Auteur |
Message |
Za Otlichiye
Signifer
Inscrit le: 07 Sep 2021 Messages: 341
Localisation: Lovecraft country (and you Dan?)
|
Posté le: Ven Oct 22, 2021 10:52 pm Sujet du message: Conforming to flank |
|
This is a really basic question that doesn't seem to be addressed. Maybe I'm remembering too much DBxxx...
Two units attack an enemy, one in simple support immediately adjacent to the main unit. Completely vanilla.
Melee does not get resolved and attacker has another turn. Can the supporting unit now wheel into the flank of the defender?
Or must they slide forward this turn and wheel the next?
***
BTW in case anyone is taking notes, the Type of Contact on page 41 is technically incorrect. A unit exactly on the the line extending the front of an enemy unit can neither attack the enemy's front nor flank edges! ![Shocked](images/smiles/icon_eek.gif) |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
AlanCutner
Tribun
Inscrit le: 03 Nov 2014 Messages: 716
Localisation: Scotland
|
Posté le: Sam Oct 23, 2021 8:48 am Sujet du message: |
|
If the two units attacked as a group then the supporting unit cannot be past the front edge of the defender, so 'no' it cannot move on to the flank. Instead it can move forward on its turn to be in a position to turn flank the move after that. |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Dickstick
Légat
Inscrit le: 17 Juil 2016 Messages: 682
Localisation: West Bromwich
|
Posté le: Sam Oct 23, 2021 9:33 am Sujet du message: |
|
Keep up the perseverance in moving away from Dbxxx way of reading things.
Your "exactly on the line" situation is to be found in the front contact definition on p41.
You just need time to find it. _________________ Player 747 don't call me Jumbo |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Za Otlichiye
Signifer
Inscrit le: 07 Sep 2021 Messages: 341
Localisation: Lovecraft country (and you Dan?)
|
Posté le: Sam Oct 30, 2021 9:37 pm Sujet du message: |
|
I'm rather distressed with the lack of response to this question. I vowed not to follow up until 100 views, but here we are.
Let me clearly restate the question:
In EXAMPLE 1 on page 65 can the HI in simple support wheel into the flank of the Ph in their next turn?
Alan kindly replied, "No, they must advance in one turn, and wheel in the next." I have no doubt that that is how he and his group learned, teach, and play the game. But that brings up the next question:
Where is this explained in the rule book?
Since neither he nor anyone else suggested where, I assume his opinion is based on word of mouth.
Dickstick suggested looking at page 41. It certainly seems to be the right place. But what it says is:
Citation: |
Type of contact
A unit can contact an enemy's front, flank, or rear edges, with it front edge under the following conditions.
Front contact: A unit can contact the front edge of an enemy if it begins its movement with its front edge either entirely or partially in front of the straight line extending the enemy's front edge.
Flank contact:A unit can contact the flank edge of an enemy if it begins its movement with its front edge either entirely or partially directly¹ behind the straight line extending the front of the enemy unit and provided no part of the attacking unit's front edge is directly in front of the enemy's front or rear edge.
Rear contact:A unit can contact the rear edge of an enemy if it begins its movement with its front edge either entirely or partially behind the straight line extending the enemy's rear edge.
|
¹ I assume this is a technically absurd misplaced word - the kind of nit we aren't supposed to pick. But if you disagree, please let me know.
I have checked and rechecked this over and over, and the answer always comes out the same. This is a clear, common boundary condition error. It does not cover the case of a unit's front edge on the line extending the enemy's front edge.
That is useless, but if we assume in front of includes on then behind should as well. Which would contradict Alan, but no one else has.
So it leaves me with the awkward question:
Why hasn't anyone spotted and corrected this (in the past 7 years if Dickstick is correct)?
I'd love to hear some more encouraging responses. |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
madaxeman
Magister Militum
![](images/avatars/180413796057694899681ae.jpg)
Inscrit le: 01 Nov 2014 Messages: 1476
Localisation: Londres Centraal.
|
Posté le: Sam Oct 30, 2021 10:09 pm Sujet du message: |
|
I'm sorry, but I really don't understand what point you are trying to make here. To me, the rules are clear, and they appear to be clear to everyone else also - I really can't see what point you are trying to make.
It would be perhaps useful to know if this passage in the rules is one your regular face to face opponents also have issues with, as if they have not raised it as an issue it may be easier for you to resolve this point to your satisfaction by talking it over with fellow players at your club or FLGS to get their views, rather than debating it with puzzled strangers on an international forum? _________________ www.madaxeman.com |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Dickstick
Légat
Inscrit le: 17 Juil 2016 Messages: 682
Localisation: West Bromwich
|
Posté le: Sam Oct 30, 2021 10:10 pm Sujet du message: |
|
When two enemy units contact and conform to each other frontally they are not mounting each other but in contact on opposite sides of a line.
This is the line considered in the three contact situations you quote.
No one is ever on the line .
Just as in differential maths the hare never catches the tortoise, it is behind then ahead but never along side.
So your simple support is on the same side of the line as the friend in frontal contact, so under the definition of frontal contact the support can only charge frontally.
In simple player term one needs to move first to a position from which you are correctly positioned under flank or rear contact definition to then launch a charge.
The game is about getting behind enemy flanks or keeping enemy to ones front where support is unavailable. _________________ Player 747 don't call me Jumbo |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Ramses II
Magister Militum
![](images/avatars/51426646859c6e9eab18f8.gif)
Inscrit le: 17 Juil 2015 Messages: 1160
Localisation: London
|
Posté le: Sam Oct 30, 2021 11:40 pm Sujet du message: |
|
madaxeman a écrit: | I'm sorry, but I really don't understand what point you are trying to make here. To me, the rules are clear, and they appear to be clear to everyone else also - I really can't see what point you are trying to make.
It would be perhaps useful to know if this passage in the rules is one your regular face to face opponents also have issues with, as if they have not raised it as an issue it may be easier for you to resolve this point to your satisfaction by talking it over with fellow players at your club or FLGS to get their views, rather than debating it with puzzled strangers on an international forum? | Agreed. What Madaxeman and Dipstick are both saying, perhaps obliquely, is that the rules do cover this. The game has gone through four iterations of the rules since 2008, and the combat definitions and process are well understood.
- The definitions of front flank and rear are in the diagram on p41.
- The particular points you raise are covered directly or implicitly in the section "Conforming units already in contact" p51 and the accompanying diagrams.
- As Dipstick says, 'technically' a line does not in fact exist since it is the shortest distance between two points . . . . So the front edge of the unit is either one side of the line or the other, it cannot actually be 'on' the line. Consequently a unit in Simple Support is actually located entirely "in front" of the enemy. So Alan correctly replied that in the diag on p65, the HI may not wheel forwards to contact the flank of the Pike for two reasons
- If it were to start out of contact sideways from the defined location, it would be deemed to start "in front" of the enemy (per p41)
- Since it is starting in contact, even by just a corner, it may only conform (not move; see Charge definition p42). Again, since it starts "in front", it can only conform to a position "in front" - because them's the rules.
(and yes that is something that grizzled ADLG veterans will explain to you in the course of a game)
|
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
KevinD
Légat
Inscrit le: 23 Aoû 2021 Messages: 501
Localisation: Texas
|
Posté le: Dim Oct 31, 2021 1:14 am Sujet du message: |
|
Za Otlichiye a écrit: | I'm rather distressed with the lack of response to this question. I vowed not to follow up until 100 views, but here we are.
Let me clearly restate the question:
In EXAMPLE 1 on page 65 can the HI in simple support wheel into the flank of the Ph in their next turn?
Alan kindly replied, "No, they must advance in one turn, and wheel in the next." I have no doubt that that is how he and his group learned, teach, and play the game. But that brings up the next question:
Where is this explained in the rule book?
Since neither he nor anyone else suggested where, I assume his opinion is based on word of mouth.
Dickstick suggested looking at page 41. It certainly seems to be the right place. But what it says is:
Citation: |
Type of contact
A unit can contact an enemy's front, flank, or rear edges, with it front edge under the following conditions.
Front contact: A unit can contact the front edge of an enemy if it begins its movement with its front edge either entirely or partially in front of the straight line extending the enemy's front edge.
Flank contact:A unit can contact the flank edge of an enemy if it begins its movement with its front edge either entirely or partially directly¹ behind the straight line extending the front of the enemy unit and provided no part of the attacking unit's front edge is directly in front of the enemy's front or rear edge.
Rear contact:A unit can contact the rear edge of an enemy if it begins its movement with its front edge either entirely or partially behind the straight line extending the enemy's rear edge.
|
¹ I assume this is a technically absurd misplaced word - the kind of nit we aren't supposed to pick. But if you disagree, please let me know.
I have checked and rechecked this over and over, and the answer always comes out the same. This is a clear, common boundary condition error. It does not cover the case of a unit's front edge on the line extending the enemy's front edge.
That is useless, but if we assume in front of includes on then behind should as well. Which would contradict Alan, but no one else has.
So it leaves me with the awkward question:
Why hasn't anyone spotted and corrected this (in the past 7 years if Dickstick is correct)?
I'd love to hear some more encouraging responses. |
Being on the line extending the target unit’s front is not good enough to flank the target. At least part of your base must be beyond the (that is on the target unit’s side of) the line extending the target unit’s front in order to flank the target unit.
In the diagram on p 41, bottom right, see unit B1. It is on (with its front corner) the line but not beyond it, so it can’t contact the flank. |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Za Otlichiye
Signifer
Inscrit le: 07 Sep 2021 Messages: 341
Localisation: Lovecraft country (and you Dan?)
|
Posté le: Dim Oct 31, 2021 3:38 am Sujet du message: |
|
I think what Dickstick is reaching for is, "if the front edge is on the s.l.e.t.e.f.e. then if the rest of the unit is in front you can make front contact, if the rest of the unit is behind, you can make flank contact." Simple and clear. |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Za Otlichiye
Signifer
Inscrit le: 07 Sep 2021 Messages: 341
Localisation: Lovecraft country (and you Dan?)
|
Posté le: Lun Nov 01, 2021 4:37 pm Sujet du message: |
|
Madaxeman your blog and your description of converting your Han is what inspired me to spring for the rulebook. I don't have a grizzled ADLG veteran within an easy 3 hour drive to go consult. The forum is my club and you are my fount of wisdom. What is your point?
***
I stand by my statement, although "pivot" would be more sensible than "wheel". No need to spend the CP if you don't have to.
I went through every diagram in the Melee and Conformance sections. I looked at those on page 41. I read the appropriate section in Conformance and the others as well. The answer is not to be found there.
Which is just as well. If the answer were somewhere else, the rules would be disorganized. Instead it's just a fundamental but easily corrected flaw in the definition.
It is the nature of things that working with four iterations over a decade will make it increasingly difficult to separate what is understood from what is presented. That's why I'm offering my fresh-eyed perspective now, before I get ground down. |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Ramses II
Magister Militum
![](images/avatars/51426646859c6e9eab18f8.gif)
Inscrit le: 17 Juil 2015 Messages: 1160
Localisation: London
|
Posté le: Mar Nov 02, 2021 12:13 am Sujet du message: |
|
Ok, realise that these rules are written in French and then translated into English. No ‘Technical writers’ are involved (which seems to be what you are seeking) and consequently they are not perfect.Â
That said, we have tried to explain where the points raised are covered by the rules - as defined by the author, and worked out in practice over many years by hundreds of players worldwide.
In this instance please accept the definitions presented and try to use them, rather than arguing for some change that is incorrect. |
|
Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
|