| Auteur |
Message |
Hazelbark
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 12 Nov 2014
Messages: 1669
|
 Posté le: Mar Jan 02, 2018 8:51 pm Sujet du message: |
 |
I do not believe you can declare a unit to not be supporting.
A unit in a support position cannot be passed through.
This is very clear in my mind. |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Ramses II
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 17 Juil 2015
Messages: 1236
Localisation: London
|
| Posté le: Mar Jan 02, 2018 8:58 pm Sujet du message: |
|
| I propose to ask the TB about this as there seems to be some fundemental points here that need to be made very clear. |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Hazelbark
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 12 Nov 2014
Messages: 1669
|
| Posté le: Mar Jan 02, 2018 9:05 pm Sujet du message: |
|
| I agree there are several people banding around different things. |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
lionelrus
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 21 Mar 2009
Messages: 4803
Localisation: paris
|
| Posté le: Mer Jan 03, 2018 11:42 am Sujet du message: Re: The Light Infantry [and Light Cav] Trap |
|
| daveallen a écrit: | NOTE: This is an argument that started on a thread about Impetuous troops pursuing, but has a more general application so I'm bumping it onto its own thread.
The situation is this:
HIHI
HILIHI
HIHIHI
The red HI have engaged the blue HI with the blue LI and the central blue HI in overlap position.
The question is can the blue LI evade when charged by the unengaged red HI?
One view is:
| fdunadan a écrit: | Only one support unit is autorised on each flank of a melee. So you declare the LI as supporting the fight (and the unitI behind is no longuer a support) and so when your LI is charged, he can evade... and the unit behind act as support for the fight...
simple, elegant, and respecting the spirit of the rule. |
This is to be a bit too clever with the rules for me.
Surely if a unit is in a position of overlap it is engaged in melee. The fact that the unit actually fighting can only get a single plus per flank regardless of how many units there are on the flank shouldn't mean you can pick and choose which units are in melee.
For instance, could the blue player claim only the HI was supporting the melee? Would this then allow the LI to shoot the red HI it faces?
I await further discussion and hopefully an official clarification either way.
Dave |
The fdunadan' point of view is played in France. Interpenetrations rules are clear, ie you can't interpenetrate unit providing support ( and this not means engaged in melee), and this not extended to unit in supporting position.
So, Li provide a support, is not engaged in melee because not in contact by his front; so can evade.
The hi is not providing support and then can been crossed. LI flees.
_________________
"Quand on a pas de technique, faut y aller à la zob"
Perceval à Yvain et Gauvain. |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
babyshark
Légionaire
Inscrit le: 19 Jan 2015
Messages: 136
|
| Posté le: Mer Jan 03, 2018 4:23 pm Sujet du message: Re: The Light Infantry [and Light Cav] Trap |
|
| lionelrus a écrit: |
The fdunadan' point of view is played in France. Interpenetrations rules are clear, ie you can't interpenetrate unit providing support ( and this not means engaged in melee), and this not extended to unit in supporting position.
So, Li provide a support, is not engaged in melee because not in contact by his front; so can evade.
The hi is not providing support and then can been crossed. LI flees. |
This is clear to me. To decide otherwise represents a descent into cheese, and leads to non-historical outcomes (e.g. skirmishers being unable to screen heavy troops).
Marc |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
AlanCutner
Tribun
Inscrit le: 03 Nov 2014
Messages: 747
Localisation: Scotland
|
| Posté le: Mer Jan 03, 2018 5:36 pm Sujet du message: |
|
| Can this issue be solved if only the front unit of those in a supporting position is deemed to be providing support. Would require an official clarification/amendment. But would stop the cheese of a player choosing which element supports and obtaining shooting advantages, and still allow the LI to evade. And looks like it fits how the game is played in France. |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
daveallen
Tribun
Inscrit le: 28 Jan 2016
Messages: 758
Localisation: Rugby & CLWC
|
| Posté le: Mer Jan 03, 2018 6:57 pm Sujet du message: Re: The Light Infantry [and Light Cav] Trap |
|
| babyshark a écrit: | This is clear to me. To decide otherwise represents a descent into cheese, and leads to non-historical outcomes (e.g. skirmishers being unable to screen heavy troops).
Marc |
Historically, skirmishers screened heavy troops did they? Or is that just a game concept we've grown up with? And the Elbows of Death aren't even a bit cheesy?
There's plenty of cheese in the game we just need a definitive ruling on it that takes into account the problems caused by the situation.
a) how the interpenetration works when the unit behind becomes an obstacle because it is now the support.
b) can the player decide which of two units is the support or will there be a ruling that specifies the front unit? And what this means for other situations.*
c) what this means for shooting at and by the units in overlap.
The simplest way out would be a ruling that units that would be contacted flank to flank by a charge should have the option to evade [provided they have the ability, of course]
* Conceptually, I think this presents problems for the rules. To date I've assumed that every unit in a position to contribute to a melee is doing so. In the same way every unit capable of shooting at a target has to shoot at it even if they have no effect, such as the odd numbered light unit or the fifth HC Bow. They can't just choose to shoot at another target because their priority target is overloaded.
_________________
Putting the ink into incompetence |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
AvogadroTheMole
Frondeur
Inscrit le: 14 Juin 2016
Messages: 7
Localisation: CT, USA
|
| Posté le: Mer Jan 03, 2018 8:50 pm Sujet du message: Re: The Light Infantry [and Light Cav] Trap |
|
| daveallen a écrit: |
Historically, skirmishers screened heavy troops did they? Or is that just a game concept we've grown up with? And the Elbows of Death aren't even a bit cheesy?
|
Sorry to be a little off topic, but could someone clarify what "the Elbows of Death" are? I feel like I cannot make a judgement on the potential gaminess of the proposed interpretations without knowing that. |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
daveallen
Tribun
Inscrit le: 28 Jan 2016
Messages: 758
Localisation: Rugby & CLWC
|
| Posté le: Mer Jan 03, 2018 9:16 pm Sujet du message: |
|
Sorry, I was going to explain, but then I had to go out.
Imagine a Light Infantry unit on an entirely open plain. Because it can evade an enemy Heavy infantry unit will never be able to catch it.
Unless, that is, another enemy unit can get behind the Light Infantry. All you need is the tiniest sliver of a unit [say an elbow] within 4cm of directly behind the LI and suddenly it can no longer evade and so ends up dying when the HI charge home. Hence Elbow of Death.
It's cheesy, but it's an explicit mechanism in the rules so we all accept it. What we're arguing about is no less cheesy, but because its an emergent property of the rules rather than an explicit mechanism it's more controversial.
Dave
_________________
Putting the ink into incompetence |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Zoltan
Légat
Inscrit le: 18 Jan 2015
Messages: 500
Localisation: Wellington, New Zealand
|
| Posté le: Ven Jan 05, 2018 8:12 pm Sujet du message: |
|
| Why did you specify 4cm? |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
madaxeman
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 01 Nov 2014
Messages: 1599
Localisation: Londres Centraal.
|
| Posté le: Ven Jan 05, 2018 9:03 pm Sujet du message: |
|
| Zoltan a écrit: | | Why did you specify 4cm? |
4cm = 1UD in 15mm scale. 2nd bullet point in "Troops that can evade" on p37
_________________
www.madaxeman.com |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Hazelbark
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 12 Nov 2014
Messages: 1669
|
| Posté le: Ven Jan 05, 2018 9:38 pm Sujet du message: Re: The Light Infantry [and Light Cav] Trap |
|
| daveallen a écrit: |
There's plenty of cheese in the game we just need a definitive ruling on it that takes into account the problems caused by the situation.
a) how the interpenetration works when the unit behind becomes an obstacle because it is now the support.
b) can the player decide which of two units is the support or will there be a ruling that specifies the front unit? And what this means for other situations.*
c) what this means for shooting at and by the units in overlap.
The simplest way out would be a ruling that units that would be contacted flank to flank by a charge should have the option to evade [provided they have the ability, of course]
* Conceptually, I think this presents problems for the rules. To date I've assumed that every unit in a position to contribute to a melee is doing so. In the same way every unit capable of shooting at a target has to shoot at it even if they have no effect, such as the odd numbered light unit or the fifth HC Bow. They can't just choose to shoot at another target because their priority target is overloaded. |
I agree perhaps even more strongly than Dave this has other situations.
So you declare the front unit supporting the unit. Can you change that to the rear unit in a succeeding turn? I want one unit to support in my move, but when enemy charges I want the other unit. What about if I ask my opponent they declare which, then I don't charge. So it has no matter. But in there turn they want to change it so they can move through?
Look historically probably for every case we have of lights falling back through heavies we have a case of they didn't get through in time. |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Zoltan
Légat
Inscrit le: 18 Jan 2015
Messages: 500
Localisation: Wellington, New Zealand
|
| Posté le: Sam Jan 06, 2018 12:38 am Sujet du message: |
|
| madaxeman a écrit: | | Zoltan a écrit: | | Why did you specify 4cm? |
4cm = 1UD in 15mm scale. 2nd bullet point in "Troops that can evade" on p37 |
Right, the minimum distance a LI must evade (if it can). |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Ramses II
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 17 Juil 2015
Messages: 1236
Localisation: London
|
| Posté le: Sam Jan 06, 2018 12:47 am Sujet du message: |
|
This is under discussion by ‘higher authorities’ as we speakÂ
They agree that the ‘multiple support’ question is valid and needs resolution.Â
Hopefully an answer will be presented in a day or two. However it may take a little time since these points revolve around central aspects of the rules. |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
madaxeman
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 01 Nov 2014
Messages: 1599
Localisation: Londres Centraal.
|
| Posté le: Sam Jan 06, 2018 8:08 am Sujet du message: |
|
| Zoltan a écrit: | | madaxeman a écrit: | | Zoltan a écrit: | | Why did you specify 4cm? |
4cm = 1UD in 15mm scale. 2nd bullet point in "Troops that can evade" on p37 |
Right, the minimum distance a LI must evade (if it can). |
Not quite.  It’s the distance at which any obstacle behind a unit will prevent an evade move in this contextÂ
_________________
www.madaxeman.com |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
|
FAQ
Rechercher
Liste des Membres
Groupes d'utilisateurs
S'enregistrer
Profil
Se connecter pour vérifier ses messages privés
Connexion
