Removing Bases in Combat

[deadtorius]

A base in overlap is in the front rank, it is also not facing any enemy BG.

Well if thats the case then why would the -1 for losing to elephant apply if the elephant is only an overlap and is not by your definition facing the bases in frontal contact with a different enemy unit? With that ruling being made here on the forums it would appear that an overlap base is in combat and could then be removed since it is a front rank base that is fighting.

Off topic but if you have to apply a - for hits received from an overlapping base (elephants and scythed chariots for example) you can never win against it since you never throw any dice against it so you will always lose to it.

[philqw78]

Off topic but if you have to apply a - for hits received from an overlapping base (elephants and scythed chariots for example) you can never win against it since you never throw any dice against it so you will always lose to it.

But it only matters if you lose the combat overall. Losing to a single BG does not matter. Taking more hits than you dish out, to and from whoever, causes the Cohesion test.

[marioslaz]

Off topic but if you have to apply a - for hits received from an overlapping base (elephants and scythed chariots for example) you can never win against it since you never throw any dice against it so you will always lose to it.

I go off topic too, but I'm more worried about to apply a - to CT for reasons didn't apply, like to have lost against a troop type even if you won against them

[timurilenk]

Off topic but if you have to apply a - for hits received from an overlapping base (elephants and scythed chariots for example) you can never win against it since you never throw any dice against it so you will always lose to it.

I go off topic too, but I'm more worried about to apply a - to CT for reasons didn't apply, like to have lost against a troop type even if you won against them

I am not sure why you are worried about this.

1. You only take a test if you lose a combat overall (it does not matter how you did against individual enemy BGs)
2. If you take a test you look to see if some or all of your opponents were El, SCh, lancers IF etc. and apply yhe -1 if it applies.

The rules on page 113 are clear - each of these minuses has 'having lost ... even partly against ...' which is very clear.

~the way I look at it is these opponents generate fear and this only resolves itself when a CT must be taken

Ian

PS you also take a minus if shot at by firearms even if they did no hits (provided you receive 1 per 3 hits from all shooting)

[ShrubMiK]

A base in overlap is in the front rank, it is also not facing any enemy BG.

Well if thats the case then why would the -1 for losing to elephant apply if the elephant is only an overlap and is not by your definition facing the bases in frontal contact with a different enemy unit? With that ruling being made here on the forums it would appear that an overlap base is in combat and could then be removed since it is a front rank base that is fighting.

Off topic but if you have to apply a - for hits received from an overlapping base (elephants and scythed chariots for example) you can never win against it since you never throw any dice against it so you will always lose to it.

I don't see a problem with any of that, thinking about what "real life" events are being represented on the table. Subjective, I know

The -1 applies because it is reflecting the fact that elephants are relatively scary opponents. If the elephants score hits in combat, whether from frontal or overlap position, the affected unit is more likely to lose strict discipline, and ultimately is more likely to lose heart as well.

Key point: the overlap position in combat is in some sense a privileged position. Exactly what is going on in "real life" is a bit blurred, but I tend to assume that the overlapping unit is putting pressure on the flank of the opponents. Not as much as if it had been an actual flank charge, but some of the troops (i.e. represented by one file only fighting) are pushing forward and partially turning the flank, and the opponents are committed mostly to fighting against their front. That is the justification for a unit only fighting in overlap not taking any hits and therefore potential casualties.

And extending that logic...less clearcut in my eyes but I think a unit that is fighting both opponents directly to front and also overlapping them should arguably still take any casualties from the bases fighting frontally. Similar logic to the above. And also seems to fit in with other game mechanics better - you can't choose to voluntarily contract out of an overlap position to deny another opponent unit a chance to get fully stuck in, so why should you get the choice to be able to turn a relatively rare situation of losing a base to your advantage?

[marioslaz]

Off topic but if you have to apply a - for hits received from an overlapping base (elephants and scythed chariots for example) you can never win against it since you never throw any dice against it so you will always lose to it.

I go off topic too, but I'm more worried about to apply a - to CT for reasons didn't apply, like to have lost against a troop type even if you won against them

I am not sure why you are worried about this.

1. You only take a test if you lose a combat overall (it does not matter how you did against individual enemy BGs)
2. If you take a test you look to see if some or all of your opponents were El, SCh, lancers IF etc. and apply yhe -1 if it applies.

Rules are very clear indeed. My worries are not about rules interpretation, but about a situation like this: a BG fight againts 2 enemies' BG, one of them are Elephants (or Lancers, scythed chariots, etc.). The BG wins against Elephant, but loses overall fight, so this BG needs a CT with a - for losing versus Elephants.

[nikgaukroger]

~the way I look at it is these opponents generate fear and this only resolves itself when a CT must be taken

Yup - you're worried because you're losing the combat and then on top of that there are some big scary nellies alarmingly close ...

[kal5056]

This string has been hijacked by discussions of Elephants and -1 modifiers.
Can we get back to the original point.

XXX
YYYY
Y

Y - loses a death roll.

Which is the correct formation after the loss
A)
XXX
YYYY
or
B)
XXX
YYY
Y

It realy must be one or the other. I would appreciate an author's opinion on this.

Thank You
Gino
SMAC....ABB

[philqw78]

A front rank base lost is replaced by a rear rank base.

[lawrenceg]

XXX
YYYY
Y

Y - loses a death roll.

Which is the correct formation after the loss
A)
XXX
YYYY
or
B)
XXX
YYY
Y

It realy must be one or the other. I would appreciate an author's opinion on this.

Thank You
Gino
SMAC....ABB

I'm not a author, but it's A and IMO the rules are perfectly clear about this.

[hammy]

I'm not a author, but it's A and IMO the rules are perfectly clear about this.

Neither am I but Lawrence is right and if you read my posts earlier in this thread I thought I was pretty specific that a base in overlap cannot be killed and can only be used to replace a dead front rank base when there are no rear rank bases available to do so.

The rules on P116 are as far as I am concerned totally clear on this matter. The key is the final paragraph which starts "Other bases of the battle group immediately shuffle up to retain contiguity and fill vacated front rank positions...."

[hammy]

Yeah, but you can't move a base that is already in a fighting position except to move up because the one in front is dead. So that would stop the overlap base from moving wouldn't it.

Err really? Where does it say that?

You cannot "feed in more bases" a base that is already fighting. There is nothing requiring a dead base to be replaced by the base behind it.

[lawrenceg]

I'm not a author, but it's A and IMO the rules are perfectly clear about this.

Neither am I but Lawrence is right and if you read my posts earlier in this thread I thought I was pretty specific that a base in overlap cannot be killed and can only be used to replace a dead front rank base when there are no rear rank bases available to do so.

The rules on P116 are as far as I am concerned totally clear on this matter. The key is the final paragraph which starts "Other bases of the battle group immediately shuffle up to retain contiguity and fill vacated front rank positions...."

Actually that expression "shuffle up" is IMO a cause of much misunderstanding as it suggests bases move in small steps, one at a time, each into an adjacent void, when in fact the intention is for a base to teleport from anywhere other than the front rank directly into the vacancy caused by the loss.

[hammy]

A base in overlap is in the front rank, it is also not facing any enemy BG.

Well if thats the case then why would the -1 for losing to elephant apply if the elephant is only an overlap and is not by your definition facing the bases in frontal contact with a different enemy unit? With that ruling being made here on the forums it would appear that an overlap base is in combat and could then be removed since it is a front rank base that is fighting.

Why?

The penalty is for losing close combat even partly against elephants not losing close combat when facing elephants.

A BG in overlap is fighting, it is not however facing.

[deadtorius]

My point exactly so if a base that is in overlap can influence a combat it is not directly engaged in then why can a unit that has an overlap not remove that overlapping base as a casualty?

The rules say: All vacated front rank close combat fighting positions (except overlaps) must be filled if the battle group has any bases available. Pg 116 second coulumn

So you can remove an overlap base but it does not get replaced by a rear rank base
If overlapping units are considered to be partially facing an enemy than a unit that has an overlap has that base partially facing enemy and it can be removed as a legitimate front rank base for a casualty.

[marioslaz]

My point exactly so if a base that is in overlap can influence a combat it is not directly engaged in then why can a unit that has an overlap not remove that overlapping base as a casualty?

The rules say: All vacated front rank close combat fighting positions (except overlaps) must be filled if the battle group has any bases available. Pg 116 second coulumn

So you can remove an overlap base but it does not get replaced by a rear rank base
If overlapping units are considered to be partially facing an enemy than a unit that has an overlap has that base partially facing enemy and it can be removed as a legitimate front rank base for a casualty.

Mmmmm.... not wrong IMO, but complex... And if overlap is a base of a BG which is not facing enemy, but which is only fighting as an overlap?

[hammy]

My point exactly so if a base that is in overlap can influence a combat it is not directly engaged in then why can a unit that has an overlap not remove that overlapping base as a casualty?

The rules say: All vacated front rank close combat fighting positions (except overlaps) must be filled if the battle group has any bases available. Pg 116 second coulumn

So you can remove an overlap base but it does not get replaced by a rear rank base
If overlapping units are considered to be partially facing an enemy than a unit that has an overlap has that base partially facing enemy and it can be removed as a legitimate front rank base for a casualty.

How does a base fighting as an overlap get removed in the first place?

If a base is fighting as an overlap it is not facing the enemy so it can't be removed.

[lawrenceg]

How does a base fighting as an overlap get removed in the first place?

If a base is fighting as an overlap it is not facing the enemy so it can't be removed.

Normally a base in overlap is not facing the enemy BG, so it can't be removed (as has been pointed out numerous times in this thread). However, in a melee that cannot line up, a base facing the enemy (and hence eligible to be removed)might turn out to be fighting as an overlap .

[durrati]

Which of course is not correct as this rule would not change depending on if the combat had conformed.

2 ways out of that impasse.

The first is that the combat is fought as if they had conformed so it is not facing.

The second is to question the definition of facing as 'pointing directly towards'. An alternate definition is 'facing in combat' which an overlap is and is therefore eligible to be removed.


For what it is worth I think it is fair to apply the principle that the rules are written in a way to make sure people do not make combats smaller through base loss unless there is no other option. So I would play it with the choice that gives the most bases remaining in combat, firstly not removing bases that can contibute dice, then not those that can give a POA. In this case that means I would take the rear rank before taking off overlaps. If that does not conform to how someone may exactly parse the meaning of each word, well, dont care really.