’s focus on playing more games and posting less about rules points. 😉

[Za Otlichiye]

To be fair. a FAQ is an excellent idea. We just need to wait until someone shows up with the time and energy to compile an index of what has been discussed here and there. Since Mars is a newbie, let's not discourage him! Who knows, maybe we can arse him into writing the FAQ himself.

[Mars]

[Mars]

[Zoltan]

[Za Otlichiye]

My apologies Mars, I did not intend an insult by referring to you as a newbie. I just took your appearance at face value.
Obviously, if you are aware of a FAQ for version 3, you are far more experienced than I. I've bought version 4 and read through this forum and am unaware of such an effort. Please provide a link.
Meta-discussion attempting to arbitrate what sorts of questions others can ask is a surefire way of destroying good will. But then so is reacting to such, so I should follow my own advice and leave it be.

[Hazelbark]