Fighting in 2 directions and base removal

kal5056 · Post by **kal5056** » Mon Jan 18, 2010 11:38 pm

You have a BG down to 3 bases fighting in 2 directions against 3 other BG's. (1 on each of 2 bases facing front and 1 to a BG facing flank). This BG takes a base loss due to each BG causing 2 hits totaling 6. Can the player remove the base that faces the flank and now claim to no longer be fighting in 2 directions? The removal of any base takes the BG out of contact with an enemy BG and since they all did an equal number of hits the player seems to be able to choose which to remove but it seems odd that a base loss can actually improve the fighting ability of a BG (All be it now the enemy BG is throwing dice from over lap with no return fire but at lower POA's)

Thank You
Gino
SMAC

gozerius · Post by **gozerius** » Tue Jan 19, 2010 1:56 am

kal5056 wrote:You have a BG down to 3 bases fighting in 2 directions against 3 other BG's. (1 on each of 2 bases facing front and 1 to a BG facing flank). This BG takes a base loss due to each BG causing 2 hits totaling 6. Can the player remove the base that faces the flank and now claim to no longer be fighting in 2 directions? The removal of any base takes the BG out of contact with an enemy BG and since they all did an equal number of hits the player seems to be able to choose which to remove but it seems odd that a base loss can actually improve the fighting ability of a BG (All be it now the enemy BG is throwing dice from over lap with no return fire but at lower POA's)

Thank You
Gino
SMAC

You can't lose a base that would cause an enemy BG to lose contact with your BG unless there is no other option, so the base to remove in this case would not be the one facing the flanking BG. It would have to be the one which is on the other end of the line. That way, the enemy BG which now has no enemy in front edge contact would still qualify as overlap against your BG.

kal5056 · Post by **kal5056** » Tue Jan 19, 2010 2:08 am

In the senario that I lay out removing any of the 3 bases will leave a BG that was in contact to over lap only.

XB
ZZNC

I hope this works. ZZN is a BG with 2 ZZ's facing up the page and a Sideways Z(N) turned to face C
X and B are each enemy (Same as C).

ZZN Must lose a base. What happens? if you Remove N is ZZN still fighting in 2 directions?

Thank You
Gino
SMAC

gozerius · Post by **gozerius** » Tue Jan 19, 2010 2:46 am

kal5056 wrote:In the senario that I lay out removing any of the 3 bases will leave a BG that was in contact to over lap only.

XB
ZZNC

I hope this works. ZZN is a BG with 2 ZZ's facing up the page and a Sideways Z(N) turned to face C
X and B are each enemy (Same as C).

ZZN Must lose a base. What happens? if you Remove N is ZZN still fighting in 2 directions?

Thank You
Gino
SMAC

Losing N results in C losing contact with the BG, so that is not possible. Losing Z on the right results in the BG being split, so that is not possible. Losing the lefthand Z is possible because all enemy BGs remain in contact, and the BG is not split.

berthier · Post by **berthier** » Tue Jan 19, 2010 3:39 am

Gino's diagram is a bit off I believe. If I recall correctly, here is the layout of the fight. Numbers represent player 1's BGs and letters Player 2's BG.

1122
_AAA33
___A33
____33

In this case, the element of BG A in the second line is facing BG 3. It had previously charged BG A in the flank and BG A turned its back base to face.

BGs 1, 2 & 3 each caused 2 casualties. Player 2 chose to remove the element of BG A facing BG 3. Player 2 maintained that as the definition of fighting in 2 directions was not applicable after the base was removed then he no longer suffered the penalty. Player 1 argued that the penalty still applied.

Maybe this makes it clearer.

deadtorius · Post by **deadtorius** » Fri Jan 22, 2010 2:02 am

BG 3 is still in edge contact with BG A so I guess yes you could remove one of those stands. However player of battle group A is still fighting in more than one direction so he can't get out of it on that technicality, and one would have to assume that at this point an autobreak would occur, or would be pretty close to it in the end which would solve all the problems anyway and make for a really nasty tripping over ourselves pursuit.

berthier · Post by **berthier** » Fri Jan 22, 2010 2:39 am

The BG in question was superior and was reduced to 3 stands from 4. Thus no auto-break.

Additionally, read page 88 of the rule book.

"A battlegroup only counts as fighting the enemy in 2 directions in melee if it has bases turned at 90 or 180 degrees to each other and it is in melee with different enemy battlegroups on different facings."

Once the stand of BG A that turned and faced BG 3 when BG 3 charged it in the flank was destroyed in the melee phase (it survived impact), it no longer was fighting in two directions per page 88. Page 88 (and page 134 which says the same thing) is where the contention arose.

gozerius · Post by **gozerius** » Fri Jan 22, 2010 3:19 am

The loss of the base facing the flank is valid. and it then is no longer fighting in two directions. The BG in contact with the flank will now fight unopposed with the base in edge contact, with the base adjacent counting as an overlap. (See page 75). The flanked BG may only fight (roll dice) against the BGs (1 & 2) in contact with it's front edge, so will not roll dice against the flanking BG. See page 92 .

kal5056 · Post by **kal5056** » Fri Jan 22, 2010 3:24 am

This is one of those situations where the RAW seem to indicate that the loss of a base can be used in a way as to improve the situation of a BG. I am just curious if this was the author's intent and if so why?
Gino
SMAC

I agree that as rules as written this is the correct interp. Just curious why as it doesn't seem to pass my smell test.

Gino
SMAC

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Fri Jan 22, 2010 8:41 am

I agree that as rules as written this is the correct interp. Just curious why as it doesn't seem to pass my smell test.

A fair question - but realistically how often is this likley to arise?

I've played a fair few games and never seen this before. The authors can't cover every eventuality - and if they tried we'd all be lugging a much bigger rules book around.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Fri Jan 22, 2010 9:27 am

Its possibly a little realism. The boys closer to the hardest enemy or having the most difficult fight die faster and nobody wants to replace them. They close up and fight to their best effect.

The BG that lost contact could always charge again when it gets chance.

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Fri Jan 22, 2010 9:48 am

kal5056 wrote:This is one of those situations where the RAW seem to indicate that the loss of a base can be used in a way as to improve the situation of a BG.

It certainly can.

Ask Richard. The loss of a pinned base of his to shooting, so that the BG was no longer pinned, totally changed his last game at Warfare much to his benefit

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Fri Jan 22, 2010 10:05 am

I haven't read every word in this thread but I couldn't see anywhere someoen pointing out that normally you have little if any choice about which base you remove. The base removed must be one facing the BG that inflicted the most hits. There is only an option when two BGs both inflict the most hits.

You can choose where you replace the base from but if there are no 'spare' bases or at the very least no bases that the removal of would not break contact with an enemy BG then you just don't replace the base that dies.

berthier · Post by **berthier** » Fri Jan 22, 2010 10:34 am

Who inflicted the most hits was the first question that I asked when I was drawn to the table. All three enemy BGs inclicted 2 hits each.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Fri Jan 22, 2010 10:57 am

berthier wrote:Who inflicted the most hits was the first question that I asked when I was drawn to the table. All three enemy BGs inclicted 2 hits each.

So owning player chooses

devilforrest · Post by **devilforrest** » Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:32 am

During that game Kevin did a good job reffing to overcome lobying from an uninvolved Smac member.
Then the thread author mistates the case but doesn't clear up the confussion after we talked so I hearby dub that newly painted knight unit Smac Killers.

expendablecinc · Post by **expendablecinc** » Sat Jan 23, 2010 4:11 am

kal5056 wrote:This is one of those situations where the RAW seem to indicate that the loss of a base can be used in a way as to improve the situation of a BG. I am just curious if this was the author's intent and if so why?
Gino
SMAC

I agree that as rules as written this is the correct interp. Just curious why as it doesn't seem to pass my smell test.

Gino
SMAC

IMO it would be a big mistake generally to remove the base fighting to the side. It just enables them to flank hcarge you again in the next phase either dropping you a level, causing a fight at -- or possibly causing a break test.

gozerius · Post by **gozerius** » Sat Jan 23, 2010 7:06 pm

It would seem to me that in any situation, the order of precedence for base removal/replacement is well covered by the existing rule. Regardless of which base is lost, the BG must keep its bases in contiguous contact and, to the best of its ability, in contact with as many enemy BGs as physically possible. This could mean that base loss/replacement reduces the frontage of a BG such that an enemy BG is only in overlap contact. This would occur before any base loss would result in an enemy BG losing complete contact with the losing BG.

berthier · Post by **berthier** » Sat Jan 23, 2010 7:27 pm

The flanking BG was still in contact with the side edge of BG A's right most base.

gozerius · Post by **gozerius** » Sun Jan 24, 2010 12:51 am

So it was legal to remove the flank facing base. The losing BG's frontage was going to be one base shorter, and the owning player decides which way to shrink the BG's frontage. When fighting in two directions, the bases fighting enemy in contact to their front are effectively front rank bases, even if they are behind other bases pointing a different direction.

Fighting in 2 directions and base removal

Fighting in 2 directions and base removal

Re: Fighting in 2 directions and base removal