Search found 615 matches

by bbotus
Wed Jan 05, 2011 5:53 am
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: Evasion Question
Replies: 50
Views: 4667

OK, I think I see what you guys are saying. It took me a while because that makes the rules read somewhat inconsistently. Why would they allow a BG to evade if the enemy shift or turn into contact and specifically say in FAQ5 that you cannot expand into front edge contact with a BG other than as an ...
by bbotus
Tue Jan 04, 2011 10:52 pm
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: Evasion Question
Replies: 50
Views: 4667

Check out the FAQS - number 5 - Feeding More Bases into an Existing melee. So if your evade-capable BG is providing an overlap, the enemy BG could expand into contact with it - giving it no opportunity to evade. Here is the applicable part of FAQ 5.: Can a BG in close combat expand into contact wit...
by bbotus
Tue Jan 04, 2011 4:49 pm
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: Evasion Question
Replies: 50
Views: 4667

I'm talking about evade capable BGs not involved in the impact being contacted by conforming bases. And you are correct. Oh, interesting. Please explain how that can happen? The rules specifically state how you can expand a melee to involve new BGs not already in contact, either by moving into cont...
by bbotus
Sun Jan 02, 2011 6:30 am
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: Evasion Question
Replies: 50
Views: 4667

gozerius wrote: Evading is not an option available on page 70-71. I would gladly do it if it were. Yes. Once the evade capable troops are contacted in the impact phase, they are stuck in combat. They would have had to evaded when charged. Of course, you still have the break-off requirement in the J...
by bbotus
Sat Jan 01, 2011 5:38 am
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: Evasion Question
Replies: 50
Views: 4667

And that evade capable troops cannot evade when a BG conforms into them. Not sure what you are referring to. Once a unit is engaged in hand to hand combat, no unit may evade in this system unless mounted break-off from steady foot in the JAP. But if a unit moves into melee contact with an enemy BG ...
by bbotus
Fri Dec 31, 2010 8:29 am
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: Interpenetration Question
Replies: 5
Views: 815

Draw a line across the front of the artillery, the interpenetrating unit must pass from the front of the artillery directly to the back or back to front. The line of march would then be perpendicular to the line across the front of the artillery (90 degrees). This is the only allowed angle of interp...
by bbotus
Fri Dec 31, 2010 8:20 am
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: Initial Rout
Replies: 31
Views: 3123

deadtorius wrote: if charged from the rear the evade has to be directly away from the charger, if charged from the front it is either directly away from the charger or to their own rear, that would assume the charge was a little off angle from the target units direct front, owning players choice. s...
by bbotus
Thu Dec 30, 2010 6:40 pm
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: Attrition points for Flank Marches
Replies: 3
Views: 523

Page 145 says each straggling BG counts as 1 attrition point. It didn't say to count attrition points for flank marches that have not yet arrived.
by bbotus
Thu Dec 30, 2010 6:06 pm
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: Evasion Question
Replies: 50
Views: 4667

Would someone be kind enough to explain what the abbreviations RAW and CW stand for? I keep seeing them in the different threads and haven't been able to find anything on them as yet. Thanks in advance.
by bbotus
Thu Dec 30, 2010 6:03 am
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: Evasion Question
Replies: 50
Views: 4667

Another thought. The rules state that if a BG is revealed by evaders/routers and can be contacted, then it becomes a target of the charge (page 52). Page 60 and 52, for that matter, say that LH in the open must pass a CMT to receive a charge by enemy non-skirmishers. That strongly implies the LH hav...
by bbotus
Sat Dec 25, 2010 8:41 am
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: Rules wording didn't give a logical result
Replies: 59
Views: 10655

My page 67 11 lines down says evading troops can shift one base to get past enemy troops. In the second column of the same page 67 it states if this does not allow front rank bases to evade THEN it must halt 1MU with no shifting or contracting at all. Oh, thanks. I've read that section a dozen time...
by bbotus
Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:32 pm
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: Rules wording didn't give a logical result
Replies: 59
Views: 10655

Umpiring FoG tournaments is like reffing a football game, the ref must make judgment calls on the spot. Once a Yellow Card is given, that is it; and the game goes on. Here we have the time to sit and read the rules over and over. A good umpire will 'attempt' to be fair. Can we really expect anymore ...
by bbotus
Fri Dec 24, 2010 11:10 am
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: Rules wording didn't give a logical result
Replies: 59
Views: 10655

Interesting discussion, so I went back and re-read the charging flank rule. Page 56, 2nd bullet "For a charge to qualify as a flank charge, it cannot include a wheel unless the charging battle group starts its move with its nearest point at least 1 MU away from the battle group being charged.&q...
by bbotus
Tue Dec 21, 2010 7:13 pm
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: Rules wording didn't give a logical result
Replies: 59
Views: 10655

Umpiring is a tough job. We should be thankful that anyone would volunteer for that job. It is human nature to recall things imprecisely when we have to make quick judgment calls. And the rules generally become more FoGgy as the day goes on. We just call it part of the FoG of war. But after the game...
by bbotus
Thu Dec 16, 2010 6:39 pm
Forum: Rules Questions
Topic: Testing not to charge
Replies: 8
Views: 1206

Look at bottom of 58 and top of 59. "...a player cannot choose to allow his shock troops to burst through in this way, they can only do so if they fail their CMT..." I like the way they wrote these rules, nothing is optional except a few specified things.

Go to advanced search