Gozerius - thanks for the reminder about the POA bullet points relating to multiple ranks. I don't think I missed any of that in our game - it was specifically the number of dice to be rolled which I was concerned about.

Hammy - thanks for the confirmation. That's the way we played it anyway, but I ...

I just need to check this: on a simple reading of the rules, it seems that only the actual bases in disordering terrain suffer penalties in combat, rather than the whole BG. In a battle, if fighting to break into terrain, the front rank may be disordered while the rear rank is still in open ground ...

Thanks - I was happy with the definition of close combat (although, had I looked it up again, I would have noticed the bit about overlaps moving away!).

It was a reply to someone else's question on this forum that said 'engaged in melee' and 'committed to close combat' were different things ...

Marvellous! Why do I always forget about the General Movement Rules section? I looked through impact, manoeuvre... Just call me dumb. Sorry.

Thanks very much for that - it certainly clears up any doubt about the situation.

However, if anyone can still point me at the definitions of "engaged in ...

Hi - could someone please explain the difference between "engaged in melee" and "committed to close combat"?

Situation:
Legionaries are in frontal close combat with Galatian Warriors A; Warriors B are an overlap with corner contact only. One round of melee has taken place, with Warriors B involved ...

Fair enough, Richard, I'm not arguing. I'm happy to go with the workaround.

It's just a shame - it's about the only part of the rules which can't be used straight with existing DBM bases. It rather defeats the original point of defining the camp at that size so that an unfortified one can be ...

I think Peter Conolly got that right - and it's a principle we could all do with remembering.

Even in periods with good documentary sources, one can't be entirely certain. Even many of the men who were there in the field may not have been certain exactly what was happening, so I would rather say ...

Pardon the double reply - clumsy clicking!

Make it easy on yourself -
cut three templates:
one 16 MU diameter circle - all terrain must fit inside this;
one 12 MU diameter circle - small pieces must fit inside this;
one 6MUx4MU rectangle - this must be entirely covered by any terrain piece.

If you intend to use 'rigid felt' for terrain ...

Thanks for the reassurance, guys.

I confess I hadn't thought of the latter idea - that I could still regard the camp size as just the 6 baggage bases, and regard the extra fortification bases as just 'decorative', while measuring distances from the 'essential' camp. It does get around the issue ...

Aarggh! I just did some searching and found this topic, in answer to my dilemma - and it's not the answer I hoped for.

OK, the rules show the size of a supply camp in mm, and say that "it can be fortified if allowed in the army list" - I found that for myself.

Unfortunately, if the fortifications ...

Thanks, both - that settles any doubts! And it has to be said that the FoG Cohesion Test does mean that multiple breaks are unlikely unless several BGs are already fragmented - even disrupted BGs are not THAT likely to break; but if it happens, at least it means a quick and decisive finish to the ...

I can't readily find any earlier post on this -
When a unit breaks and a friendly unit within 3 MU fails the Cohesion Test for seeing this, does this become a cause for further units to test? i.e. does the panic spread outwards, or is the original breaking unit the only cause for testing?

I'm ...

Precisely. The rules do indeed " just say that troops wholly inside a forest are only visible at 2MU, the implication being that this still applies if they are 1mm inside the forest, and you are just 3MU away from them."

That is sufficient, and in my view not at all ambiguous. I don't see that ...

For further discussion on this subject, see the topic "visibility from inside of terrain" - currently on page 3 of this forum. It might help (and I hope that Richard agrees with the logic of my arguments on that thread!)

I'm not arguing with you - my analysis definitely says he only influences one. :) But, strictly speaking, the rules themselves do not stipulate that a battle line only exists for movement purposes. Mind you, I can't see anywhere that the BG's benefit from being in a BL apart from in movement ...

For the LF in brush aspect, this is just another case where the rules need careful reading. Page 132, Visibility Effects, clearly says:
"In some cases light foot can see out but not be seen". this specifically covers the case of LF in Brush.

However, there is room for some confusion where the same ...

I notice no-one has replied on the question of whether the Commander can influence a whole battle line if they are in close combat.

I would say that a careful reading of the rules clearly says not.

On page 113, the rules say "A battle group in close combat can only count a commander with it ...

Well, at least I got that little wrinkle cleared up quickly, before anyone actually tries it! :wink:

I guess if the stakes are placed, for (hopefully legitimate) example, in front of alternate bases, it might reflect trying to channel attackers into a narrower "killing ground" - any attack in ...

That didn't come out quite right, but the first couple of stakes should give the idea.