Messages

1

Rules Questions / TZ and Artillery edge

« on: May 21, 2022, 08:48:29 PM »

This one was posed in the NZ Facebook group.

An element has its rear edge in a TZ.
The element has an enemy artillery unit flank edge within its movement range.

P32 states a move forward into front edge contact is allowed.
P35 states the flank edge of a train counts as the front edge.

Can the element in the TZ move into contact with the flank edge of the artillery?

2

Rules Questions / Re: Naval and disembarking

« on: January 17, 2022, 12:05:05 AM »

Thanks Anthony
That's a very pragmatic and logical approach to the situation where the rules are not clear.

It is also the position I'd always assumed before starting to overthink things.

It would be useful if the rules committee would endorse this.

Thank you again
Neil

3

Rules Questions / Re: Naval and disembarking

« on: January 16, 2022, 03:13:32 AM »

I've still mulling this one over. I've posted it to the New Zealand Facebook group and copied it here.

Naval Gazing

A few curly rules questions.
Page 10 "... each naval element always carries and can disembark one land element..."
This seems to suggest that the two elements are separate. However, you can argue that because the naval element cannot move if there is no land unit aboard, then they are treated as a combined unit.

Questions
1. Does a general on a naval element add a +1 combat factor if the naval element is in combat or being shot at?
2. Does a general on a naval element that is in frontal combat suffer command difficulty?
3. If regular naval elements carry irregular troops do they still benefit from -1 PIP for one move or halt?
4. Can a naval element make a tactical move to shore, and then the land element make a tactical move in the same bound to disembark?
5. Can a land element embark and then, in the same bound, the naval element make a tactical move ?

If they are separate elements then I think the answers are
No, no, yes , yes, yes.

If they are a combined unit then I think the answers are the opposite
Yes, yes, no, no, no.

Or I suppose we could pick individual situations that suit us at the time lol.

Any thoughts if wisdom?

4

Rules Questions / Re: Naval and disembarking

« on: January 16, 2022, 02:37:23 AM »

And then...
If they are separate elements, does the general on board the ship give bonuses to the ship?
Does it add +1 combat factor to being shot at and close combat?
If the general's ship is in close combat, is there a command difficulty for PIPs.

5

Rules Questions / Re: Naval and disembarking

« on: January 15, 2022, 05:57:42 PM »

Thanks Anthony
The answer seems to solely depend upon the interpretation of "An element can be part of 1 tactical move..." on page 28.

The elements are separate (as per page 10) and the land troops are merely carried along and not part of the naval move
OR
They are integral, as you have logically argued, and the land element is part of the naval move.

I'm still firmly on the fence with this one, and frequently change my mind on the interpretation.

6

Rules Questions / Naval and disembarking

« on: January 11, 2022, 04:34:50 AM »

Can a naval element make a tactical move, either group or individual, and then, in the same bound, the element it is carrying, disrmbark making its own tactical move?

My reading is yes but I would like to check especially as I will be using a navy for the first time soon.

Pg 28 states an element can be part of 1 tactical move.
However, I think in page 10 they are treated as separate elements. Each naval element can carry one land element.

So my reading is the naval elements can make their tactical move and then the land elements can make their tactical moves, within the same bound PIPs permitting.

7

Rules Questions / Re: Combat in Rivers

« on: October 20, 2021, 12:55:56 AM »

Thanks Lawrence.
I think this is how I should have ruled it.
The 2 light horse in the column (2nd and 3rd) should have turned to face the blade. Rule turning to face page 35 and precedent on page 20 "Waders turn to face Boats that contact them."
The light horse would have combat disadvantages for being in the water and because they cannot recoil. Rules on page 37 and precedent set on page 40 "Recoil by waders that have turned to face Boats is prevented by the river."
In this situation the light horse would have been spent on losing the combat.

If the light horse had won the combat the Blade would have recoiled, but would the light horse pursue?
It is in the water, and therefore impetuous. Rule page 30 "Troops .....that are in a river" and therefore should pursue. However, that would be against the flow of the river. The precedent for boats in this case does not help. Page 42 "A naval element does not pursue land opponents, but its landing troops can choose to do so". This is no problem if the boat is contacted on the side as the land elements would be within the 45/135 rule. If the boat is contacted to its front then the pursuit would be outside the 45/135 rule.

My feeling is that the light horse cannot pursue against the flow of the river, ie outside the 45/135 rule.

In summary, I think that any movement in a river, whether voluntary or involuntary, must comply with the 45/135 rule. Turning to Face though, is not counted as movement. (It does come within the combat section not the movement section of the rules). So Turning to Face will occur, resulting in elements being outside the 45/135 rule.
Presumably we have to fudge it a bit to allow elements trapped against the flow in future bounds to pivot or move off to comply asap with the 45/135 rule.

Does that sound like the correct interpretation?

8

Rules Questions / Combat in Rivers

« on: October 15, 2021, 05:54:32 AM »

At a recent tournament I ran, this situation came up for a ruling.
(I did take photos but I cannot work out how to load them and there is a very restrictive file size limit).

A column of 5 light horse were crossing a navigable river close to a bend in the river (on their left). The leading 2 elements had cleared the river; the third had its front edge clear, and rear edge in, the river; the 4th and 5th elements front edges were completely in the river. The left flank edges of the leading two elements were clear of the water, the 3rd was partially in the water.

An opposing Blade element made a front edge to side edge contact on the 2nd light horse element, and partial contact on the third. It did not enter the water due to the bend in the river.

If the river was not there, the 2nd and 3rd element would have turned to face. With the river there however, if they turned to face, the 2nd element rear left hand corner would be in the river and the 3rd element's left flank would be in the river, facing into the flow of the river.
With the river there, by doing this, they would have contradicted the rule on page 20, Water Features, which states "Rivers can also be crossed with more difficulty off-road at between 45 and 135 degrees to the flow by wading,..." So I ruled they could not turn to face combat. This is in contradiction to page 35 where it states in the first paragraph that an element contacted on its flank edge turns into full front edge contact.

It could be argued that, as per the 2nd paragraph on page 35 of Turning to Face Flank or rear contact, "If an element or elements contacted in flank... have insufficient room to turn to face, the enemy must move back to make room." In this case, the 2 light horse elements would turn to face, move forward out of the river, and the enemy Blade would move back. There was sufficient room for this. They would then be at -1 in combat as they can't recoil into the river. However, this manoeuvre involves going against the flow of the river.

My ruling was that the light horse cannot turn to face due to the flow of the river. The light horse (2nd in the column) would be attacked as a front edge contact in contact with an enemy flank edge. This is unusual but not disallowed I think. Expendables and routers are specifically ruled that they do not turn to face when contacted on the flank. With the front edge being in contact with the flank edge, and the blade winning the combat, the light horse was destroyed.

Was my interpretation of the rules correct?

On another point as I re-read the rules of this section:
it is not clear if the light horse suffer a -1 combat penalty for the flank edge contact. Page 35 after the first two bullet points states "An element...in front edge contact with the flank or rear edge of an enemy element which is fighting to its front is subject to an adverse tactical factor." However the tactical factors on page 37 do not mention having to be in front edge combat for this tactical factor to apply. I certainly have never played a rear edge contact penalty can only be applied if the element attacked is also in front edge combat. My interpretation is that the light horse would suffer a -1 combat penalty for being attacked on the flank.

Thank you for your assistance in this.

9

Rules Questions / Re: Overlaps on rear support

« on: August 16, 2021, 03:53:35 AM »

Thanks Lawrence

10

Rules Questions / Overlaps on rear support

« on: August 14, 2021, 09:27:59 PM »

At a recent tournament in NZ I found that players play this situation differently.
If an element is in front edge combat and not overlapped, but an element behind providing rear support is overlapped, is there a -1 combat factor adjustment?

11

Rules Questions / Re: Arrival Surprise

« on: July 05, 2021, 09:32:05 PM »

Thank you for your prompt reply.
Interestingly, the other interpretation was from some players who had been playing a long time.
I wonder if it was different under earlier ruleset editions, or dbm.
I've only played 2.1
I'll post this on our Facebook group.
Thanks again

12

Rules Questions / Arrival Surprise

« on: July 05, 2021, 07:35:47 AM »

At our recent tournament in Wellington, I came across different interpretations of the Arrival Surprise rule.

Several players interpreted the rule that the flee rule is applied when the flanking elements are placed on the table ie. they flee in their opponent's bound. The place of arrival being where the flank marchers actually enter.

Others played it that they flee in their own bound, immediately after their opponent has declared the arrival of a flank march. In this case  the place if arrival is any potential point on the flank or rear edge as appropriate for a 5 or a 6 on the PIP die.

And the correct interpretation is...?   

13

Rules Questions / Re: Expanding an impetuous group

« on: April 14, 2021, 10:17:05 PM »

Thanks and thanks for the tip
Looks like ive been playing it incorrectly for 3 years

14

Rules Questions / Expanding an impetuous group

« on: April 10, 2021, 01:48:21 AM »

Say I have some impetuous LH(S) in a group and I wish to expand the frontage.
Do I have to hold the rest of the group when the column expands?
So if I'm the group below, is it just 1 pip as a whole group move, or is it regarded as 2 groups (GNOP being separate sub group, see below) and therefore 2 pips. 1 to hold and one to expand the GNOP column?

Original formation
A B C D E  F  G
H  I J  K L M N
                       O
                       P

New formation
ABCDEFGO
HI JKLMNP

Ref. pages 28 and 29 in the rule book (32 to 33 in later reprints)

15

Rules Questions / Re: Pecheneg 3/47

« on: February 27, 2020, 08:50:51 PM »

Thanks for that
I like to get in the zone for the army I'm playing and role play.
I feel like I've achieved the "Stupid as a Pecheneg" part