I just played a game where my two-base wide TUG of Roman Auxilia in loose formation destroyed its opponent in sub-phase 5.3 of the fighting phase and pursued straight ahead into the flank of an TUG of Persian cataphracts, the right-hand Auxilia base contacted the side edge of one cataphract base that was already fighting to its front against the base of a Roman legionary TUG. Per the pursuit rules 8. D section 10 the contact is treated as a charge and the combat takes place in the next charge phase. All well and good I thought, catching my opponent in the flank what could go wrong.
In sub-phase5.5 of the fighting phase my opponent however did two MF moves, one an MF1 move to place a free rear rank cataphract into contact with my left-hand Auxilia base that didn't have an opponent and then an MF2 move to turn the one already contacted (and also already previously fighting against the legion) 90 degrees to face the Auxilia on its flank.
So instead of fighting a unit caught in the flank the Auxilia found itself charging the front of two bases of an enemy unit of cataphracts all ready and waiting. Now maybe it's my fault for being too eager, I could have controlled the pursuit, using the F1 action and not charged and contacted the Persian cataphracts until the following charge phase so not giving my opponent any opportunity to turn to face.
Is there anything we did wrong rules-wise?
This is an omission in the rules. MF1 and MF2 moves should not be allowed against an opponent until after the charge combat has been fought.
Richard
Essentially you are saying as written the MF moves are legal before charge combats are fought. Though as intended not. The intention makes sense.
I would not be so definitive about intention and am certainly not convinced that the rules as written are an issue.
The QRS says for MF moves :
Movement or fighting phase if in frontal combat.
does this mean :
A UG that is not in frontal combat cannot make an MF move in that phase?
So a UG contacted in the flank cannot turn bases at the end of the fighting phase if they are not in combat to their own front and can when they are ?
The use of the words combat and contact seems important and intentional.
If not wording should be changed
I can see why you ask 8)
The intention is that MF moves can only be used where there is a combat between UGs. Where there is, bases in any of the UGs involved can all use MF moves.
Section 4K is the (PDF) rules is more helpful as it only refers to combat and can use more words than the QRS.
There was a reason "frontal" was added to the QRS but I cannot recall why :(
Quote from: nikgaukroger on October 11, 2023, 10:54:01 AM
Section 4K is the (PDF) rules is more helpful as it only refers to combat and can use more words than the QRS.
There was a reason "frontal" was added to the QRS but I cannot recall why :(
"Frontal combat" is more words than "combat".
Perhaps it was added to rule out doing the moves with a unit that is in combat, but only via supporting files. However, pdf 4.J.2.1 says you can do MF1 when not in combat at all, so it's not obvious that it's not allowed when you are in combat as a supporting file.
By the way, I think the only reference allowing you to make multiple MF1 moves is on the QRS. This probably ought to be stated in the rules text along with clarification on whether an UG that entered combat using an M9 (4.J.2.2) can use MF1 in the same phase.
As 4J is a whole section of exceptions to usual rules it is very dodgy territory for extrapolating - best not to go there really.
2 I mentions multiple MF1 and MF2 moves.
Thanks for directing me to that.
Well, I guess if you delete "frontal" in next year's update, you'll find out soon enough why it was in there.
Quote from: LawrenceG on October 12, 2023, 08:57:23 AM
Well, I guess if you delete "frontal" in next year's update, you'll find out soon enough why it was in there.
Suspect Richard will be able to remember why it was there.
I think Jilu is right, "frontal combat" seems to be there to avoid MF1 and MF2 movements of a UG contacted in the flank.
The UG will have to wait for the next movement phase.
Perhaps it would be simpler to say that 5.5 only applies to combats already in progress.
let's wait for Richard's answer, to be sure of the intention
Quote from: philfigo on October 12, 2023, 04:38:25 PM
I think Jilu is right, "frontal combat" seems to be there to avoid MF1 and MF2 movements of a UG contacted in the flank.
The UG will have to wait for the next movement phase.
When it will still not be in frontal combat ...
Well, unless somebody charges its front.
In some ways it depends on when combat is started. Is it at the point you have a contact that will result in combat dice being thrown or is it only when the dice are being thrown. There are situations in the rules that support both - a supporting file becomes one as soon as it is in a position to be one for example (so before dice can be rolled), but on the other hand you cannot make a break off from combat move until a combat has been fought (dice rolled).
Personally I'd not get too hung up on the nitty gritty here and work out what is best for the game in respect of the original question posed. Would it damage the game to go with what appears to be the rules as written? Is it common enough to justify a change? Personally, I can live with it either as written or as Richard has said he'd like - and FWIW as by chance it more or less cropped up last weekend at Skullrollers (slight difference) I went with as written (partly as I don't know what Simon's intention was so didn't feel able to rule on that basis).
Hi,
if you follow the sequences of a turn in order :
poursuit is in 5.3 of a turn : 10.3 "fight in the next charge phase"
5.5 of this same turn :"moves while in combat"
the bases will only fight in next turn
the fight will be resolved in next charge phase 2.7
the MF2 moves will be done in the 4.3 or 5.5 of this next turn and not before :)
Kind regards.
Gilles
so it will
As mentioned above for this to be true, and it is a perfectly viable approach, you must assume that being in combat is defined as rolling combat dice - and as far as I can see that is nowhere defined in the rules.
On reflection it may be helpful to look at section 4J in fact - despite that I suggested earlier that it may be best avoided; apologies to Lawrence for a too rapid dismissal of this, I did not read the section properly.
Here there is a definition of creating a combat - "Normally UGs may only create a new combat by charging or pursuing into enemy, or by being hit by such enemy. Here we cover special cases when moves in the movement phase will create a new combat."
This could well be read that a combat is created as soon as a charge/pursuit contact enemy - and the special cases of 4J.
I would also note that I know that RJC has ruled that where a wheel into the side of an enemy or using an M9 move to contact the side (2 of the 4J special cases), the enemy so contacted can make an MF2 move to turn bases 90 degrees; thus meaning they must be in combat when the contact is made but before any combat dice are rolled.
Quote from: nikgaukroger on October 14, 2023, 06:51:43 AM
As mentioned above for this to be true, and it is a perfectly viable approach, you must assume that being in combat is defined as rolling combat dice - and as far as I can see that is nowhere defined in the rules.
On reflection it may be helpful to look at section 4J in fact - despite that I suggested earlier that it may be best avoided; apologies to Lawrence for a too rapid dismissal of this, I did not read the section properly.
Here there is a definition of creating a combat - "Normally UGs may only create a new combat by charging or pursuing into enemy, or by being hit by such enemy. Here we cover special cases when moves in the movement phase will create a new combat."
This could well be read that a combat is created as soon as a charge/pursuit contact enemy - and the special cases of 4J.
I would also note that I know that RJC has ruled that where a wheel into the side of an enemy or using an M9 move to contact the side (2 of the 4J special cases), the enemy so contacted can make an MF2 move to turn bases 90 degrees; thus meaning they must be in combat when the contact is made but before any combat dice are rolled.
Hi Nik,
4J is concerning the mouvement phase 4.3 and the melee combat that will occur in 5.2
page 72 : there is two forms of combat " charge combat occurs at SP2.7 and melee combat occurs at SP 5.2"
The poursuit is a charge that will occurs in the next charge phase in the exemple above page 106 10.1 and 10.3
this means that there will be a combat not before SP2.7
in the turn sequence SP2.7 : "roll charge combats"
the file contacted on his edge by the front of the poursuers have to wait the mouvement phase to do MF2 :
"while in combat"page 74 point 2 dot of MF2 : that are fighting their flanks or rear"
they will not be in combat before the charge occurs in the next SP2.7
of course, I spend time to argue because it's a discussion around a point of rules that needs a clear ruling for everyone, in tournament like in rugby game the referee will always be right even I don't agree with him ( I don't want to get a penalty and have to get back 10 more ;) ).
Best regards.
Gilles "old N°2 who put his head where others didn't put their feets :) :) "
Quote from: PUNCH on October 14, 2023, 12:39:19 PM
because it's a discussion around a point of rules that needs a clear ruling for everyone
I don't think anyone is going to argue with that ;D
RJC is back from hols next week so I'll see if he and I can have a discussion and decide what to rule on this soon.
Forgot to comment on this.
Quote from: PUNCH on October 14, 2023, 12:39:19 PM
4J is concerning the mouvement phase 4.3 and the melee combat that will occur in 5.2
If the actions allowed by 4J are not considered to create a combat until the fighting phase, I think it would mean that a unit contacted by one of the 4J moves could still make M moves. It would also apply to contact created in the shooting phase (not common, but possible).
But as I said earlier, with any luck RJC and I can talk next week and sort this out.
I don't think it is unreasonable that a unit contacted as a result of pursuit could get a chance to respond, cards permitting (and of course they may also suffer bad things as a result of KaB test).
And I would hope we don't end up in a situation where e.g. two opposing units each break their frontal opponent and end up in only front corner to front corner contact; and then whoever moves first contacts the flank of the opponent and the opponent is denied a chance to respond effectively.
Regarding my original post was any official conclusion/consensus reached on this question?
Quote from: AlecJH on February 12, 2024, 08:40:15 AM
Regarding my original post was any official conclusion/consensus reached on this question?
MF1 and MF2 moves can be made in SP 5.5, but DO NOT cancel the flank charge. Sorry if this got overlooked in the subsequent discussion.
Richard
Modified response because I got it wrong!
No problem, thank you.
Quote from: lionheartrjc on February 12, 2024, 09:39:20 AM
Quote from: AlecJH on February 12, 2024, 08:40:15 AM
Regarding my original post was any official conclusion/consensus reached on this question?
MF1 and MF2 moves can be made in SP 5.5, which can negate the effect of a flank attack from a pursuit in the fighting phase. Sorry if this got overlooked in the subsequent discussion.
Richard
I thought they
wouldn't negate the effect of a flank attack because criteria to qualify for a flank charge are applied at the time you charge, not at the time you fight. (Which SAH implied assent to in the other thread on pursuit hitting enemy, if I understood him correctly)
Quote from: LawrenceG on February 13, 2024, 12:22:00 AM
Quote from: lionheartrjc on February 12, 2024, 09:39:20 AM
Quote from: AlecJH on February 12, 2024, 08:40:15 AM
Regarding my original post was any official conclusion/consensus reached on this question?
MF1 and MF2 moves can be made in SP 5.5, which can negate the effect of a flank attack from a pursuit in the fighting phase. Sorry if this got overlooked in the subsequent discussion.
Richard
Yes, you are quite right. I am still getting confused by the rule. My only excuse is I have had a busy week. I have modified my answer above.
I thought they wouldn't negate the effect of a flank attack because criteria to qualify for a flank charge are applied at the time you charge, not at the time you fight. (Which SAH implied assent to in the other thread on pursuit hitting enemy, if I understood him correctly)
Having considered the ruling there's just one point about the clarification I am still unsure of regarding MF1 moves that I'd like further clarification of please just so it's 100% clear.
Where, as in my original case, my opponent did an MF1 move to place a cataphract base opposite and in front to front edge contact with my left-hand Auxilia base that wouldn't otherwise have had an opposing file to fight are you now saying that there will not be a combat in the following charge phase between those two bases as they weren't in contact at the point in time the Auxilia charged or are you saying there will be but the cataphract will be subject to the flank penalty?
Quote from: AlecJH on February 16, 2024, 07:59:04 AM
Having considered the ruling there's just one point about the clarification I am still unsure of regarding MF1 moves that I'd like further clarification of please just so it's 100% clear.
Where, as in my original case, my opponent did an MF1 move to place a cataphract base opposite and in front to front edge contact with my left-hand Auxilia base that wouldn't otherwise have had an opposing file to fight are you now saying that there will not be a combat in the following charge phase between those two bases as they weren't in contact at the point in time the Auxilia charged or are you saying there will be but the cataphract will be subject to the flank penalty?
My view is that you fight the files as they are - so there will be a combat between the additional two bases, but it will be subject to the flank penalty. You judge flank charges as the position was when the pursuit was moved. This is not entirely satisfactory (to be honest pursuits in the shooting/fighting phase aren't fully covered for all the nuances that can occur) but seems reasonable.
(It might be easier to ban MF1/MF2 moves where contacted by pursuers in the shooting/fighting phase until the combat has been fought, but the rules don't say that!).
Richard
so.. You can turn the bases but opponent still get the flankbonus for initial combat but not melee?
Quote from: Jilu on February 18, 2024, 04:15:31 PM
so.. You can turn the bases but opponent still get the flankbonus for initial combat but not melee?
That is how I would play it.
Thank you now we have a clear ruling on the matter.
But then what can the bases that are contacted use as charge modifiers?
Does shieldwall, integral shooter count?
Does the LS standing to receive count ?
etc ...
Quote from: Jilu on February 20, 2024, 08:16:29 PM
Thank you now we have a clear ruling on the matter.
But then what can the bases that are contacted use as charge modifiers?
Does shieldwall, integral shooter count?
Does the LS standing to receive count ?
etc ...
Any base contacted in the flank cannot claim or cancel opponents factors.
Long spear standing to receive can be claimed by troops hit by pursuers as long as it is not in the flank.
Integral shooter cannot be claimed by pursuers, but could be claimed by troops hits by pursuers as long as it is not in the flank.
Shieldwall can be claimed by the pursuers because it won't be in the current phase. It can be claimed by troops hit be pursuers as long as it is not in the flank.
Hope that is clear (and is correct!).
Richard