So I'm starting out with the little learning process in the compendium to keep it all very simple. Only playing it Pacto as I'm not planning to go bigger than that anyway.
Very basic one, with the 4 TuGs and mediocre general starting 12BW apart.
On one side the 4 TuGs have stayed together base to base and block moved (well 3 have and the other has managed to stay with using a separate card).
On the other side 1 TuG has gone off to be clever and the other 3 are together.
The 2 sides are exactly aligned.
I'm at a point where they are now 3BW apart, and starting a turn. Now for the questions.
- Can the 4th TuG which could only contact corner to corner charge (and if so that would be forced)?
- Am I right in thinking that Shatter and being a supporting file don't require the files to be from the same TuG?
- Finally, assuming at some point one of those TuGs breaks/is destroyed does a TuG only in corner to corner contact still count as "in combat" and therefore locked there
I suspect the answers to all these are very obvious and I've not taken it in properly.
Thanks, James
Hi James,
Don't worry, it probably takes about half a dozen games to become familiar with the mechanisms.
1st point: As an umpire I would rule that a TUG which would only contact corner to corner (because they are exactly aligned and at exactly maximum move distance) cannot charge. The rules don't make that explicitly clear (or if they do I can't find where they do). It can however move to the overlap position in the movement phase. It cannot be a forced charge because the target UG has to be directly ahead for it to be a forced charge. NOTE: Because wargames tables do not obey the rules of Euclidian geometry, if files are exactly aligned it is best to be clear and agree that this is the case before declaring any charges.
2nd point: Yes - the file benefiting from a shatter doesn't have to be from the same UG, it has to meet the conditions for being a "neighbouring fille".
3rd point: UGs in corner to corner contact only are not in combat. Page 132 describes how they can engage in melee, but if not in combat they can be moved away.
Richard
Fantastic, thank you.
I'm sure I'll be back with more soon enough.
Hi JamesS and a warm welcome from me.
Looks like all has been answered. A good way to get started. You'll be playing fun game in no time. This week I am going todo a tuition Pacto game where Slow it down and explains my options and choices full for one side.
Si
So a few further questions as I've continued to play. Once again I suspect I've just missed something.
- Charging - Is there anything stopping me declaring a charge for a TuG that has had a charge declared against it?
- Generals - What is the decision process for a general choosing to fight in the front rank
- General KaB Test - Is there a KaB test for general which is with a TuG that is destroyed?
- General Command - All UGs being out of command for a General who is fighting, this is actively fighting rather than being with an UG in combat?
Edit: Apologies, I didn't mean to skip over the previous reply. I was typing this out for some time. Thanks for the welcome.
Quote from: JamesS on July 12, 2020, 07:55:48 PM
So a few further questions as I've continued to play. Once again I suspect I've just missed something.
- Charging - Is there anything stopping me declaring a charge for a TuG that has had a charge declared against it?
No there isn't. And due to the way charges are moved alternately it can often be a good idea.
Quote
- Generals - What is the decision process for a general choosing to fight in the front rank
Player just states that the general is choosing to fight when the file he is with fights. Note ones he is in he remains in combat unless moved out (which causes a KaB) or the fight ends.
Quote
- General KaB Test - Is there a KaB test for general which is with a TuG that is destroyed?
There is indeed. Item number 2 in the "Reasons to test a general, timing and method" section in the Kill A Base Test table on the QRS.
Quote
- General Command - All UGs being out of command for a General who is fighting, this is actively fighting rather than being with an UG in combat?
Actively fighting.
Quote
- Generals - What is the decision process for a general choosing to fight in the front rank
Player just states that the general is choosing to fight when the file he is with fights. Note ones he is in he remains in combat unless moved out (which causes a KaB) or the fight ends.
Where both sides file has a general present, would the order on this be that the player selecting the file has to commit to whether the General participates first?
Quote
- General KaB Test - Is there a KaB test for general which is with a TuG that is destroyed?
There is indeed. Item number 2 in the "Reasons to test a general, timing and method" section in the Kill A Base Test table on the QRS.
Thanks, I wasn't sure on this as one of the other reasons specifies Breaks/Destroyed and that one only has break.
Quote from: JamesS on July 12, 2020, 08:26:26 PM
Where both sides file has a general present, would the order on this be that the player selecting the file has to commit to whether the General participates first?
General principle in the rules is that the active player has the choice first so I'd apply that to this situation as well.
Disclaimer: I have a grand total of 4 battles under my belt, all solo, so I don't claim to be a rules expert ;)
However, FWIW I don't think it should matter who decides to put their general into combat first. It also seems to be a core concept of the rules to allow players to opportunity to respond to their opponent actions.
If the active player is forced to decide whether to put the general in, knowing that if they choose not to do so their opponent can then do so and gain advantage in (a perhaps critical) combat, it's a bit gamey isn't it?
Well you're ahead of me.
I'm still just learning with a single command at the minute going through step by step in each turn, and then each time I think of something trying to clarify in the book or here.
Now you say it though, yes, it does feel pretty gamey.
Quote from: ShrubMiK on July 12, 2020, 10:38:30 PM
If the active player is forced to decide whether to put the general in, knowing that if they choose not to do so their opponent can then do so and gain advantage in (a perhaps critical) combat, it's a bit gamey isn't it?
Same would apply whomever has to decide first, the opponent would be able to decide knowing what they are doing.
Same applies to all the situations where one player makes a decision first e.g. aligning or making the first move in a turn - by this logic those are gamey.
Not quite the same. The key being that a player always has a chance to respond (cards permitting of course).
During movement there is an element of one player can take an action that reduces the other players options, or beat them to a key position, so yes order can be important. But a player is not asked whether they wish to move a unit, and if they say no, that's it for the turn regardless of what the opponent does.
You also are allowed to pass during movement.
What I'm suggesting is that choosing to put a general in should work the same way. Then if I am the active player, and I don't really want to put my general in, but I would choose to do so if you put your general in, I'm covered. Pass, wait and see what you do, react accordingly. If both players pass, on with the combat.
What would be really gamey IMO is if I feel obliged to put my general in, just in case you choose to do so.
I know I'm the one who asked the question so my fault, but is it generally that significant anyway?
In my case I'm doing pacto with 4 Ugs each side for this, which makes it quite likely. In a proper game with more than 4 files a side I assume it doesn't come up as much.
Quote from: ShrubMiK on July 12, 2020, 10:38:30 PM
Disclaimer: I have a grand total of 4 battles under my belt, all solo, so I don't claim to be a rules expert ;)
However, FWIW I don't think it should matter who decides to put their general into combat first. It also seems to be a core concept of the rules to allow players to opportunity to respond to their opponent actions.
If the active player is forced to decide whether to put the general in, knowing that if they choose not to do so their opponent can then do so and gain advantage in (a perhaps critical) combat, it's a bit gamey isn't it?
It doesn't make much difference in practice. I think I've only ever once in three years decided because of it.
And occasionally it would be very realistic as generals at times targeted each other in this period. Alexander on Darius for instance. So probably not even gamey really. And you alternate who has first shout.
Si
Yeah - it has hardly ever been an issue in any game I've played. Worth remembering that if your TUG is carrying a wound it greatly increases the chances of your general dying (because you only have to take a wound in that file to add up to a kill and so a KAB on the general) so it is quite often obvious to both sides who is likely to put their general in and who probably wont. The "active player decides first"is just a handy rule for those rare occasions when an opponent is deliberately trying to take advantage by trying to always declare second (thankfully rare because MeG players are on the whole a gentlemanly lot!)
It frequently comes up in our games. But we are really relaxed about it, thinking about it as Simon suggests. If an enemy commander goes into the front rank to fight, we always allow the enemy to send his to the front rank in response, before the dice are rolled, regardless of who selected the file to fight.
I almost feel that if your general doesn't also go into the front rank then your unit should suffer a KaB test! (just kidding, ;))
So you are thinking about it as Simon suggests, but not playing by the actual rules he suggests? ;)
Which might prevent Alexander targeting Darius:
"I want to fight him, is he going into the front rank?"
"I don't know sir, he gets to choose after you"
"Damnation! Okay, I'll sit this one out for the moment. Put the kettle on."
"Ah! He's seen the kettle , and now he's going to the front rank"
"Okay, now I'll have to wait until I've finished my tea, I'll fight him next turn".
My inclination too would be to be relaxed about it - keep the implications of order of play/decision making to a minimum. But I prefer to play by whatever the official rules/widely accepted interpretation is. Otherwise at some point you do end up in one of those "rules lawyer" arguments :)
Umpire's view:
First rule of MeG is have fun - so if someone queried me on this I wouldn't be impressed! (page 77 - read it!)...
If pressed here is how I would rule: Active player decides whether they are fighting in the front rank or not. Non-active player then decides. There is no option for passes etc. (Justification point 11 at the bottom of page 77).
Richard
Yeah, I read page 77!
I personally don't think I can infer the intent of the author in this case.
The problem with common sense (as UK Govt. might be realising by now!) is that it differs from person to person.
Point 11 at the bottom talks about sub-phases, and specifically mentions passes as being valid choices.
What we are talking about here is more like a sub-sub-phase.
"At times you will agree that the order does not matter..." could cover it - that would be my natural inclination in this case.
Rolling dice to decide a disagreement can work.
I like to think I'm pretty reasonable, but I have certainly played against some people less so in the past.
"Then by all means ask me on the forum for an official answer" - is where we are now :)
By the way, I'm not trying to be argumentative just for the sake of it. I am suggesting that maybe this point could warrant some sort of clarification.
Where there is anything that has to be resolved by sequence its always active plater first. Keeps it simple. I wasn't suggesting otherwise. Just that it has Farley affected my decisions. I am more affected by whether I have a wound or not - i.e there is some real risk of a mes happening and want to be cautious. All works well as an abstraction.
And in the example I actually think its quite realistic. Alexander probably will go in anyway. If your decision is to tipped by trying to kill the enemy general you wait until he is visible and nearby. Combats last a few turns so even if second and have passed you pile in next time. Its not so easy to get a general out once he's in die tot he KaB test it causes.
Think I have only pulled a general out 3 times in total.
Si