Author Topic: Baggage behind TF (Read 3452 times)

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

landmeister · « **Reply #1 on:** March 04, 2009, 08:54:16 PM »

Great! You finally found the invencible Baggage!

MikeCampbell · « **Reply #2 on:** March 04, 2009, 11:48:17 PM »

Literally - no....but if I'm umpiring yes

william · « **Reply #3 on:** March 04, 2009, 11:58:28 PM »

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

Tim Child · « **Reply #4 on:** March 05, 2009, 12:43:40 AM »

Quote from: william on March 04, 2009, 11:58:28 PM

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.

Tim Child

foxgom · « **Reply #5 on:** March 05, 2009, 09:10:53 PM »

Hi

Thank you !

I have had some very long discussions with a German player about this one.

neil

Tim Child · « **Reply #6 on:** March 05, 2009, 11:29:02 PM »

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

william · « **Reply #7 on:** March 06, 2009, 12:56:45 AM »

Quote from: Tim Child on March 05, 2009, 11:29:02 PM

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 ?

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

MikeCampbell · « **Reply #8 on:** March 06, 2009, 03:30:46 AM »

Quote from: william on March 04, 2009, 11:58:28 PM

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).

andrew · « **Reply #9 on:** March 06, 2009, 06:02:34 AM »

Ah - but is incapable of recoiling the same as unable to recoil?

william · « **Reply #10 on:** March 06, 2009, 01:03:13 PM »

Quote from: MikeCampbell on March 06, 2009, 03:30:46 AM

Quote from: william on March 04, 2009, 11:58:28 PM

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) ?

William