|
|
Post by nangwaya on Sept 10, 2019 22:38:53 GMT
Maybe I am out to lunch and/or not understanding the issue, but based on the diagram and order of combat mentioned by Stevie, I don't see what the issue is. Once the Kn eliminates S3 and pursues which results in contact with S2, S2 cannot conform to the Kn as they are already in contact with B2, thus S2 will have a -1 in combat when it has to resolve its combat with B2, and better hope they do not end up with a recoil result on them. Please enlighten me if I am mistaken. nangwaya - yes but now remove B2 from the diagram. What happens then? That’s where we are st now. OK, I must have missed that bit in earlier posts 
Would it not be then, that S2 turns to conform immediately and then the next bound (which will be the other player's based on the original post that would be Stevie's opponent), the combat between S2 and the Kn is resolved?
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 10, 2019 22:50:28 GMT
Maybe I am out to lunch and/or not understanding the issue, but based on the diagram and order of combat mentioned by Stevie, I don't see what the issue is. Once the Kn eliminates S3 and pursues which results in contact with S2, S2 cannot conform to the Kn as they are already in contact with B2, thus S2 will have a -1 in combat when it has to resolve its combat with B2, and better hope they do not end up with a recoil result on them. Please enlighten me if I am mistaken. You are correct Nangwaya...but Paddy asked what would happen if B2 had not advanced into S2? The Knights would hit S3 in the flank, after the move phase S3 would turn to face the Knights, and if S3 were destroyed the Knights would pursue into the flank of the unengaged S2. The question is...when does S2 turn to face the Knights? Common sense says the unengaged S2 would turn when the pursuing Knights contact them... ....but the rules say you only turn to face “immediately after the movement phase”, not after the combat and pursuing phase. And try as I might I can’t find a way of getting S2 to face the Knights until the next bound... ...at least, not with the rules as written. That’s the problem. (But I agree with both Paddy and Bob...use common sense...turn S2 to face the Knights on contact...
...although this conflicts my rule lawyer instinct and the rules as written) |
|
|
|
Post by nangwaya on Sept 10, 2019 23:21:49 GMT
Maybe I am out to lunch and/or not understanding the issue, but based on the diagram and order of combat mentioned by Stevie, I don't see what the issue is. Once the Kn eliminates S3 and pursues which results in contact with S2, S2 cannot conform to the Kn as they are already in contact with B2, thus S2 will have a -1 in combat when it has to resolve its combat with B2, and better hope they do not end up with a recoil result on them. Please enlighten me if I am mistaken. You are correct Nangwaya...but Paddy asked what would happen if B2 had not advanced into S2? The Knights would hit S3 in the flank, after the move phase S3 would turn to face the Knights, and if S3 were destroyed the Knights would pursue into the flank of the unengaged S2. The question is...when does S2 turn to face the Knights? Common sense says the unengaged S2 would turn when the pursuing Knights contact them... ....but the rules say you only turn to face “immediately after the movement phase”, not after the combat and pursuing phase. And try as I might I can’t find a way of getting S2 to face the Knights until the next bound... ...at least, not with the rules as written. That’s the problem. (But I agree with both Paddy and Bob...use common sense...turn S2 to face the Knights on contact...
...although this conflicts my rule lawyer instinct and the rules as written)Thank you Stevie, for this is without a doubt the most useful post for what this newest wrinkle is about, either that or it is just taking several posts of people saying the same thing for my brain to finally get it
I am in agreement with common sense, in that S2 would conform immediately, and combat resolved next bound.
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 11, 2019 1:19:38 GMT
Common sense says the unengaged S2 would turn when the pursuing Knights contact them... ....but the rules say you only turn to face “immediately after the movement phase”, not after the combat and pursuing phase. Definitely agree with Bob and I don't think there needs to be any conflict with your rules lawyer instinct stevie! The rules are clear: If a pursuing element's front edge contacts enemy or its front corner contacts an enemy front edge, they line up immediately as if contact was by a tactical move, but the resulting combat is resolved next bound. This movement is now considered a tactical move rather than an outcome move as per "rules as written" Tactical moves occur as the second phase on the sequence of play. After the movement, are there any more tactical moves? No. Therefore this phase has ended. Turn to face "immediately after the movement phase" Rules as written. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Sept 11, 2019 2:55:32 GMT
Now I am confused. The element, which has no other enemy in contact, hit on flank by a pursuer, turns as as soon as contacted after the pursuer contacts it. The rules do not say "conform immediately after the movement phase, as cited by nangwaya above. The rule says "... as if contact was by a tactical move, ." Note the "as if" meaning not during the movement phase but following the pursuit as if this move was during movement phase, when tactical moves are made.
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 11, 2019 5:23:33 GMT
Now I am confused. The element, which has no other enemy in contact, hit on flank by a pursuer, turns as as soon as contacted after the pursuer contacts it. The rules do not say "conform immediately after the movement phase, as cited by nangwaya above. The rule says "... as if contact was by a tactical move, ." Note the "as if" meaning not during the movement phase but following the pursuit as if this move was during movement phase, when tactical moves are made. Sorry for confusing you bob. I think we are saying the same thing. I was trying to illustrate that the pursuit move should be treated like a tactical move. So when all the "moves" are finished (in the case of pursuit there is only one move) you turn to face. As a mechanism, it's like rolling 1 PIP, which I do regularly enough. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Sept 11, 2019 6:15:39 GMT
I think we agree on what happens and why and that is how we interpret the rules are written - except Stevie who agrees with the effect but doesn’t think the RAW actually say that.....but sorry Stevie I still don’t follow your argument.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 11, 2019 7:05:03 GMT
Jim and Bob have sussed it Paddy...pursuit contact is ”as if contact was by a tactical move”. It’s just me taking the page 9 “Moving Into Contact With The Enemy” rule and the page 10 “Turning To Face A Flank Or Rear Contact” rule tooooo literally. (See Baldie, we are all happy bunnies  )
|
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Sept 11, 2019 7:24:18 GMT
we are all happy bunnies |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 11, 2019 7:58:51 GMT
“Don’t mention the war the rivers!
I mentioned them once, but I think I got away with it...”
Basil Fawlty
|
|
|
|
Post by martin on Sept 11, 2019 10:51:35 GMT
Worth bearing in mind at all times when reading / discussing this that a move and an outcome (/outcome move, such as pursuit) are radically different items.
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Sept 12, 2019 4:35:48 GMT
Except when an outcome move is treated as if a tactical move:)
|
|
|
|
Post by eg407 on Sept 12, 2019 5:48:12 GMT
Possibly a late addition to the party, but at the game last night we had reason to go looking through the diagrams in the purple bible. We found what we were looking for AND the answer to the original question. I direct everyone's attention to Figure 20c, and the accompanying description.
The question on if a pursuit means/forces the pursuer or newly contracted to conform is interesting. And sadly not one any diagram seems to answer!
Cheers,
EG
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Oct 17, 2019 21:19:45 GMT
We have had this come up also and rule as Stevie did. Even more interesting as we allow the attacker to pick the flanking Knight as the primary attacker the question came up whether they could attack again - answer no you can only attack once but may act as an overlap in any applicable situation. (No one doubts for instance that a corner overlapper "between" two Close Combat can count in both.)
TomT
|
|
)
