Art De La Guerre
Bienvenue sur le forum de discussion de la règle de jeu l'Art De La Guerre
 
FAQFAQ RechercherRechercher Liste des MembresListe des Membres Groupes d'utilisateursGroupes d'utilisateurs S'enregistrerS'enregistrer
ProfilProfil Se connecter pour vérifier ses messages privésSe connecter pour vérifier ses messages privés ConnexionConnexion
Melee contact
Page 2 sur 2 Aller à la page Précédente  1, 2
Poster un nouveau sujet   Répondre au sujet
 Art De La Guerre Index du Forum > Rules question V4
Auteur Message
Mike Bennett
Légat


Inscrit le: 11 Nov 2017
Messages: 582
Localisation: Carnforth, Lancashire, UK
MessagePosté le: Lun Aoû 12, 2024 5:11 am    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
navigator a écrit:
P42 for a charge units must contact enemy ..even with a single corner...so the example has a legal contact.

Terrain means no conformation till next bound by the charge receiver .simples...

No need to over complicate things.


I agree a corner only is a legal contact. However that does not remove the need to conform, and that can be into terrain, see page 54.
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
Hazelbark
Magister Militum


Inscrit le: 12 Nov 2014
Messages: 1669
MessagePosté le: Lun Aoû 12, 2024 8:58 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Mark G Fry a écrit:
This then raises a separate but associated question.

If the attacking unit of MF swd is not forced to align to the front edge of the Bowman, to avoid the penalizing terrain, what happens in the next bound?
If the Bowmen survives the initial melee, is it now forced to align to the front edge of the MF swd, thus putting its back edge into the penalizing terrain and fighting at a forced disadvantage. Which seems a bit odd.

Or are both units left to fight as they initially made contact, until the melee is resolved?


p 50 you do not ever have to conform into penalizing terrain. So they remain unconformed unless someone chooses to conform by choice.
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
Mike Bennett
Légat


Inscrit le: 11 Nov 2017
Messages: 582
Localisation: Carnforth, Lancashire, UK
MessagePosté le: Lun Aoû 12, 2024 9:18 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Hazelbark a écrit:


p 50 you do not ever have to conform into penalizing terrain. So they remain unconformed unless someone chooses to conform by choice.


On page 54 "... B is forced to enter the penalising terrain"

Oh sorry, I thought this was about the charging unit, I did not realise it was responding to the subsequent line up in the defenders turn.


Dernière édition par Mike Bennett le Mar Aoû 13, 2024 8:43 am; édité 2 fois
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
KevinD
Légat


Inscrit le: 23 Aoû 2021
Messages: 646
Localisation: Texas
MessagePosté le: Lun Aoû 12, 2024 9:21 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Should p 54 be read as being compulsory to enter the terrain if you choose to conform, but being that conforming when entering penalizing terrain is optional (p 50, 5th bullet), you can simply chose not to conform?
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
Neep
Prétorien


Inscrit le: 09 Jan 2023
Messages: 298
MessagePosté le: Lun Aoû 12, 2024 10:32 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Dan is addressing Mark's question about the subsequent melee phases.
I think what is missed is that the defender cum attacker (the Bowmen in Mark's example) are already being penalized, so aligning is not going to make things any worse for them.
Although one could construct a situation with camels or elephants and brush, etc. which would impose a penalty for conforming on a subsequent melee phase.
.
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
Mark G Fry
Légat


Inscrit le: 15 Juin 2017
Messages: 573
Localisation: Bristol, UK
MessagePosté le: Mar Aoû 13, 2024 7:46 am    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Neep a écrit:
Dan is addressing Mark's question about the subsequent melee phases.
I think what is missed is that the defender cum attacker (the Bowmen in Mark's example) are already being penalized, so aligning is not going to make things any worse for them.
Although one could construct a situation with camels or elephants and brush, etc. which would impose a penalty for conforming on a subsequent melee phase.
.


Not quite Neep.
In the initial example, the Bowmen are not in the penalizing terrain (the Marsh) but deployed next to it. The MF swd charge the Bowmen, and make contact with a front corner on the front edge of the Bowmen's base (to avoid entering the Marsh).
The MF swd, cannot conform to the Bowmen as to do so would put a part of their base in the Marsh, disadvantaging them.
So, the whole melee remains static until it is resolved, as (per Dan's comments) the Bowmen do not have to conform to the front of the MF swd next turn, as to do so would disadvantage them (which is good to understand).

To Mike's point, if it was possible for the MF swd to be adjusted so that more of its base (other than the corner contact occurred) was in contact with the front edge of the Bowmen e.g. if there was room on the other side of the Bowmen to the Marsh, that would seem to potentially make sense, but I an not sure it is a compulsory move?
_________________
'He could have lived a risk-free, moneyed life, but he preferred to whittle away his fortune on warfare.' Xenophon, The Anabasis
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
  
 Art De La Guerre Index du Forum > Rules question V4
Page 2 sur 2 Aller à la page Précédente  1, 2
Poster un nouveau sujet   Répondre au sujet Toutes les heures sont au format GMT

 
Sauter vers:  
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