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
398 résultats trouvés
Art De La Guerre Index du Forum
Auteur Message
  Sujet: Charge and evade
Neep

Réponses: 4
Vus: 226

MessageForum: Rules question V4   Posté le: Lun Mar 09, 2026 6:07 pm   Sujet: Charge and evade
I believe it has the choice if it is not impetuous, so long as it charges minimum distance.
The rules are very unclear on this. I have only found the diagram on page 44 to give any indication.
I th ...
  Sujet: Trapped General
Neep

Réponses: 3
Vus: 146

MessageForum: Rules question V4   Posté le: Lun Mar 02, 2026 11:52 pm   Sujet: Trapped General
I would say not only can they not move 5UD, they cannot even be placed on the table. Killed if the enemy pursues, otherwise captured, not that it makes any difference except perhaps in a campaign game ...
  Sujet: Charge and conformation
Neep

Réponses: 13
Vus: 697

MessageForum: Rules question V4   Posté le: Lun Fév 09, 2026 4:09 pm   Sujet: Charge and conformation
I think the rule is that you cannot conform from simple support to melee support for free, but otherwise you can conform if in contact. But I might be surprised.
  Sujet: Charge and conformation
Neep

Réponses: 13
Vus: 697

MessageForum: Rules question V4   Posté le: Sam Fév 07, 2026 2:03 pm   Sujet: Charge and conformation
I found the original discussion, here: https://www.artdelaguerre.fr/adlg/v3/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9085
It makes total sense; we just didn't remember it.

If a unit starts a turn both in front corne ...
  Sujet: Stakes and conformation
Neep

Réponses: 4
Vus: 226

MessageForum: Rules question V4   Posté le: Ven Fév 06, 2026 2:07 pm   Sujet: Stakes and conformation
The second bullet on page 20 seems pretty unambiguous.
  Sujet: Website maintenance
Neep

Réponses: 0
Vus: 147

MessageForum: Discussion générale   Posté le: Mer Fév 04, 2026 7:01 pm   Sujet: Website maintenance
The search function does not appear to be returning posts beyond a year or two back. I assume this is because the DB needs re-indexing of some sort. This gravely inhibits accessing answers to old ques ...
  Sujet: Incomplete conformation and disengage
Neep

Réponses: 11
Vus: 790

MessageForum: Rules question V4   Posté le: Mer Fév 04, 2026 2:35 pm   Sujet: Incomplete conformation and disengage
I'm not really understanding the concerns.
"As soon as possible" seems pretty clear. I suppose you might encounter a weird "shuffle puzzle" situation where a simpler and more comp ...
  Sujet: Charge and conformation
Neep

Réponses: 13
Vus: 697

MessageForum: Rules question V4   Posté le: Mar Fév 03, 2026 1:22 am   Sujet: Charge and conformation
Steve, interesting idea and I can't say you are wrong. But as I see it, only bladed WWg are specified as having to pay 1 CP to optionally conform (in the errata). Artillery in non-melee non-support co ...
  Sujet: Charge and conformation
Neep

Réponses: 13
Vus: 697

MessageForum: Rules question V4   Posté le: Lun Fév 02, 2026 3:48 pm   Sujet: Charge and conformation
I recall an extensive discussion of this. I believe the outcome was that during a charge, you must prefer conforming into melee, i.e. B would conform to unit 2. However if this situation arises due to ...
  Sujet: Incomplete conformation and disengage
Neep

Réponses: 11
Vus: 790

MessageForum: Rules question V4   Posté le: Lun Fév 02, 2026 3:35 pm   Sujet: Incomplete conformation and disengage
I don't see any prohibition on conforming and then disengaging(?) I suppose the new position might prevent a disengagement, though.
  Sujet: Disengage and Multiple Attacks
Neep

Réponses: 18
Vus: 1204

MessageForum: Rules question V4   Posté le: Lun Fév 02, 2026 5:34 am   Sujet: Disengage and Multiple Attacks
I believe the disengagement group question was asked previously and the answer seemed to be any well-formed group could move back, regardless of combat state.
  Sujet: Interpenetration and supporting question
Neep

Réponses: 4
Vus: 292

MessageForum: Rules question V4   Posté le: Mar Déc 16, 2025 4:32 am   Sujet: Interpenetration and supporting question
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 ...
  Sujet: Interpenetration and supporting question
Neep

Réponses: 4
Vus: 292

MessageForum: Rules question V4   Posté le: Dim Déc 14, 2025 1:20 am   Sujet: Interpenetration and supporting question
Last time this was discussed, there seemed to be a consensus that this was allowed in V3 and would still be allowed.
  Sujet: Attaque multiple
Neep

Réponses: 13
Vus: 39128

MessageForum: Question sur la règle V4   Posté le: Jeu Déc 11, 2025 4:09 pm   Sujet: Attaque multiple


At least with the English rules, page 60 asserts only the main unit is "in melee" and therefore a unit in melee support will turn to flank/rear because it is not "in melee".
...
  Sujet: Attaque multiple
Neep

Réponses: 13
Vus: 39128

MessageForum: Question sur la règle V4   Posté le: Jeu Déc 11, 2025 12:13 am   Sujet: Attaque multiple
Et après, B sera obligé de se conformer à son assaillant, donc il ne prendra plus X de flanc.
Non. En soutien de mêlée, B est considéré comme au combat sur son front et donc ne se conforme pa ...
 
Page 1 sur 27 Aller à la page 1, 2, 3 ... 25, 26, 27  Suivante
Toutes les heures sont au format GMT
Sauter vers: