Art De La Guerre

[daveallen]

The rules are:

[Ramses II]

P59 multiple opponents,
 “When a unit, already in melee on its front edge, is engaged in melee on its flank”. . . .
So this occurs during a melee but the cohesion loss is applied immediately before the melee is resolved. 


 
My suggestion therefore is that the opponent may test for the loss of “Alex” the general at risk before the melee is resolved, but irrespective of the result and any further losses, there is only one such test per turn. 

[Hazelbark]

I take that as loss of a cohesion (or is routed) in the melee phase.

I.E. I would not think there is a roll to kill alexander just because a unit fell on the flank in movement of a unit he is fighting with.

Rules appear to say melee. This occurred in movement.

[daveallen]

Thanks for your thoughts guys.

This broke down into two arguments.

When the attackers realised they could only test once in a turn for the commander they decided they'd have at least the same chance of killing him after the melee and might even kill the unit thereby tripling their chances.

As luck would have it, they rolled a one for the melee and their opponents then argued from page 57 that the commander was only at risk if he lost the melee.

Such fun!

Dave
_________________
Putting the ink into incompetence

[Dickstick]

Loss of cohesion includes people killed and/or unit disordered. Eg retirement in face of none contacted enemy. No one dies but unit disordered.
Loss of cp hit on flank
Is it disorder or more kills?
It happens before the mêlée as it's disorder will effect the mêlée.

Should a general die when the unit is disordered?
_________________
Player 747 don't call me Jumbo

[daveallen]

This is a tricky one because the rules are silent on when the test should take place. And as we found out on Sunday we can argue until we're blue in the face about whether the cohesion was lost "in movement" or "in melee."

If you allow the test during the movement phase I can see players making this move first and then making other moves dependant on the outcome. Which is getting a bit silly.

Oh very dear.

Dave
_________________
Putting the ink into incompetence

[Ramses II]

[Hazelbark]

[Dickstick]

Yes it's the difference of reading what's in the line over what might be between the lines.
_________________
Player 747 don't call me Jumbo

[daveallen]

Yes there's a melee phase and a movement phase, but melee also occurs in the movement phase as does movement in the melee phase.

I think it's unwise to take the concept of distinct phases from the sequence of play and apply it to rules that don't mention the phase. A loss of cohesion in melee can occur in the movement phase as Rameses III pointed out:

[Hazelbark]

[daveallen]

[Hazelbark]

OK you want an argument. You are wrong and I am right.

Pursuit is not movement.

This seems perfectly clear as you go through it.

[Ramses II]

The question is whether the opponent can deprive a player of his general at a crucial point before the melee is resolved, or whether the players wait until the end of the melee resolution, no?

We agree that there is only one test per turn, irrespective of the number of cohesion points lost.

However the rules are clear that there are potentially two points when cohesion points will be lost, before and after melee resolution. 


Since the general could form part of that melee resolution, my understanding is that the opponent has the option of taking the test before the melee resolution - but on the understanding that he may not try again later in the melee. 

However, I also agree that the player may defer the test to the end of the turn (should he so desire), in the hope that the unit is destroyed giving the opponent a greater chance of killing the general. 

[daveallen]