Art De La Guerre

[SteveR]

Okay, this one is a bit nuanced - let me try to be as clear as possible.

A War Wagon is in combat with two Heavy Sword units on one long edge as follows:

SS
WW

The phasing player chooses which sword is the main unit each turn. The sword have just charged in and in this case it does not matter which they choose. Let's assume the combat is a tie.

In the War Wagons turn they charge a unit of cavalry into the flank of one sword giving the following situation:

SSC
WW

The sword on the right then receives a cohesion hit due to the flank contact while in melee. Unsurprisingly the WWG player chooses it to be the man unit and it receives another cohesion it from the combat but survives.

It is now the Sword player's turn. He, again obviously, chooses to make the undamaged sword on the left be the main combatant.

So what happens to the other sword? Page 60 specifies that a unit may not receive support from a unit in melee. The sword on the right is in melee with the cavalry, but is not providing support to the other sword in its position - its only effect is to remove support from the War Wagon's long edge (page 67)

We felt that the sword contacted on the flank was compelled to conform to the cavalry and played it that way.

But it did cause a slight temporal issue. The conformation occurs in the sword's movement phase. The decision as to which sword was the main combatant happens in the melee phase. If the sword player had chose the right hand sword to be the main combatant there would be no conformation.

Any thoughts?

[Dickstick]

The swd to the right is still in melee to it's front with the WWg.
It does not conform to the cav.p52 para2.

You choose who is the main unit to calculate the melee result.
It has no effect on the fact that two units are still in melee with the WWg.
_________________
Player 747 don't call me Jumbo

[daveallen]

BP2:

[daveallen]

[daveallen]

[SteveR]

At this point I have two answers, and they are the two possibilities we considered.

daveallen - I had not thought about the WWG providing support to the Cav in the event the turned to conform. I suppose simple support might make some sense. Melee support probably would not because the WWg was still fighting the other sword. And no support is also reasonable and what I would go with as the WWg are getting the benefit of their open side in their melee. If the WWg defeat their opponent then I would go with melee support.

I said this one was nuanced.... And I assure anyone thinking this case is rare that my Hussites would disagree.

For Dickstick, I have read page 52, but do not think this is applicable in this case. This seems to me to be the situation in the diagram at the upper left on page 66. A flank attack on a unit providing support in a melee. Although as I did specify in the original post the second sword (whichever one is second) does not provide support but instead removes the WWG support.

[daveallen]

I agree there are arguments either way on getting support against the HSwd or giving support to the Cav. I think it would have to be either/or rather than both or neither.

As for melee support, BP4 (page 67) says it's simple support, also that WWg can't provide melee support.

Dave
_________________
Putting the ink into incompetence

[Dickstick]

Don't kid yourselves you can make a WWg fight a normal fight with normal rules. What are special rules for but to override normal rules.?
The two units both are in melee with the WWg, not one plus a "support " All that the special rules give for the second unit to effect the fight with is to remove the WWg self support. It's not a support or a melee support as those are listed with the diagram. How else could players swap who is the main unit for fight calculation if both are not in melee?

No one in a melee conforms to a flank while still having a melee opponent to its front . Someone is confusing melee support with melee.
_________________
Player 747 don't call me Jumbo

[daveallen]

Richard, I'm hoping that's sarcasm, or possibly satire

Because it makes no sense to say special rules override normal rules and then completely ignore what the special rules say (only one unit fights) and claim something they definitely don't say (both units are in melee).

Dave
_________________
Putting the ink into incompetence

[Dickstick]

Okay is a problem of explanation.
In the diagram B is not a support or a melee support.
Of A and B only one fights as a method of calculation of the melee bonuses.
It doesn't make the unchosen available to be confirmed off like support or melee support units.
The unchosen is effectively in melee but doesn't get to throw a dice this turn .
_________________
Player 747 don't call me Jumbo

[daveallen]

It looks like you're inventing a new class of contact that is both in melee and not fighting. It's not justified by any rule I can see, nor by any reasonable interpretation of a rule.

What happens when, in his turn, the player with the HSwd decides the main unit in the fight against the WWg is the one without the Cavalry on it's flank?

Are you really saying there's no combat to be resolved between the flanked unit and the Cav?

Because that's an even bigger leap - not only in melee and not fighting, but also ignores a combat on its flank.

Dave
_________________
Putting the ink into incompetence

[Dickstick]

I'm just saying if you accept both A and B are in melee with WWg all your problems go away.
If you don't then you have a shit load of issues to deal with.

You takes your choice.

The rules are supposed to be simple.
Wargamers always try to make things harder for themselves.

I'll let someone else sort it out for you.
_________________
Player 747 don't call me Jumbo

[SteveR]

"I'm just saying if you accept both A and B are in melee with WWg all your problems go away."

Not really. Dave makes the same point I would, but perhaps this hypothetical extension of his argument might help show why. Consider now that BOTH sword have an enemy in contact with their flank. By your formulation, how would this be resolved? Would we pretend that one of the flank attacks did not exist? Throw them both into the single melee somehow? It would require a specific rule to handle the extra flanker. Having the sword player determine which unit turns seems to me to be cleaner and more in line with the rules.

"I'll let someone else sort it out for you."

It is indeed my hope that the silence of the learned elders who usually opine on these subjects indicates that they are debating it now. And a Solomonic resolution is in the offing. Perhaps the WWG could be cut in half?

"It looks like you're inventing a new class of contact that is both in melee and not fighting."

To be fair the second sword is in a unique class of contact and that is causing the problem. It is in melee but not providing melee support. We've all been trying to reason by analogy which is legitimate but unlikely to yield the "right" answer here.

I did warn that it was a subtle question.

[Dickstick]

[daveallen]