Posting this as I have seen it played different ways (and have done myself, alas :-[ )
Essentially can you go from the position in this pic (please note the 1BW marker for Close Proximity Zone reference)
(https://i.imgur.com/1JBNNwK.jpg?1)
to the position in this pic?
(https://i.imgur.com/XK7k9Ol.jpg?2)
I.e. when does the movement of the bases actually happen.
(for RJC I agree with what he ruled at Roll Call but feel it worth posting about for the reason above)
you caan't do it. There is a sequence. Move then contract. As the move must be minimum 2BW straight ahead, you will enter ZOC.
I would agree with Ray BUT it is written that you must advance 2 MU forward and that you contract formation ...
There is no sequencing of the actions. So you might argue that you contract at the beginning of the movement !
Quote from: badhabum on April 30, 2019, 11:20:30 AM
I would agree with Ray BUT it is written that you must advance 2 MU forward and that you contract formation ...
There is no sequencing of the actions. So you might argue that you contract at the beginning of the movement !
That presumably is the nub of the argument
Simon?
The move is representing front ranks advancing and others falling in behind.
So it is allowed. The order not being speicified to thereby allow it.
Hence use of and contract rather than then contract in the notes.
Perhaps better to name it?
M6: ADVANCE AND FALL IN BEHIND.
HOWEVER ... it should probably also only be allowed distant from the enemy.
And I can see the potential cheese pointed out is real.
SO ... propose to clarify officially now as a move and THEN contract which has a similar effect.
For vs 2 next year propose I will change it and make it only if 4BW from enemy TuGs.
Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on May 01, 2019, 09:51:11 AM
The move is representing front ranks advancing and others falling in behind.
So it is allowed. The order not being speicified to thereby allow it.
Hence use of and contract rather than then contract in the notes.
Perhaps better to name it?
M6: ADVANCE AND FALL IN BEHIND.
Love it. My new favourite move.............. if I can remember it
Must confess I am not sure if this explanation is a good thing.
It certainly reinforces my view that RJC's suggestion of what qualifies as a flank attack is a highly desirable change as allowing this sort of move will increase the number of marginal flank attacks possible.
Quote from: nikgaukroger on May 01, 2019, 10:12:16 AM
Must confess I am not sure if this explanation is a good thing.
It certainly reinforces my view that RJC's suggestion of what qualifies as a flank attack is a highly desirable change as allowing this sort of move will increase the number of marginal flank attacks possible.
mhwaaaaaa
Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on May 01, 2019, 09:51:11 AM
The move is representing front ranks advancing and others falling in behind.
So it is allowed. The order not being speicified to thereby allow it.
Hence use of and contract rather than then contract in the notes.
Perhaps better to name it?
M6: ADVANCE AND FALL IN BEHIND.
Simon,
I think this is dreadful and will damage the game. The problem is that if you have two units facing each other (no other units involved), but both overlapping each other and the player without the deck can move second, then they can use the M6 move and in the subsequent turn charge the flank without their opponent being able to do anything about it. Either change it, or do not allow an M6 move within 2 BW of an enemy TuG (as for the double wheel). Please. Flank attacks should be when you get round the flank, not just by pulling off some cheesy move.
Richard
Quote from: lionheartrjc on May 01, 2019, 10:27:28 AM
Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on May 01, 2019, 09:51:11 AM
The move is representing front ranks advancing and others falling in behind.
So it is allowed. The order not being speicified to thereby allow it.
Hence use of and contract rather than then contract in the notes.
Perhaps better to name it?
M6: ADVANCE AND FALL IN BEHIND.
Simon,
I think this is dreadful and will damage the game. The problem is that if you have two units facing each other (no other units involved), but both overlapping each other and the player without the deck can move second, then they can use the M6 move and in the subsequent turn charge the flank without their opponent being able to do anything about it. Either change it, or do not allow an M6 move within 2 BW of an enemy TuG (as for the double wheel). Please. Flank attacks should be when you get round the flank, not just by pulling off some cheesy move.
Richard
Despite my love of cheese!
I agree with Nik and Richard.
However until ...........................
Quote from: lionheartrjc on May 01, 2019, 10:27:28 AM
Either change it, or do not allow an M6 move within 2 BW of an enemy TuG (as for the double wheel).
Richard
As in you cannot do an M6 if the move
starts within 2BW or if it goes within 2BW at
any time during its move?
If the former the move above is still possible, especially for cavalry (which may not, per se, be unreasonable), but would be more difficult for infantry to pull off (easier for FoF infantry which again may not be unreasonable per se).
Any time during its move (see response to double wheel post).
Richard
Quote from: lionheartrjc on May 01, 2019, 11:36:09 AM
Any time during its move (see response to double wheel post).
Richard
I'd support this approach.
I must admit there is a choice to make.
First the M6 move is a rather easy one being on green for drilled and formed TUGs. Now how often will we encounter that exact situation is another question.
Now if I see it as a gamer, the move is cheesy so I would say that Richard has the right approach.
But having read much about history and having experienced leadership in many mock battles, I know that in the heat of the battle, such a move can easely happen unless you are very cautious. So yes, it is a plausible move because most of the real fighters have a tunnel vision and due to dust etc...do not notice all the threatening moves and that's why we read about many flank charges that surprise their targets.
As a player knows it is possible, he should deploy accordingly and pay attention .
A choice to make .
Quote from: badhabum on May 01, 2019, 11:52:30 AM
But having read much about history and having experienced leadership in many mock battles, I know that in the heat of the battle, such a move can easely happen unless you are very cautious. So yes, it is a plausible move because most of the real fighters have a tunnel vision and due to dust etc...do not notice all the threatening moves and that's why we read about many flank charges that surprise their targets.
I don't disagree that vision in many battles might be limited, but I cannot think of a single battle where one side facing another side forms into a column and then hits their opponents in the flank. This just was not feasible.
Flank attacks in ancient battles are rare. Manouvreing near an enemy could go badly wrong in so many ways. Usually sides hit in the flank were ambushed. Hannibal's ambush of the Romans at Lake Trasimene is one example.
It was possible for the best drilled armies to take units (often in reserve) around to a flank, but this was generally countered by their opponents. Yarmuk (636 CE) is an example. It was when the units that the Romans sent to counter the outflanking Muslims were defeated that the Roman flank caved in and the battle was lost. Most armies preferred to deploy in depth rather than attempt any sort of outflanking. In many ancient cultures, anything other than facing your opponent frontally would have been regarded as cowardice and an admission of defeat.
You are right that there is a choice. If MeG further becomes a game of trying to make moves to get your front edge milimeters over your opponents front edge so that you can then claim flank bonuses in the subsequent charge then it rapidly loses its appeal to me. Speed of play will suffer as players become scared of moving units forward in case they expose a flank. The basic principle should be that if units are lined up in front of each other then it should not be possible to engineer a flank charge. If a unit is beyond the flank edge of the opposing unit then fair enough, reward good manouvre.
I don't intend to post further on this topic as I think I have expressed my views clearly enough.
Richard
OK I thought about it . I am not so sure Richard's idea is the best one.
If we interdict a unit to move closer than 2 MU of an ennemy TUG if it makes a M6 move, that will impact a lot of movements, for exemple movements that comes from another angle, or in the flank or from the rear . It will be a problem for the mobility in general .
So I would really think about it and it should be balanced by :
How often will the specific case discussed here happen ? ( I never had the case )
Should the players not have to pay attention to how they move and coordinate their TUG ?
How about
an M6 move cannot be used to set up a flank charge
HH
Quote from: badhabum on May 01, 2019, 01:39:47 PM
OK I thought about it . I am not so sure Richard's idea is the best one.
If we interdict a unit to move closer than 2 MU of an ennemy TUG if it makes a M6 move, that will impact a lot of movements, for exemple movements that comes from another angle, or in the flank or from the rear . It will be a problem for the mobility in general .
Have you an example of something that would be materially adversely affected that we can consider? I can't think of anything off hand but you, I assume, have something in mind.
Quote
How often will the specific case discussed here happen ? ( I never had the case )
At a rough estimate, not having kept track obviously, the case I posted pics of has cropped up (in theory) at least once a competition in my personal games, and probably about the same in non-comp games. Enough to be material IMO. Plus if it were now OK I would suggest we'd see a lot more as people manoeuvred to try and manufacture it, thus Richard's point above about speed of play will certainly apply much to the detriment of the game.
Fundamentally this is, IMO, the same sort of issue as was raised about double wheels last year, and thus the same solution would seem to be appropriate.
QuoteHave you an example of something that would be materially adversely affected that we can consider? I can't think of anything off hand but you, I assume, have something in mind.
If you prohibit that kind of manoeuver 2 MU from an enemy TUG, even from the rear or the flank, you inhibit movement in general. If a TUG comes from the flank and for some reason wants to contract ( terrain or another enemy unit ), it may not do the M6 move if we prohibit it in an area of 2 MU from any enemy TUG even if in the rear of the enemy TUG .
That is what bothers me. There is no reason to prohibit such a move if it dis not to the front of the enemy TUG.
Now the question is about the move when it begins to the front of an enemy TUG, with part of the files "frontal" to enemy files. That is part of the problem, not the move in itself .
I may also want to advance towards the enemy, close ranks ( M6) and stop within 1 MU to the front of the opposing TUG . So I will be in easy charge range, perhaps have a free charge or mandatory one and have some depth because I want it so .
So changing the rule may have a bigger impact than just prohibiting some move that enables you to go in the flank of an enemy TUG . It does not happen that often .
Perhaps, just changing the wording and enable the contract to happen after at least 1 or 2 MU straight forward . But the more I think about it, the more I would say : it is up to the player to coordinate his units so that it would not happen 8) till the day I will have it done to myself ;D
Quote from: badhabum on May 01, 2019, 02:28:57 PM
QuoteHave you an example of something that would be materially adversely affected that we can consider? I can't think of anything off hand but you, I assume, have something in mind.
If you prohibit that kind of manoeuver 2 MU from an enemy TUG, even from the rear or the flank, you inhibit movement in general. If a TUG comes from the flank and for some reason wants to contract ( terrain or another enemy unit ), it may not do the M6 move if we prohibit it in an area of 2 MU from any enemy TUG even if in the rear of the enemy TUG .
That is what bothers me. There is no reason to prohibit such a move if it dis not to the front of the enemy TUG.
Thanks.
I think I can see where you are coming from, however, my feeling is that this would not be much of an issue - my experience is that using an M6 move in such circumstances is not that common, but others may have a different experience. For me Richard's suggestion has the benefit of simplicity and this as a knock of effect doesn't outweigh that. Be interesting to see what other feel.
Quote
I may also want to advance towards the enemy, close ranks ( M6) and stop within 1 MU to the front of the opposing TUG . So I will be in easy charge range, perhaps have a free charge or mandatory one and have some depth because I want it so .
I don't have much sympathy with this scenario - this, IMO, falls into the "get yourself sorted out in advance" category, or as you said "it is up to the player to coordinate his units".
Pondered a little more....
Yes i think you are all correct that is it better not allowed.
I am going to make the official clarry move and THEN contract (to take account of need to be distant from enemy).
For vs 2 I will probably remove but make it have to be 4BW from enemy.
It is a sort of march move the more I think of it.
Si
EDITED ABOVE.
Will make official after leaving for a few days if no objections.
S
I think 2 BW of the ennemy is good enough and more in line with the double wheel line for simplicity sake
Here the issue is that one unit want to escape an enemy and avoid its zone of control by contracting.
The feeling is that it is unfair.
In case we change the rule we have to be careful on the impact for « normal » manœuvre.
Et.:
Tug (a) is 3 base large.
It want to go between tug (b) and tug (c) - only a 2 bases space.
If (a) want to contract with the proposed amendment then it need to start 2 base away from (b) and (c)?
It starts to be not practical.
My feeling is that zone of control should appear somewhere in the clarie.
My 5 cents
Cheers
Rino
Rino, how many times will that happen ?
The alignement must be perfect ::)
And your opponent must help you by having between his 2 units just the 2 MU space you need :o
Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on May 02, 2019, 07:31:59 AM
Pondered a little more....
Yes i think you are all correct that is it better not allowed.
I am going to make the official clarry move and THEN contract (to take account of need to be distant from enemy).
That's simple and clear - and not a big change which suits a clarry.
Quote
For vs 2 I will probably remove but make it have to be 4BW from enemy.
It is a sort of march move the more I think of it.
Si
Think I'd prefer Richard's idea, but one for consideration for sure.
Quote from: badhabum on May 02, 2019, 05:01:29 PM
Rino, how many times will that happen ?
The alignement must be perfect ::)
And your opponent must help you by having between his 2 units just the 2 MU space you need :o
It can happen every single game after deployment.
In the example (a) (b) and (c) are not enemy
Any change must therefore specifically mention something abt the zone of control.
1- In a specific case where you approach an enemy from rear you shouldn't be block by any proximity effect.
2- zone of control are disregarded for charge. You still can contract one base due to limited space even if you don't have 2 BW space.
Ok I understood A going in the middle of 2 enemy units :o
I did it once ...but going straight forward my opponent having decided to advance 2 of his units with a large 3 base wide gap between them ...I just went between the units with my cavalry 8)
Added to official calrries ...
M6 Advance and contract
Adjustment to stop cheesy contractions and bypasses when close to enemy. Add to notes: "Contraction is taken at the end of the move, and may not be done if the contracting files are in the Close Proximity Zone of enemy." Note this is in movement phase only so if a contraction is NECESSARY to make contact in the charge phase, then it is allowed.
Well done, Simon. This came up in my Saturday game, where as I told my opponent " I COULD contract to get on your flank, but it'll be illegal by next week"...so I didn't do it. Now I feel a welcome virtuous glow.
Providing glow is one of purposes.
Trust it was purple...
But is there still a minimum distance to move before contraction ? The correction only says "at the end of the move" not how far the move should be . Still 2 MU minimum ?
Si's new note is an addition to the current wording and not a replacement so the 2 BE minimum movement still applies.
This does have the consequence that you can no longer contract to get round terrain that is between 1/2 BW and 1 BW across your front even if there are no enemy close. Could the note read: "Contraction may be taken at any time in the move, but may not be done if the contracting files would have been in the Close Proximity Zone of any enemy had it been done at the end of the move."
I think this avoids the cheese without messing up otherwise reasonable actions.
Good spot stephen.
Will adapt in some form.
S
I think it would be simpler to just limit the move as for M4 . You contract at the beginning , must move at least 2 BW forward ( no wheel ) and stay 2 MU from an enemy TUG.
That is simpler and avoids the somewhat messy bit about where you would have been. KISS and all that.
Quote from: badhabum on May 08, 2019, 08:51:24 PM
I think it would be simpler to just limit the move as for M4 . You contract at the beginning , must move at least 2 BW forward ( no wheel ) and stay 2 MU from an enemy TUG.
This means that you cannot move forward and contract if your rear edge is touching something (table edge, TUG, camp, impassable terrain) and what would happen if my rear edge was against terrain that slowed the UG: Would it have to contract into the slowing terrain and thus be slowed?
If, to avoid the cheesy move, we are staying 2BW from enemy TUG then surely the contraction can be at any point in the move.
Quote from: steads on May 08, 2019, 10:42:37 PM
Quote from: badhabum on May 08, 2019, 08:51:24 PM
I think it would be simpler to just limit the move as for M4 . You contract at the beginning , must move at least 2 BW forward ( no wheel ) and stay 2 MU from an enemy TUG.
This means that you cannot move forward and contract if your rear edge is touching something (table edge, TUG, camp, impassable terrain) and what would happen if my rear edge was against terrain that slowed the UG: Would it have to contract into the slowing terrain and thus be slowed?
If, to avoid the cheesy move, we are staying 2BW from enemy TUG then surely the contraction can be at any point in the move.
not being able to contract while at the end of the table is cheesy too, it is not the end of the world.
If it is terrain that slow the tug? so what? these are circumstances of the battle.
Quote from: steads on May 08, 2019, 10:42:37 PM
If, to avoid the cheesy move, we are staying 2BW from enemy TUG then surely the contraction can be at any point in the move.
Fair point. May just be the simplest solution.
Quote from: nikgaukroger on May 09, 2019, 05:55:59 AM
Quote from: steads on May 08, 2019, 10:42:37 PM
If, to avoid the cheesy move, we are staying 2BW from enemy TUG then surely the contraction can be at any point in the move.
Fair point. May just be the simplest solution.
+1
Amended, I have been over carried.
If 2mu from front of enemy (a way to ensure the zone of control being addressed)
+2
So we are back to my original prefered distance restriction.
I will amend this week.
S
Amended ... by far the best option.
M6 Advance and contract
Adjustment to stop cheesy contractions and bypasses when close to enemy. Add to QRS notes: "Only if >2BW from enemy TuGs" Note this is in movement phase only ,so if a contraction is NECESSARY to make contact in the charge phase, then it is allowed. NOTE: previous clarry has issues getting around own troops which we do not want.
This is an old debate but there was a discussion so perhaps we will need to have a question answered : M6 states 2 BW directly ahead, contract 1 or 2 BW behind, no wheels allowed.
If I read it as a sequence and also if I go back to 2019 when Simon wrote : " "Contraction is taken at the end of the move, and may not be done if the contracting files are in the Close Proximity Zone of enemy." from https://mortem-et-gloriam.co.uk/smf/index.php?topic=376.15 I would say first move after contract
But a player was of a different opinion : the M6 move does not define the order of things, only that the unit moves at least 2 BW ahead and may contract not that you move first and contract after ..so what is it ?
The PDF rules do not provide any clear answer
Actually m6 can be done only if you are 2bw or more from opponent so the close proximity area shouldn't be a concern ;)
Proximity of the enemy was not the issue this time. Still far away. Point of discussion was the order, which was relevant to be able to manoeuvre a tug trough a narrow gap between two friendly tugs.
Order is not an issue. As long as the move finishes legally and the gap between the TuGs is sufficient fot the front edge of the moving TuG there is no problem, passing through a friend as part of the move is okay. Think wheeling a TuG out of a line of TuGs as another example.
Richard
Thank you
Quote from: lionheartrjc on July 14, 2024, 09:34:31 PM
Order is not an issue. As long as the move finishes legally and the gap between the TuGs is sufficient fot the front edge of the moving TuG there is no problem, passing through a friend as part of the move is okay. Think wheeling a TuG out of a line of TuGs as another example.
Richard
Thanks Richard. That's the clear answer I needed!
Ok, so it means that Simon claries page 3 isn't valid anymore, right?
M6 Advance and contract
Adjustment to stop cheesy contractions and bypasses when close to enemy. Add to notes: "Contraction is taken at the end of the move, and may not be done if the contracting files are in the Close Proximity Zone of enemy." Note this is in movement phase only so if a contraction is NECESSARY to make contact in the charge phase, then it is allowed.
This clarification is not valid.
Richard
Quote from: lionheartrjc on July 16, 2024, 02:21:15 PM
This clarification is not valid.
Richard
Pre-Compendium I believe and not in the Compendium clarries. Tempus fugit.
Quote from: nikgaukroger on July 16, 2024, 03:06:32 PM
Quote from: lionheartrjc on July 16, 2024, 02:21:15 PM
This clarification is not valid.
Richard
Pre-Compendium I believe and not in the Compendium clarries. Tempus fugit.
Hi,
I thought we play "post compendium" and LULU Book 7.3 page 47 of the rules seems to be clear to read.
Kind regards.
Gilles "this message will selfdestroy after reading ;-)"
Ok what people missed in my questioning was the order of things : contraction before or after or when you want .
The answer is pretty clear now : when you want
For some unknown reason some people focused on the 2 BW distance from the enemy ..that was NOT the question 8) or if you prefer the clarification asked