M6 Advance and Contract clarification query

[lionheartrjc]

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

[badhabum]

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 ?

[Hunter]

How about

an M6 move cannot be used to set up a flank charge

HH

[nikgaukroger]

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.

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.

[badhabum]

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.

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  till the day I will have it done to myself 

[nikgaukroger]

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.

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.

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".

[Simon Meg-Meister]

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

[Simon Meg-Meister]

EDITED ABOVE.

Will make official after leaving for a few days if no objections.

S

[badhabum]

I think 2 BW of the ennemy is good enough and more in line with the double wheel line for simplicity sake

[Rino]

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

[badhabum]

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 

[nikgaukroger]

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.

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.

[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 

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.

[badhabum]

Ok I understood A going in the middle of 2 enemy units 

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 

[Simon Meg-Meister]

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.