Art De La Guerre

[SteveR]

There are four units involved here. 1, 2 and 3 are all on the same side facing down.

A is in melee with 1 and facing up


12
A3


it is now the player with the numbers turn. Both 2 and 3 meet the criteria for simple support per page 60 and so the owning player may choose which is the one in support. Clear enough.

Unit 3 is a LI and unit 2 is not. So the player, reasonably, would like to charge with unit 2 against a different enemy leaving the LI in support.

But a unit in support may not be interpenetrated. It seems a bit cute to me for the player to declare unit 2 to be the supporter (for now) charge through and then leave only unit 3 in position to support.

But is it allowed?

[Neep]

Last time this was discussed, there seemed to be a consensus that this was allowed in V3 and would still be allowed.

[KevinD]

I suspect this is not permitted.

I think that you may not declare a unit to be “not in support” and thus move through it. If it is in position to provide support (regardless of what it will actually do in the melee phase) you may not interpenetrate it.

Note that a similar thing could happen with melee support. Suppose 3 was flanking A. I don’t think you can now say well 2 is in support so 3 can now move and operate is if it is not in support (think disengage rules - there are some very nasty multiple attack moves that could be made involving slipping behind to get a rear attack or vacating the location to allow another enemy (4 for example) to hit the enemy in the flank and cause another cohesion hit.

Even if the above does not prohibit this the rules (p 60, 3rd bullet under “Additional points”) says you can change which unit counts as support in each sequence of play, not multiple times per per sequence (which is defined on p 23 as composing all of one player’s movement, shooting, combat and rout phases).

[Neep]

I believe the argument is not that 3 is not in support, but rather that 2 is, and because it is not necessary for it to stay there, it may move on. Then 3 is in support position and so in support.
I don't particularly like it, but I doubt we will ever get an answer.

[Mike Bennett]