Maintaining Contact

could be an option.
Leaving as it is, no contact no melee would be probebly the simplest solution anyway.

dadiepiombo wrote:could be an option.
Leaving as it is, no contact no melee would be probebly the simplest solution anyway.

If you're going to do that at least make the front unit take a loss in the same way that units behind a destroyed unit take a loss, these guy are getting chopped down so they shouldn't escape without a penalty of some sort

at the same time they passed the cohesion test, this means they passed a morale test and get losses just due to fatigue (so anyway pay their tribute)

I am inclined to agree with you Lorenzo that leaving as it is may be the simplest approach. Not without some oddities arising but it is a rather uncommon event (only high VBU infantry with a leader can have an realistic chance of surviving a flank attack over several turns.)

I think I said that a week ago :-)

Ok we do nothing and leave it. Sounds fair and certainly the easiest way out.

Cyrus The Adequate wrote:I think I said that a week ago :-)

I promise next time Cyrus to pay more attention to your brilliance!

Another theological discussion comes to an exhausted conclusion.

I confess that the minutiae of these conversations can be exhausting. I can remember a time when if there was not a clear answer to such rarities then you rolled a die and took it on the chin.

Then they took such people like me out and burned us at the stake with the pyre made up of old editions of the rules.

I worry that, by trying to answer everything, we may break the spine of an already excellent set of rules.

I am not exhausted starkadder. I suspect others aren't as well although I accept that you have become so. I must say that your logic doesn't work for me. If you're not interested in the minutiae of Impetus then why bother with the Forum? At least the Rules Section. The whole point of the discussion is to continually perfect the supporting rules so that they are consistent applied throughout the world. Personally I love the idea that I could come to Australia and play with you guys and find myself playing the same rules. The alternative is that we each develop our own idiosyncratic ways of doing things.

Some may be, some may not be.  Both are ok.

However, different folks are going to play differently, and there's not much that can be done to avoid that.  It comes down to the individual organizers determining how they want to implement such situations.  And we don't live in a perfect world, nor do we need to to show up and play friendly games or live by the tourney rules provided in another location.

At the same time, and because it seems simpler for the moment, I support leaving it as it is for the time being currently.  If there is further review, then perhaps an appropriate solution can be found beyond this, yet if not, life goes on, and it seems the rules can work as they currently seem to do.

Not my point, GC.

I am always more than happy to pursue improvements to the rules. The recent flank support changes, for instance, were overdue.

Anyone who has played in a game with me, or in a tournament I have organised, knows my high regard for Impetus.

My issue is that hyper-specificity (answering all possible outcomes) does not inevitably lead to a desirable result. The more convoluted a set of rules becomes, the less intelligible it is and the harder it is to discern the daimon or driving force of the design.

An observation over fifty years of playing is that the more rococo a set of rules becomes (satisfying exceptions such as favoured troops, weapons, and tactics) the less satisfying it is to play. It becomes a game of factors and not one of tactics and generalcy.

Your observation about playing the same rules in Oz is well accepted. We all want that. The paradox is that the more complex a set of rules often leads to more regional interpretations, not fewer. WRG was a good example of that with differences occurring from group to group let alone country to country. And we know how that ended.

You are very cordially invited to come on over if you get the chance. You don't even need to bring any toys. I think you'll find we play the same set of rules in the same way.

Gaius Cassius wrote:

Cyrus The Adequate wrote:I think I said that a week ago :-)

I promise next time Cyrus to pay more attention to your brilliance!

Even a broken clock is right twice a day

starkadder wrote:Another theological discussion comes to an exhausted conclusion.

I confess that the minutiae of these conversations can be exhausting. I can remember a time when if there was not a clear answer to such rarities then you rolled a die and took it on the chin.

Then they took such people like me out and burned us at the stake with the pyre made up of old editions of the rules.

I worry that, by trying to answer everything, we may break the spine of an already excellent set of rules.

I find myself in agreement with SA here. The internet has resulted in players treating rules as a part of the game in itself, with points to be won by dragging in some higher authority. I find it particularly galling when the resulting "confirmation" comes back that contradicts the wording of the rules, which does happen with alarming regularity. I may write as a dyslexic numpty but I can read well enough to understand a sentence (hell I even quite like Barkerese because it is written in the same style as legislation which helps in my work).

RTFM then do what it says, not what you want it to say, and if in doubt apply the Mother of All Rules.

Think we're all on agreement there.... the thought of wasting a minute more playing yet another 'hyper-specific rococo' ( love that starkers hehe ) ...bloated set of rules is abhorrent.

Rococo. Love it too! It is only a word a 50 year veteran would use. When an event happens in a game where the rules don't seem to cover it I think the Forum is the place to go for counsel and direction. That is what has happened here in my opinion. No drama or arguments. We talked it out and have come to an apparent consensus of how to treat the event in the future. That seems like a win to me.

Interesting in how the word rococo was used.  It could be interpreted as it was originally intended, and yet left room open for how it was later used as a colloquialism.  Seemingly a masterful use of the word. Yet I digress.

Cripes. I was more worried about daimon.

Tarty can confirm that I love words. It makes me dangerous when writing rules. I'm too tempted.

I know how difficult it is to be concise and clear. Good rules are clear but not always concise. That's why these discussions and their outcomes are important.

You may not agree with a rule. You do need to be able to understand it and the reasoning behind it. If you still disagree with it then you can argue for change from logic.

Drive the narrative or clarify the purpose. That's all.

I'll get off the soapbox now.