Art De La Guerre

[Ramses II]

Consider a melee where a Red unit that was in melee support against Blue unit #1, is itself flanked by another Blue unit #2.

Mark’s concern is that, while the Red unit is now in melee against Blue #2,  the Red unit still has an effect on the melee involving Blue #1.

Hazelbark has stated the bald rules.
However, we should also note this situation only lasts one turn, after which Red would turn to conform on B2, which removes the effects of the situation. 

While I understand the proposed rule change, I am very unsure that it is needed given the limited effect 

[Mark G Fry]

[Mark G Fry]

[madaxeman]

[Ramses II]

Further to Madaxman’s comments, IMHO ADLG is a game that bears no more similarity to real battles than chess.

And to the point about advancing and turning a lowly bowman to protect the front of a friendly unit, this is an in-game tactic for the particular game being played.
It is the same as saying that a black bishop cannot attack a white square, or that a queen on a black diagonal has to move in order to attack a white diagonal (because it does not also have a knights move).

[Mark G Fry]

Thankyou all.

I write commercial wargames rules, so I understand the points about ADLG being a game, not an attempt to replicate real life.

My 'challenge' is not that what occurred in the game I played was a breach of a particular ADLG rule.
I am very aware that what my opponent did was perfectly 'legal'.
My 'challenge' is whether this should be allowed to continue to be used/allowed, as there is a danger that it could potentially become a regular table top tactic, like the old 'buttocks of death' game play in DBA/M, that could brings the rules into disrepute.

In reply to Tim's comment about the flanking Bowmen being in melee support. The wording at the bottom of Page 60. Support states:
"A unit in melee against an enemy can receive support from other units that are not in melee with another enemy. NB: this bold is from the rules.

Therefore, my reading of that, in this circumstance is that the flanking Bowman is not in melee support, as it is fighting the Light Cavalry to its flank. The same would surely apply if it was hit in the flank by a 'heavy' unit, so therefore it would not drop a cohesion point.
I am aware that the example on Page 66 states: "The MI unit suffers a multiple attack, losing one cohesion point immediately". But it is already in melee support at that point. So the sequence of play is important here. If (as was the case in my game) the LC charges the flanking Bowmen in the flank first, then the Knights charge, the flanking Bowmen never gets to provide melee support to the other Bowmen unit charged by the Knights.

As the flanking Bowman is not providing melee support, the question is whether it is or it not, counted as being in melee to its front with the knights?
I'd argue that it is not as it is not providing melee support.
Allowing the flanking Bowmen to fight to their flank (against the LC) but still adversely influence the enemy to their front seems highly illogical to me.

But if that is the way, that is the way!

Thanks
Mark

[madaxeman]

[Neep]

Tim, if the LH strike first, then the Kn move into the 'L' there is no cohesion hit because the Kn are not attacking the LMI.
So it's asymmetrical and therefore quirky and quirky isn't good.

Even weirder, what if the Kn's target is Javelinmen and they evade?-) (I assume the Kn cannot pursue nor conform to the flank, but I haven't checked.)

[Longtooth]

For what it's worth, I have always played in accordance with Tim's interpretation*. The knight fights on zero because he has an enemy on his flank. The fact that the flanking bowman is involved in his own combat is irrelevant.

* I should also admit to being Mark's 'gamey' opponent

[madaxeman]

[Mark G Fry]

[Mark G Fry]

[madaxeman]

[vexillia]

This is great stuff. Details & rule philosophy included in a well mannered and erudite thread. I'm not sure about the rules being written in a "Code Napoleon" style though:

[Mark G Fry]

[quote="Mark G Fry"]