Geometry question

This forum is for any questions about the rules. Post here is you need feedback from the design team.

Moderators: hammy, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Design, Field of Glory Moderators

Post Reply
jrd
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Posts: 27
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 12:23 pm
Location: Harlow, Essex, UK

Geometry question

Post by jrd » Tue May 04, 2010 11:52 am

Is it permissible for a rear corner of a moving battlegroup to briefly interpenetrate a friendly battlegroup? I have always played that is was, but I can't find anything in the rules to support this view. I played a game yesterday without allowing this, but this caused some very frustrating problems...

Situation 1: three battlegroups are in a line:

111112222233333
111112222233333

Is it permitted for battlegroup 2 to wheel to the left? I would usually allow this, but to do so the tail end of the battlegroup will have to briefly interpenetrate battlegroup 3.

Situation 2:

AAAAA
AAAAA

............1111122222
............1111122222

Battlegroup 1 wants to charge enemy battlegroup A which can only be reached if battle group 1 wheels. However, battlegroup 1 cannot wheel because if it were to do so, the rear corner would interpenetrate battlegroup 2, and cannot shift sideways as a charge may not include a shift. Does this mean battlegroup 1 may not charge?

Thanks in advance,

John

philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8693
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Re: Geometry question

Post by philqw78 » Tue May 04, 2010 11:55 am

jrd wrote:Is it permissible for a rear corner of a moving battlegroup to briefly interpenetrate a friendly battlegroup?
Yes is the simple answer, there was a thread on it somewhere in the distant past.
phil
putting the arg into argumentative

Ghaznavid
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
Posts: 800
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2007 1:44 am
Location: Germany

Re: Geometry question

Post by Ghaznavid » Tue May 04, 2010 5:41 pm

philqw78 wrote:
jrd wrote:Is it permissible for a rear corner of a moving battlegroup to briefly interpenetrate a friendly battlegroup?
Yes is the simple answer, there was a thread on it somewhere in the distant past.
Here: viewtopic.php?p=72908&sid=8c60c8b85bfc4 ... 639f#72908
Bloody German efficency again. :twisted:
Karsten


~ We are not surrounded, we are merely in a target rich environment. ~

jrd
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Posts: 27
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 12:23 pm
Location: Harlow, Essex, UK

Re: Geometry question

Post by jrd » Tue May 04, 2010 5:46 pm

Thanks you very much, that is just what I needed. Common sense prevails!

John
Ghaznavid wrote:
philqw78 wrote:
jrd wrote:Is it permissible for a rear corner of a moving battlegroup to briefly interpenetrate a friendly battlegroup?
Yes is the simple answer, there was a thread on it somewhere in the distant past.
Here: viewtopic.php?p=72908&sid=8c60c8b85bfc4 ... 639f#72908
Bloody German efficency again. :twisted:

philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8693
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Re: Geometry question

Post by philqw78 » Tue May 04, 2010 7:12 pm

Ghaznavid wrote:Bloody German efficency again. :twisted:
Germans, efficient.................................... except where bicycles are concerned I believe.

:D
phil
putting the arg into argumentative

peterrjohnston
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 1506
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 11:51 am

Re: Geometry question

Post by peterrjohnston » Tue May 04, 2010 7:34 pm

philqw78 wrote:
Ghaznavid wrote:Bloody German efficency again. :twisted:
Germans, efficient.................................... except where bicycles are concerned I believe.

:D
Schlüpfen durch Technik ... oooo...ps

Ghaznavid
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
Posts: 800
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2007 1:44 am
Location: Germany

Re: Geometry question

Post by Ghaznavid » Tue May 04, 2010 7:44 pm

philqw78 wrote:Germans, efficient.................................... except where bicycles are concerned I believe.
Actually the efficiency was fine, the organisation on combined cycling-/walkways sucks though.

@Peter: Afraid your German sounds pretty Italian to me. :?
Karsten


~ We are not surrounded, we are merely in a target rich environment. ~

philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8693
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Re: Geometry question

Post by philqw78 » Wed May 05, 2010 7:38 am

Ghaznavid wrote:
philqw78 wrote:Germans, efficient.................................... except where bicycles are concerned I believe.
Actually the efficiency was fine, the organisation on combined cycling-/walkways sucks though.
I do hope you have now recovered from your catastrophic accident. Try harder next time.
Ghaznavid wrote:
Peter wrote:Schlüpfen durch Technik ... oooo...ps
@Peter: Afraid your German sounds pretty Italian to me. :?
Perhaps its a Freudian slip, or an undergarment, which in itself may be a freuduian slip. :?
phil
putting the arg into argumentative

peterrjohnston
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 1506
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 11:51 am

Re: Geometry question

Post by peterrjohnston » Wed May 05, 2010 10:41 am

philqw78 wrote:
Ghaznavid wrote:
Peter wrote:Schlüpfen durch Technik ... oooo...ps
@Peter: Afraid your German sounds pretty Italian to me. :?
Perhaps its a Freudian slip, or an undergarment, which in itself may be a freuduian slip. :?
Schlüpfen is not "to slip"? :) sounds very onomatopeico

philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8693
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Re: Geometry question

Post by philqw78 » Wed May 05, 2010 10:52 am

peterrjohnston wrote:Schlüpfen is not "to slip"? :) sounds very onomatopeico
So what is it then?
phil
putting the arg into argumentative

david53
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2859
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 9:01 pm
Location: Manchester

Re: Geometry question

Post by david53 » Wed May 05, 2010 7:06 pm

philqw78 wrote:
peterrjohnston wrote:Schlüpfen is not "to slip"? :) sounds very onomatopeico
So what is it then?

I thought it was 'slip'

Ghaznavid
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
Posts: 800
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2007 1:44 am
Location: Germany

Re: Geometry question

Post by Ghaznavid » Fri May 07, 2010 10:53 pm

peterrjohnston wrote:
philqw78 wrote:
Ghaznavid wrote:@Peter: Afraid your German sounds pretty Italian to me. :?
Perhaps its a Freudian slip, or an undergarment, which in itself may be a freuduian slip. :?
Schlüpfen is not "to slip"? :) sounds very onomatopeico
Depends, prime meaning of 'schlüpfen' is 'to hatch' (i.e. from an egg). It can be used to mean 'slip' or 'glide' but that's usually in combination with various prefixes. Like 'hineinschlüpfen' (slip in) or 'herausschlüpfen' (slip out) or 'hindurchschlüpfen' (slip through).
Usually you will find that 'rutschen' is used as translation for 'to slip'.
Karsten


~ We are not surrounded, we are merely in a target rich environment. ~

philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8693
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Post by philqw78 » Fri May 07, 2010 11:10 pm

German Bloke wrote:'hineinschlüpfen' (slip in) or 'herausschlüpfen' (or slip out) or 'hindurchschlüpfen' (or slip through).
English Bloke wrote: More continental sex talk then
It was Freudian see!
phil
putting the arg into argumentative

hazelbark
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4957
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: Capital of the World !!

Re: Geometry question

Post by hazelbark » Sat May 08, 2010 6:45 pm

Ghaznavid wrote:
@Peter: Afraid your German sounds pretty Italian to me. :?
Don't the Italians say his Italian sounds prett British to them?
:lol:

Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions”