And not lining up

[landmeister]

And this situation was seen in the same game. All elements are Cv and white are mine. Element A was destroyed in the previous bound as it was flanked by 2, so element A pursued. In my bound 2 cannot line up to the flank of B due to the presence of C's TZ so it must stay there unmoved. It is not a legal contact, so B doesn't apply -1 for flanked nor dies if forced to recoil. Correct?

Thank you again

[MikeCampbell]

the -1 for flank contact makes no mention of it being requird to be an entire edge - , and neither does the combat result of being destroyed if you have enemy in contact with your flank edge.

We have seen this often, and play that the -1 for contact applies, and so does the "destroyed" combat result.

this is a legal situation because it is one that is manufactured by combat outcomes - not one that you have moved into - all the rules on page 33 apply to MOVING INTO CLOSE COMBAT.....which you have not (as I read it)

[Richa_Eire]

Don't you just love the edit function - I agree with Mike, but with no exception - I do think the destroyed result applies as the whole flank of element B does not have to have an enemies front edge in contact with it only partially. The whole of the flank needs to be covered for supporting elements to die as well ?

Regards

Richard

[andrew]

Page 38 re combat outcome :

Destroyed if a mounted or foot element with an enemy front edge in contact with its flank...

Page 37 re tactical factors :

-1 For each flank overlapped and/or enemy element in front edge combat with a flank...

Page 35 re close combat :

Close combat occurs when an element has moved into, or remains in, front edge contact with an enemy element in any of the ways described in MOVING INTO CLOSE COMBAT on page 33. This is called being in front edge combat.

In my opinion the combat outcome and tactical factor rules are not the same thing.

Andrew

[landmeister]

the -1 for flank contact makes no mention of it being requird to be an entire edge - , and neither does the combat result of being destroyed if you have enemy in contact with your flank edge.

We have seen this often, and play that the -1 for contact applies, and so does the "destroyed" combat result.

this is a legal situation because it is one that is manufactured by combat outcomes - not one that you have moved into - all the rules on page 33 apply to MOVING INTO CLOSE COMBAT.....which you have not (as I read it)

Interesting interpretation. I think it should be included in the Commentary. It is not uncommon in many games.

[landmeister]

In my opinion the combat outcome and tactical factor rules are not the same thing.

I hadn't spoted that.  Maybe you're right. I think that a "contact" is not necessarily the same that a "front edge contact". 

[william]

  Hello,

Throwing in my penny, as every one has said so far it is both a legal situation and a QK but just in case it matters I think that element 2 may only count as an overlap so could be shot at.

William

[andrew]

Hi William

The element doesn't meet the definition required for overlaps (p35).  Note however, the overlap section does state this :

An element overlapping or in front edge contact with the flank or rear edge of an enemy element which is fighting to its front inflicts an adverse tactical factor.

This seems to be in conflict with the rules I quoted earlier......because the tactical factors refer to 'front edge combat' which the element is not per the definition on p35.

Yet another clarification??? 

Andrew

[MikeCampbell]

Andrew the flanking element did move into front edge combat as described on page 35 - it did that when it moved into contact with the element that has been destroyed.

So it all still applies IMO.

[andrew]

Andrew the flanking element did move into front edge combat as described on page 35 - it did that when it moved into contact with the element that has been destroyed.

So it all still applies IMO.

I believe the QK aspect isn't in dispute but it appears the -1 tactical factor doesn't qualify under the movement rules (given the element didn't move into front edge combat).  However, the -1 tactical factor does apply due to the one liner in the overlap rule - is that your interpretation?

Andrew

[william]

Andrew the flanking element did move into front edge combat as described on page 35 - it did that when it moved into contact with the element that has been destroyed.

So it all still applies IMO.

I believe the QK aspect isn't in dispute but it appears the -1 tactical factor doesn't qualify under the movement rules (given the element didn't move into front edge combat).  However, the -1 tactical factor does apply due to the one liner in the overlap rule - is that your interpretation?

Andrew

  I think it would be my thought, it is an overlap not a flank edge contact so could be shot but it still QKs the overlapped element.

I kind of feel if it does count as an overlap could the an element move into this position ( as it can not slide into a TZ etc ), even though that is not the case here.

William

[andrew]

Hi William

I think I mis-read Mike's post.  I thought he posted that it didn't move into combat that way but re-reading Mike's post he posted that it did (my bad!).  I'm still not convinced the element is in front edge combat....but I also accept there is a sentence under the overlap rules that indicate the -1 does apply.  If you look at the wording William I think you'll find the element isn't actually in an overlap position.

Andrew

[william]

Hi William

I think I mis-read Mike's post.  I thought he posted that it didn't move into combat that way but re-reading Mike's post he posted that it did (my bad!).  I'm still not convinced the element is in front edge combat....but I also accept there is a sentence under the overlap rules that indicate the -1 does apply.  If you look at the wording William I think you'll find the element isn't actually in an overlap position.

Andrew

You are quite Andrew, is this case the flanking element did not move into this position, it is as a result in combat. You are also quite right as to whether this is overlap, it seems it is not,

The line I think you refered to is

An element overlaping or in front edge contact with the flank or rear etc.

So as usual I am going to change my opinion

The element on the flank is not in a legal flank contact ( and can not move into one due to a TZ ) so IMHO it might have to EMTLU to form a proper overlap ( either side edge to side edge ) or more usual overlap position ( from a nice group with the other element ).

Worse than the fickle plebs.

William

[william]

Hi William

I think I mis-read Mike's post.  I thought he posted that it didn't move into combat that way but re-reading Mike's post he posted that it did (my bad!).  I'm still not convinced the element is in front edge combat....but I also accept there is a sentence under the overlap rules that indicate the -1 does apply.  If you look at the wording William I think you'll find the element isn't actually in an overlap position.

Andrew

You are quite Andrew, is this case the flanking element did not move into this position, it is as a result in combat. You are also quite right as to whether this is overlap, it seems it is not,

The line I think you refered to is

An element overlaping or in front edge contact with the flank or rear etc.

So as usual I am going to change my opinion

The element on the flank is not in a legal flank contact ( and can not move into one due to a TZ ) so IMHO it might have to EMTLU to form a proper overlap ( either side edge to side edge ) or more usual overlap position ( from a nice group with the other element ).

Worse than the fickle plebs.

William

Sorry forgot it has to EMLTU if it wants to give a minus 1 for the combat, it could stay where it is not giving minus 1 but giving a QK, ( which actually may have been your first answer ).

William ( the repetative )

[MikeCampbell]

I cant' see why you think the -1 for being in front edge contact with the flank doesn't apply - there is no requirement for it to be in contact with the entire flank. 

the element is in legal contact - it made a legal move and the subsequent combat saw legal outcomes - so IMO the element remains in legal postion so there is no requirement to use the EMTLU.

It CAN do so under the provisions of the EMTLU - but it does not have to.

sure it is not a position you can move into voluntarily - but that is not a requirement for the tactical factor.