forum.wgcwar.com

A line of 3 Heavy Foot is close to a line of enemy stands in a difficult terrain.

They want to align with the enemy by sliding sideways (less than 1 MU) without contacting, just sliding.

Does this move cost 3 CPs ?

Thanks
Fab

Fab wrote:A line of 3 Heavy Foot is close to a line of enemy stands in a difficult terrain.

They want to align with the enemy by sliding sideways (less than 1 MU) without contacting, just sliding.

Does this move cost 3 CPs ?

Thanks
Fab

As long as the Heavy Foot is not in the difficult terrain or will not be moving into the difficult terrain (by sliding) and is also in the enemy ZOC, then it costs the Heavy Foot 1CP.

DS

Fab wrote:A line of 3 Heavy Foot is close to a line of enemy stands in a difficult terrain.

They want to align with the enemy by sliding sideways (less than 1 MU) without contacting, just sliding.

Does this move cost 3 CPs ?

David Schlanger wrote: As long as the Heavy Foot is not in the difficult terrain or will not be moving into the difficult terrain (by sliding) and is also in the enemy ZOC, then it costs the Heavy Foot 1CP.

And if the Heavy Foot IS in difficult terrain, or would move into it during their move, then it costs 3 CP.

Perfect.

Thanks

Fab

David Kuijt wrote: And if the Heavy Foot IS in difficult terrain, or would move into it during their move, then it costs 3 CP.

Slight correction -- if only one of the Heavy Foot was-or-moved-into difficult terrain, then the total cost would be 2 CP. One for the guys outside difficult terrain, and one for the dude inside.

David Kuijt wrote: Slight correction -- if only one of the Heavy Foot was-or-moved-into difficult terrain, then the total cost would be 2 CP. One for the guys outside difficult terrain, and one for the dude inside.

Hmmm, that's an important point, because the current rule seems at first reading to imply this would cost 3 CP anyway:

"Any other group that makes a tactical move such that
one or more stands from that group start in, move
through, or end in difficult terrain incurs an additional
command cost. Such a move has the same cost in
command points as if each stand in the group was being
moved as a single stand."

...however, nothing stops you from moving those 3 stands in two steps: (1) the 2-stands group moving in the open (1 CP), then the remaining single stand moving into difficult terrain (1 CP). If two out of three elements had to enter difficult terrain, then the cost would be 3 CP in any case. Is this correct?

MarkusB wrote:

David Kuijt wrote: Slight correction -- if only one of the Heavy Foot was-or-moved-into difficult terrain, then the total cost would be 2 CP. One for the guys outside difficult terrain, and one for the dude inside.

Hmmm, that's an important point, because the current rule seems at first reading to imply this would cost 3 CP anyway:

"Any other group that makes a tactical move such that
one or more stands from that group start in, move
through, or end in difficult terrain incurs an additional
command cost. Such a move has the same cost in
command points as if each stand in the group was being
moved as a single stand."

We'll fix the wording so our intent is more clear.

MarkusB wrote: ...however, nothing stops you from moving those 3 stands in two steps: (1) the 2-stands group moving in the open (1 CP), then the remaining single stand moving into difficult terrain (1 CP).

The pips are the same when you make the move in two steps as you mention, but then the remaining single stand can't make single stands conform, which creates geometric oddities. And if you make it as two steps and the stands involved cannot interpenetrate (i.e., they're close order) then sometimes you wouldn't even have the movement distance to make a move as a single stand that you might as part of a group -- if any aligning to match enemy ZOC or any wheeling of the group is involved, for example.

MarkusB wrote:If two out of three elements had to enter difficult terrain, then the cost would be 3 CP in any case. Is this correct?

That's correct.

Incidentally, I'd like to thank you and Fab for the concerted effort you've put into looking at this section -- we do appreciate it. This sort of feedback is going to make the final version of the rules much improved. As authors, we can't always spot where our intent isn't exactly what we wrote on the paper, and feedback like this really helps.

You're welcome... But it's quite clear, from the text itself and from your answers here, that these rules well deserve the effort. They might be a bit unpolished now, but I suspect they will become the best fast-play, generalistic "3000 BC-1500 AD" set (at least according to my tastes). Keep on the good work!