In a recent game we had this situation:
(https://i.postimg.cc/njbPTj53/image-001.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/njbPTj53)
One reading of the rules suggests that a charge is possible for the knights. They make a 90 degree wheel at the start of the move putting them in this position:
(https://i.postimg.cc/cKMRyvC9/image-002.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/cKMRyvC9)
And then with the rest of the move they have left end up in this position on the rear of the archers - the second file pressing forward one BW:
(https://i.postimg.cc/4KZc5XPz/image-003.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/4KZc5XPz)
Is this correct or are we missing something?
9.4.M (p.132) says that you can not create a charge combat if you are already touching the UG - so it seems pretty clear that a charge is out.
The rules go on to describe 4 situations where you can create a melee combat, none of which apply to this situation because you are neither in side to side contact (and thus could do a 90 degree turn) nor in front-corner to front-corner contact (where you could align, wheel, or do MF1 moves)
That being said, I don't see why you couldn't just simply take a free alignment and line up in flank contact. You would only fight one file, it wouldn't count as a charge, but you would get the flank bonus.
Technically unless already fighting they are not in contact. I don't see a problem in that one.
Quote from: Rino on May 16, 2022, 09:10:30 AM
Technically unless already fighting they are not in contact. I don't see a problem in that one.
This statement is not correct. You can be in contact with a unit but not fighting it. That is why 9.4 M section is necessary.
I am with Francis, as an Umpire I would allow the unit to align in the movement phase to initiate a melee combat.
Quote from: JonathanB on May 02, 2022, 04:15:37 PM
In a recent game we had this situation:
(https://i.postimg.cc/njbPTj53/image-001.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/njbPTj53)
One reading of the rules suggests that a charge is possible for the knights. They make a 90 degree wheel at the start of the move putting them in this position:
(https://i.postimg.cc/cKMRyvC9/image-002.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/cKMRyvC9)
And then with the rest of the move they have left end up in this position on the rear of the archers - the second file pressing forward one BW:
(https://i.postimg.cc/4KZc5XPz/image-003.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/4KZc5XPz)
Is this correct or are we missing something?
Jonathan, were the 2 unit touching one another prior the charge?
The first image appears to show the 2 units touching. The question is how they ended up like this.
I presume the knights pursued or advanced directly ahead and so ended up in front corner contact with the rear-corner of the archers. In theory, the archers might have fallen back until they were in rear corner contact with the front corner of the knights (if this was the case it was actually either a clever move or cheesy depending upon your point of view). Either move assumes the alignment happened to be perfect.
If there is any sort of gap between the units then the knights can charge, no issue.
If the knights were in side-edge contact with the rear corner of the archers then it seems to be a situation not covered by the rules. As an umpire I would permit the knights to charge.
If as the image seems to show, it is a front corner to rear corner contact then again it doesn't seem to be covered by the rules. As an umpire I would allow the knights to align to the flank of the archers in the movement phase (assuming the archers don't move away first). 9.4M seems to preclude them from charging.
A strict interpretation of the rules might suggest that the knights cannot either charge or initiate a melee.
Richard
Quote from: lionheartrjc on May 18, 2022, 10:58:59 AM
The first image appears to show the 2 units touching. The question is how they ended up like this.
I presume the knights pursued or advanced directly ahead and so ended up in front corner contact with the rear-corner of the archers. In theory, the archers might have fallen back until they were in rear corner contact with the front corner of the knights (if this was the case it was actually either a clever move or cheesy depending upon your point of view). Either move assumes the alignment happened to be perfect.
If there is any sort of gap between the units then the knights can charge, no issue.
If the knights were in side-edge contact with the rear corner of the archers then it seems to be a situation not covered by the rules. As an umpire I would permit the knights to charge.
If as the image seems to show, it is a front corner to rear corner contact then again it doesn't seem to be covered by the rules. As an umpire I would allow the knights to align to the flank of the archers in the movement phase (assuming the archers don't move away first). 9.4M seems to preclude them from charging.
A strict interpretation of the rules might suggest that the knights cannot either charge or initiate a melee.
Richard
I believe that the rules as they are written do not allow the knights to charge or use 9.4M to create a combat.
Thanks for all the different views. To clarify the knights are in front corner to rear corner contact with the the archers.
Did the 2 units fight in melee last turn, either in overlap or otherwise? If they ended the turn in contact, why didn't they fight melee? I would suggest that if they didn't fight even as an overlap, they were not in contact whatever the board looks like now. CLearly, if they fought , even as an overlap, they are in contact so no charge. Or do I mistake?
Quote from: AntiokosIII on May 20, 2022, 06:03:08 AM
Did the 2 units fight in melee last turn, either in overlap or otherwise? If they ended the turn in contact, why didn't they fight melee? I would suggest that if they didn't fight even as an overlap, they were not in contact whatever the board looks like now. Clearly, if they fought , even as an overlap, they are in contact so no charge. Or do I mistake?
Well, I think the ruling can be based solely on their current position and does not depend on their previous fighting status - at least it would not appear that how they may or may not have fought affects the ruling.
To recap, the rules logic (hope that's not an oxymoron) as I understand it is:
- They are in front-corner to rear-corner contact
- Corner-to-corner contact does not permit combat of any kind as is.
- Corner-to-corner contact does not permit you to charge into combat.
- We then enter into the realm of p. 132 "Engaging in Melee When Already in Combat", which allows aligning into front/flank/rear combat. The rules are a bit murky in that it only mentions front-corner to front-corner contact in the context of corner-to-corner contact which is not the case here, so a real pendant would not allow you to align into contact. Nik and I seem to be on the side of thinking that's a bit over the top, and would allow the knights to align into flank contact.
I think the question is whether or not they actually count as 'in contact' or if it's a 'gnat's toger' situation. I think a rule might exist in the charge section that units can only come into contact with each other as part of a charge (or pursuit) and the only common instance of corner to corner 'contact' is when a UG is acting as an overlap for an allied UG that's fighting (or is in a position to do so even if they are also engaged).
Even if such a rule doesn't exist in print I think it's against the spirit of the game to allow situations where a unit can avoid the charge phase by advancing into corner to corner contact. A unit of knights facing down longbows with stakes probably shouldn't be able to simply advance and wheel into corner to corner contact.
But if I'm wrong and there are other situations where UGs can make 'contact' I'd like to know what they are.
Quote from: Francis Small on May 20, 2022, 08:42:51 PM
Nik and I seem to be on the side of thinking that's a bit over the top, and would allow the knights to align into flank contact.[/li][/list]
I am not in agreement with that.
Quote from: nikgaukroger on May 31, 2022, 07:21:59 AM
Quote from: Francis Small on May 20, 2022, 08:42:51 PM
Nik and I seem to be on the side of thinking that's a bit over the top, and would allow the knights to align into flank contact.
I am not in agreement with that.
Ooops. I meant Richard.