Art De La Guerre

[daveallen]

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:

[madaxeman]

IMO, if you want to spend 3 AP to kill one LI and also have 2 of your HI fight with an overlap against them, the rules as written do, and should, allow you to choose to do so.
_________________
www.madaxeman.com

[daveallen]

Thank you Tim, your support means a lot to me
_________________
Putting the ink into incompetence

[ethan]

[AlanCutner]

Associated question.

If the contact is

HIHI

HILI
HIHIHI

I assume here the LI can evade. Although the HI behind is an obstacle, the LI can slide to avoid blocking friends (P38, last bullet point), so can evade through the right hand HI.

[Ramses II]

You are correct. P38 allows a unit to slide across the face of a blocking friendly unit. However, consider the following modified position

. . MC MC
MC LI
HI HI HI

The point is that the LI can no longer evade through the ZoC of the flanking MC. So, is it able to evade through the HI to it’s rear or not? There are several possible thoughts

1. The HI is deemed to be supporting the melee to its left, so may not be interpenetrated by the LI(p43).
   
2. The LI is deemed to be supporting the melee to it’s left.
   Since only one unit may support a melee, the HI are not supporting the melee and may be interpenetrated.
   
3. Although the LI may be deemed to be the support for the melee, as soon as the moves, that support is transferred to the HI behind, thus blocking the evade of the LI.

The above may be synthesised to this slightly more familiar position

. . MC MC
MC LI
MI EL

So, can the LI evade or not??

[daveallen]

Except evaders ignore ZoCs.

See also above comment on the implications of allowing a player to pick and choose which overlapping units are in melee.
_________________
Putting the ink into incompetence

[daveallen]

The point of this thread is to establish the legality of a tactic, not its utility.

However, it doesn't take a lot of imagination to see situations where it's worthwhile. For instance:


HIHIHI

HIHILILIHIHI
HIHIHIHIHIHI

Guarantees four victory points for relatively little risk.
_________________
Putting the ink into incompetence

[Kal5056]

Wouldn't the light infantry have been forced to evade when the first unit came into side edge contact with it? Makes the whole point moot if it does

Gino

[Dickstick]

No combined it should.

But could be a way out of the problem.
_________________
Player 747 don't call me Jumbo

[daveallen]

This is one of those rules effects like the Elbows of Death that look odd at first, but add colour to the game.

And like the EoD there are several simple counters:

it doesn't work if there are three LI

it's probably not worth the effort for one LI, especially as it's going to be nearly impossible to line up the middle charger in a way that will allow it to pursue into the HI behind the LI.

finally, if you do have two LI pasted on the front of an HI line, separate them by a base width. Again it's almost impossible to thread a charge between them without giving either cause to evade. So you're back to deciding if it's worth the risk to a single LI kill.
_________________
Putting the ink into incompetence

[Ramses II]

Thanks for the corrections guys and the continued discussion

fdunadan‘a point was that in each case, the LI could be deemed to be the unit providing the support, thus they could evade through the HI behind.
The wording on Support is carefully phrased in this direction, and does not mandate the use of a particular unit as ‘the support’, or being in position to support etc.

Your own view (and I suspect most people’s) is that the LI cannot shoot as they are supporting / in melee, (and they cannot be the target of shooting for the same reason).
In which case the HI behind them may not be declared to be ‘supporting’, unless and until the LI move away (at which point they may shoot).

Is this where AdlG is even less tricksy than other sets that have apparently evolved such deadly anatomical parts as elbows, buttocks etc?

On a different note, this example and interpretation would seem to have ramifications for other similar situations where there are two friendly units one behind the other, the leading unit being capable of shooting, but prevented from doing so by supporting a melee . . .

[daveallen]

Do we need an amendment to the rules for a situation that's unlikely to crop up in even one percent of games? **

I think we 're at risk of driving a coach and horses through the rules to deal with a situation which is, imo, not substantially different to the Elbow of Death trap in outcome or principle.

First of all, the proposed solution [that the player can choose which unit on the flank is the "supporter"] leaves the way open for the front unit to shoot in a position where it's generally accepted, at present, it can't.

If you go down this route there's the tricky situation created when the LI ceases to be the supporter, but hasn't yet emerged from the new supporting unit.

We could, I suppose, argue that technically melee has not yet commenced so neither unit can be supporting it.

On the whole, I'd like to see the rules as written upheld, but if we do get a different ruling then I trust it will encompass all the anomalies as well.

** Even something that rare will start cropping up in competitions soon enough (40 players x 5 = 100 games) so it's worth clearing up if only to stop the poor umpire's brain overheating.

Dave
_________________
Putting the ink into incompetence

[madaxeman]

Sadly, I agree with Dave

This is going to be a very rare, and very AP-intensive situation, which is not without it;s own inherent downsides and which is very easily countered by the "defender" pushing their LF forwards a little.

"Fixing" it would create other complexities including as Dave has spotted, also might allow players to artificially manufacture the ability to shoot or be an ineligible target.

I suspect the actual takeaway from it might be to highlight that the wording in the rules as to whether "corner to corner" contact in a charge actually makes Light troops flee or not could be improved at the next iteration.
_________________
www.madaxeman.com

[Luddite]

When the regular "elephant herding" tactic seems to involve this formation:

LI
MI EL MI

Is it really going to be that rare?

...and on a general point, the "are corners contact" point comes up in our games quite a bit.
_________________
http://luddite1811.blogspot.co.uk/