Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
12 Posts

The Guns of Gettysburg» Forums » Rules

Subject: Changing front after attack? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Geoffrey Ulman
United States
Reston
Virginia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Attacking blocks have restrictions regarding their facing at the end of their move:

Quote:
Push your attacking blocks the rest of the way forward to the positions they are attacking. The attacking blocks must be fronted so that their rear area is the last area they crossed.


However, there are also special rules regarding changing facing which might allow a block which attacked to reverse its facing in place after the attack (assume it attacked an empty space as part of a group attack, or that it eliminated the only defender):

Quote:
You choose a block’s front and rear at the end of its move. There is no movement cost to change front. A block that doesn’t move in a turn can still change front; you change it while performing your march moves. A block that cannot march move out of a position can still change front in that position. At the end of your action phase, any of your blocks in the same position together must have the same front and rear.


It's not clear to me whether changing facing after attacking would violate the rule that a block may only move once. Specifically because of the sentence: "A block that cannot march move out of a position can still change front in that position."

However, I think that doesn't apply because facing reversal happens during March movement and a block which attacked doesn't get any march movement.

What do you think?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
dypaca
United States
Colorado
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I agree that the block which attacked cannot change front. The sentence: "A block that cannot march move out of a position can still change front in that position.", taken alone, does seem to imply that it could. However, I think that is only meant to refer to a block that doesn't move in a turn, as specified in the previous sentence.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian Evans
United States
Richmond
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I agree, blocks cannot change facing when attacking.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J DLM
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
I don't think opposing blocks can occupy the same side of one position at the same time. So, generally, you would not be allowed to. However, if an attacking block eliminates the defending block(s) from the position, I don't see why it should not be allowed to change face on what is now an otherwise unoccupied position -- I always thought the assumption with Simmons' rules was that if it wasn't stated explicitly, it was allowed.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Silverman
United States
Waltham
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
meanstotheend wrote:
I don't think opposing blocks can occupy the same side of one position at the same time. So, generally, you would not be allowed to. However, if an attacking block eliminates the defending block(s) from the position, I don't see why it should not be allowed to change face on what is now an otherwise unoccupied position -- I always thought the assumption with Simmons' rules was that if it wasn't stated explicitly, it was allowed.


I would call that a mischaracterization. Anything that's not in the rules should not be assumed at all, and some other part of the rules (whether in the same section or not) will govern it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J DLM
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
silvergoose wrote:
meanstotheend wrote:
I don't think opposing blocks can occupy the same side of one position at the same time. So, generally, you would not be allowed to. However, if an attacking block eliminates the defending block(s) from the position, I don't see why it should not be allowed to change face on what is now an otherwise unoccupied position -- I always thought the assumption with Simmons' rules was that if it wasn't stated explicitly, it was allowed.


I would call that a mischaracterization. Anything that's not in the rules should not be assumed at all, and some other part of the rules (whether in the same section or not) will govern it.
I don't know, it's something I've read posted before; this is my first linear block game. But, while 'explicitly' was a poor choice of words, I don't think I'm wrong in my general point: if the rules do not disallow a player from doing something, then the action is permitted.

The rules are written as a set of conditions (for the obvious benefit of flexibility and brevity), and if an action meets all of the conditions required for legality, then the action is legal. This is how I've read other discussions about Simmons' rules, and how they make sense when I read them.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rich James
United States
Plano
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This was discussed in a previous thread. I'll see if I can find it. But the result was that you can't change facing after an attack move. There is even a rule that protects you from a rear attack immediately following a winning attack move.

You can change facing at the end of march, withdrawal and reinforcement entry moves, however.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Geoffrey Ulman
United States
Reston
Virginia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
arjisme wrote:
You can change facing at the end of march, withdrawal and reinforcement entry moves, however.


Definitely agree here. The relevant section of the rules is Page 6. Movement Paths:

Quote:
You choose a block’s front and rear at the end of its move.


I interpret the attack move rules as stating an exception to that over-arching movement rule:

Quote:
The attacking blocks must be fronted so that their rear area is the last area they crossed.



So I'm with you up to there. My main point of confusion, which dypaca addressed, was the sentence:

Quote:
A block that cannot march move out of a position can still change front in that position.


But that facing reversal happens during march moves and a block which made an attack gets no march moves. Thus the block cannot change facing.

Pretty convinced based on all the discussion above that that is the correct conclusion.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J DLM
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
After getting a chance to look through the rules, you cannot change front even if the defender is eliminated, or the position you attacked as empty.

Step 7 (Final advance) of the attack resolution states:

"Push your attacking blocks the rest of the way forward to the positions they are attacking. The attacking blocks must be fronted so that their rear area is the last area they crossed."

This is meant to preclude attacking blocks from ending their movements facing any direction other than towards the position they attacked. The rule allowing front reversal states that changing face is allowed only at the end of a movement path, and, due to this rule, the direction of a blocks face is explicitly dictated. Attacking blocks are not eligible for march moves and can therefore never start, or end, a march movement.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tom Thornsen
United States
Holbrook
NY
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Just to muddy the waters...let's say that later in that same turn another unit makes a march move and ends in the same position as the unit that just completed the elimination of the defending unit.

Is this new unit compelled to face the same direction as the unit that attacked, or does it get to choose which side of the position to take and the unit already there must conform to it?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rich James
United States
Plano
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Check out Bowen's reply in this thread: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/13592712#13592712

Rule 10 requires all your blocks in the same position to have the same facing. So, in your example the block that marched into that position must change its facing to match that of the winning attacking block that was already there.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tom Thornsen
United States
Holbrook
NY
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks, Rich. I guess it makes the case that a unit should not 'march move' into a position that was just captured that same turn.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.