Page 1 of 1

Geometry question

Posted: Tue May 04, 2010 11:52 am
by jrd
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

Re: Geometry question

Posted: Tue May 04, 2010 11:55 am
by philqw78
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.

Re: Geometry question

Posted: Tue May 04, 2010 5:41 pm
by Ghaznavid
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:

Re: Geometry question

Posted: Tue May 04, 2010 5:46 pm
by jrd
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:

Re: Geometry question

Posted: Tue May 04, 2010 7:12 pm
by philqw78
Ghaznavid wrote:Bloody German efficency again. :twisted:
Germans, efficient.................................... except where bicycles are concerned I believe.

:D

Re: Geometry question

Posted: Tue May 04, 2010 7:34 pm
by peterrjohnston
philqw78 wrote:
Ghaznavid wrote:Bloody German efficency again. :twisted:
Germans, efficient.................................... except where bicycles are concerned I believe.

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

Re: Geometry question

Posted: Tue May 04, 2010 7:44 pm
by Ghaznavid
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. :?

Re: Geometry question

Posted: Wed May 05, 2010 7:38 am
by philqw78
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. :?

Re: Geometry question

Posted: Wed May 05, 2010 10:41 am
by peterrjohnston
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

Re: Geometry question

Posted: Wed May 05, 2010 10:52 am
by philqw78
peterrjohnston wrote:Schlüpfen is not "to slip"? :) sounds very onomatopeico
So what is it then?

Re: Geometry question

Posted: Wed May 05, 2010 7:06 pm
by david53
philqw78 wrote:
peterrjohnston wrote:Schlüpfen is not "to slip"? :) sounds very onomatopeico
So what is it then?

I thought it was 'slip'

Re: Geometry question

Posted: Fri May 07, 2010 10:53 pm
by Ghaznavid
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'.

Posted: Fri May 07, 2010 11:10 pm
by philqw78
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!

Re: Geometry question

Posted: Sat May 08, 2010 6:45 pm
by hazelbark
Ghaznavid wrote:
@Peter: Afraid your German sounds pretty Italian to me. :?
Don't the Italians say his Italian sounds prett British to them?
:lol: