DBMM Forum
General Category => Rules Questions => Topic started by: foxgom on March 04, 2009, 05:51:20 PM
-
Hi
I know it?s very silly, but humour me.....
Baggage (O) defends a TF.
It is attacked and loses the combat marginally.
P 38 & P39:
"Baggage destroyed by any enemy in contact if.. (O)".
Is the enemy on the other side of the TF in contact with the Bge?
I have understood from previous topics that this is not contact.
If it is not then the Bge is not destroyed and instead has to recoil [!]
("otherwise recoil unless one of the exceptions below applies").
neil fox
-
Great! You finally found the invencible Baggage! ;D
-
Literally - no....but if I'm umpiring yes :)
-
;) Well done Neil,
I am not sure whether you a serious or not but here goes.
I do not think Bg(O) can recoil any way so in stoming fortifications PG 42, it states 'Defenders unable to recoil are destroyed' could be one solution.
Others will come up with loads of reasons why the Bg(O) will die and if they do not then roll on TFed Bg(O).
William
-
;) Well done Neil,
I am not sure whether you a serious or not but here goes.
I do not think Bg(O) can recoil any way so in stoming fortifications PG 42, it states 'Defenders unable to recoil are destroyed' could be one solution.
Others will come up with loads of reasons why the Bg(O) will die and if they do not then roll on TFed Bg(O).
William
Your quote from p.42 works for me. No point looking for anything more clever when a simple solution does the business!
Nice effort though, Neil. ;D
Tim Child
-
Hi
Thank you ! ;D
I have had some very long discussions with a German player about this one.
neil
-
Sigh!
Why are there always some players looking for loopholes to avoid the obvious intent of the rules? Why ever would Phil write a rule that makes Baggage(O) behind fortifications unkillable? ::)
Tim Child
-
Sigh!
Why are there always some players looking for loopholes to avoid the obvious intent of the rules? Why ever would Phil write a rule that makes Baggage(O) behind fortifications unkillable? ::)
Tim Child
Because he is Phil and the baggage could be Roman ? ;D
Seriously though, in some cases we do not know what Phil intends, why not unkillable baggage would not be as far fetched as other parts of DBMM. TBF overall they do lead to a historical result.
:) William
-
I do not think Bg(O) can recoil any way ...
Just to make sure this is covered befoer someone suggests that there's nothing that says Bg can't recoil - under Bg(O) definition (pg 9) it specifically states "it...cannot move on land except to disembark.", and on page 28 "recoil" is listed as an outcome move.
So a recoil is a move, and Bg(O) are not allowed to move on land except to disembark, therefore Bg(O) cannot recoil on land.
And before someone suggests they might be on water and defending TF..( ::)) they only get to be/move on water when embarked on Sh(I).
-
Ah - but is incapable of recoiling the same as unable to recoil? ;D
-
I do not think Bg(O) can recoil any way ...
And before someone suggests they might be on water and defending TF..( ::)) they only get to be/move on water when embarked on Sh(I).
What not even Jewish revolt Baggage (O) ? ;D
William