Recent Posts

71

Rules Questions / Re: Arrival Surprise

« Last post by Neil Williamson 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

72

Rules Questions / Re: WWg(S) in Close Combat

« Last post by Marcel Bos on July 05, 2021, 08:35:29 PM »

Thanks again Lawrence!

But what if the Wwg(S) was a Bge(S).
Do I understand it correctly that in that case the contacted side of the Bge(S) will be the front edge, the Bge(S) fights both Bd(O) in turn this bound and the Wwg(S) gets a -1 for a overlap (at least in the first combat)?

It seems a completely different combat situation.

73

Rules Questions / Re: Arrival Surprise

« Last post by LawrenceG1 on July 05, 2021, 11:36:37 AM »

And the correct interpretation is...

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.

74

Rules Questions / Arrival Surprise

« Last post by Neil Williamson 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...?   

75

Rules Questions / Re: WWg(S) in Close Combat

« Last post by LawrenceG1 on June 20, 2021, 11:15:29 AM »

Since the edge counts normally:

The blade adjacent to the front corner (i.e. the "front half" of the flank edge) fights. Is is in close combat with the flank edge of the WWg so the WWg gets a -1 combat factor for enemy in close combat with its flank.

The other blade has not met the criteria for moving into close combat against a flank edge, therefore does not fight. However, if the first blade recoils or is destroyed, it will adjust its contact by sliding 80p to contact the "front half" of the flank edge. It will fight in the following bound.

If the WWg just loses, nothing happens. If the WWg scores half or less, it is destroyed.

76

Rules Questions / WWg(S) in Close Combat

« Last post by Marcel Bos on June 19, 2021, 03:42:48 PM »

Two Bd(O) move in Close Combat with the side-edge of WWg(S).

The rules (Turning to Face Flank or Rear contact) say:
a) As train, the WWg won’t Turn to Face and
b) WWg(S) count edges normally.

How will this be handled in Combat?

77

Rules Questions / Re: Irregular Clumsiness

« Last post by Fon Tok Nak on June 07, 2021, 05:53:27 AM »

Yes and yes.

When the lead element wheels, this costs an extra PIP.

When other elements in column behind it wheel, the cost has already been paid.

So you are correct.

Note this cost is per move, so if the lead element wheels twice in one move (for example, left then right to effectively shift the column over), the extra PIP is only paid once.

If the lead element wheels twice in separate moves (for example, when marching), the extra PIP is paid twice - once in each move.

Anthony

78

Rules Questions / Irregular Clumsiness

« Last post by Marcel Bos on June 06, 2021, 01:29:44 PM »

Does a group of Irregular Sp moving in column has to spend an extra PIP for Irregular Clumsiness if the front element of the column wheels (not along a road, river or terrain feature)?
I expect it does.

If the front element of te column moves straight ahead, but other following elements do not, it doesn't have to spend this extra PIP, I expect.
Do I understand this correctly?

79

Rules Questions / Re: Moving into Close Combat

« Last post by Marcel Bos on May 09, 2021, 10:31:41 AM »

This could mean an element that is further behind the flank could not do a flank attack while an element more towards the front can do a flank attack.

You understand it correctly, but It is a choice… after all it is a houserule.

My original proposed houserule makes it possible to line-up in flank edge contact, when moving only straight ahead this turn, until reaching the enemy-TZ, allowing a full flank edge contact instead of a corner-to-corner contact.

If this line-up would reach the front border of the TZ it would be, at 80p, subject to the TZ, so not allowed. However this doesn’t apply to the left or right border of the TZ.

Players can argue that this houserule should only apply when, as in my latest example, the flank isn’t at an angle (other than 90°) from and completely in front of the moving element. In that case your example wouldn’t be allowed. My adjusted houserule should prevents other circumstances.

This isn't very satisfactory, so you could consider adopting a "house rule" or "playing convention" that allows the flank contact.

By the way, my preference is for my original houserule, in which case your example would be allowed, but I really like to know if you would give one of my houserules a try, and in that case, which houserule you prefer.

80

Rules Questions / Re: Moving into Close Combat

« Last post by LawrenceG1 on May 08, 2021, 08:11:35 PM »

This could mean an element that is further behind the flank could not do a flank attack while an element more towards the front can do a flank attack.


Is that what you want?