A few newb questions

[JamesS]

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

[lionheartrjc]

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

[JamesS]

Fantastic, thank you.

I'm sure I'll be back with more soon enough.

[Simon Meg-Meister]

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

[JamesS]

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.

[nikgaukroger]

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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

[JamesS]

• 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?

• 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.

[nikgaukroger]

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.

[ShrubMiK]

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?

[JamesS]

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.

[nikgaukroger]

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.

[ShrubMiK]

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.

[JamesS]

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.

[Simon Meg-Meister]

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

[daveparish]

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!)