Art De La Guerre

[SteveR]

1.  A unit of expendable levy is in the simple support position with a friendly unit on its flank so that it is in front corner front corner contact with the enemy.

Page 42 says it may never charge or move into contact with an enemy to provide support.  

Since it is already in contact and providing support, may it advance slightly so that remains edge to edge contact and simple Support?

I think no.  The fact it starts there is irrelevant, it is moving into a position of support which is prohibited

2.  May an Expendable levy move near the rear flank corner of an enemy unit, Not into contact, But into a position such that when a subsequent friendly unit contacts that flank and conforms, it then finds itself miraculously placed into a position of support?

I think yes.  

[KevinD]

Interesting questions.

I would have thought if they were already in contact with the enemy they could move and remain in contact with the same enemy.

A related question is if they can flank an enemy to provide melee support if they were already in contact (say providing g simple support side edge to side edge with the enemy).

Another one is can they conform into combat if already in contact (say if the main combatant they were providing simple support to routed).

[Mark G Fry]

Doesn't the rules wording answer all these situations as proposed above: "Page 42 says it may never charge or move into contact with an enemy to provide support."

So Expendable Levy may NEVER charge or move into contact with an enemy. Not to provide melee support (which is support) or to conform (which is a move into contact) or to advance up the side of a unit they are already in contact with, as that is still a move to support. The rear corner-to-corner issue is probably 'head-of-a-pin' stuff, but even so the wording on Page 42 is clear in that they can NEVER move into contact to provide support.

The conformation one might be tricky, but I'd still be of the view that they should not Conform. Afterall, these are unwilling combatants, motivated by the threat of whips at best or death at worst.

[SteveR]

Hi Mark,

I certainly agree with you on the first point.

Regarding the second, they may never move into position of support.  But their move is not into a position of support.  

When they move, it’s just a move.  When they finish, they’re not in a position of support.  They’re not supporting anything.

It’s only the subsequent move of another unit that results in them being in a position of support.  And I don’t see how to prevent this from the wording if that unit is allowed to make contact.

I don’t think these are heads of a pin, because of course, this also applies to artillery and war wagons.  

And both came up last night in a game.

[Neep]

Well, it hinges on the meaning of "into". I think its common meaning is "from outside to inside". So, if you are already in contact, and stay in contact, have you moved into?

This question applies to artillery as well. It applies to unbladed WWg, but they can never provide melee support (or flank/rear attack).

[madaxeman]

If these situations came up in a game I’d be tempted to look my opponent in the eye, say

“These guys are supposed to be non combatants, and the intent of the rules is pretty clear don’t you think… I mean, we could go all Barkerese and read the RAW as perhaps allowing this, but … let’s just say that we’ve both survived the 80s one time already .. and I don’t recall it all that fondly”

(And that would be equally true if I was driving the Levy or opposing them) 


Extreme and unusual corner cases generally aren’t picked up by these rules, and it appears that not doing so a conscious decision by the author - it’s our part of that bargain to do our bit and agree an outcome that we and our opponents are happy with when that accidentally happens on the table 
_________________
www.madaxeman.com

[Dickstick]

Corner contact is a charge and requires conformation. Therefore a no no.
Starting in corner contact would give moving away a levy the only option, not conformation .
_________________
Player 747 don't call me Jumbo

[Dickstick]

Death of melee unit would be in levy turn.
Why did its opposition not conformation on the levy?
_________________
Player 747 don't call me Jumbo

[SteveR]

Tim, as always, thank you for your consideration of the matter.

Page 42 under ambiguous confirmation covers the common case where a mounted unit is charging a foot unit which is partially located in terrain and the conformation would result in the mounted being more aligned against an elephant, even though it’s not the most threatening enemy so therefore, it’s compelled to slide over to be more aligned with the foot, and therefore enter the terrain.

May I suggest that this situation is rather more likely to occur than that one.  

Here’s the thing.  If the intent is to prohibit the levy from moving into a position like this I can’t think of a clear way of modifying the existing text to make it any more explicit than it already is without being incredibly wordy.  That unit is moving into a position which could be supportive even if it’s currently not supporting anybody. 

On the other hand, if I’m moving a unit of expendable levy, or war wagons or artillery as my final move of a turn and my opponent says “hang on if you do that, and I don’t react, and in a subsequent turn you do something else then you’d possibly be in a position of support.  So it’s prohibited.”.

Also seems a bit Barker like and 1980s like and RAW and so on.

A move whose legality hinges on whether or not it’s the last move done in a given turn is also a bit of a problem.  As in it’s OK to do if you don’t charge somebody up but it’s not OK if you do.  

I think it’s pretty easy to dismiss the first case I offered where unit which begins in contact claims he’s not moving “into” contact.

The second case, not so much.

[madaxeman]

[Neep]

One can spend half one's time arguing that some rare case should not follow the rules, but do the "natural" thing, and the other half arguing that some rare case should not do the "natural" thing, but just follow the rules. And at the end of the day, nothing is gained.

Expendable Levy does fight. It just doesn't attack or rally, so it doesn't fight well. If in the rare case where your opponent has decided to make contact, there is no reason to make a whole set of exceptions to force the Levy to disengage. They are in contact. They can remain in contact. Simples.

Note that on page 51 Artillery and WWg (and units behind fortifications) do not have to conform when in non-melee contact. This implies that they can choose to conform. It also implies someone forgot to add Expendable Levy to the list. I doubt this was on purpose.

[SteveR]

[Neep]

Steve remember not every support position necessarily contacts the enemy. And only the latter is forbidden Expendable Levy.

[KevinD]

The need for these rules could be eliminated if expendable levy could just be deemed not eligible to provide support.

[Mark G Fry]

Surely the phrase: "...it may never charge or move into contact" covers all these eventualities anyway?

However, if an opponent is required to conform (or chooses to move) into a position where the Expendable Levy comes into contact or becomes a support or even a melee support, that is acceptable & legal.

But the 'never' word in the wording on P42 in relation to the Expendable Levy not being able to charge or move into support seems, to me, to be very clear that this type of unit cannot charge or move into support, in any way (& that should also include conformation).

The 'challenge' with Expendable Levy is not what damage they might do to an opponent, it's their use as mobile terrain and their ability to block (& ZoC?) enemy units so they can be picked off by better quality units from their own side. There is nothing wrong with that - it was exactly how they were probably used in reality - but I don't think the intention of the P42 wording is to allow them to initiate combat of any sort or in any way.

Just my 3-pence worth.
Mark