Combat 'bogs'

[list_lurker]

2 scenarios occured last night where the results didn't 'feel right'. Its on the same theme as Lances' flank contact.

scenario 1

Roman LH (4 Bases in 2x2) charge the flank of Sassanid Clib (4 in single rank). Sass not disrupted due to skirmishers charging flank.

Impact
Roman 1 base in contact (2 dice 1/2 for Skim) @ 3 (++)
Sass 1 in contact (2 dice) @ 5 (--) re-roll ones

Melee
Roman 4 base in contact (4 dice 1/2 for Skim) @ 5 (--)
Sass 1 in contact (1 dice) @ 3(++) re-roll ones

Basically neither side gained an advantage. The LH couldn't break off due to fighting non-foot. Sass where 1 rank deep contacted in flank so couldn't expand in combat ?? Basically as this was on a wing with no other units to intervene, it turned into 'handbags at dawn'. Not enough dice were being thrown to get sufficient modifiers to adjust any COH tests

Scenario 2
Hun LH (4 Bases in 2x2) charge some Skyth LH (5 in line). The Skyths evade going through a gap 80mm wide ending up in formation (2,2,1). They therefore had a 'tail'. The Huns threw up on VMD and caught the Skyths (distrupting)

Impact
Hun 1 base in contact (2 dice) @ 3 (++)
Skyth 1 in contact (2 dice) @ 5 (--) re-roll ones (not getting to 3 to knock off 1p3 for disr)

Melee
Hun 4 base in contact or support (4 dice) @ 4 (+) for Swords
Skyth 1 in contact (1 one in support**) (2 dice) @ 5 (-) (not getting to 3 to knock off 1p3 for disr)

** even though they were facing away we couldn't work out whether the 2nd rank counted.

Again - 4@4 vs 2 @5 should have won - but it never inflicted enought to do 1p3 (or any other COH mods) So, again this bogged.

Both of the above combats went on fo 3+ turns while the rest of the battle resolved quite nicely. It worries slightly that there may be a tendancy for folks to tie up key(expensive) units with cheap troops by only contacting a small portion of the BG (and therefore cutting down on the no of dice thrown).

Thoughts?

Simon

[rbodleyscott]

In both these cases the unit contacted can (in the opponent's movement phase) turn to face (See "Reforming") and expand 1 base width to match opponent's existing overlap. (Maybe the wording here is confusing - we don't mean an overlap that fought in the last close combat phase, we mean an element that is in a position to fight as an overlap in the forthcoming melee. This ambiguity is a result of moving the "in melee expansion" to the movement phase).

Thus in both cases, the contacted BG can get 4 bases fighting in the melee phase.

We obviously need to clarify the wording (although it would also be made clear in our proposed diagram). The intended rules I think cure your "strangeness".

[list_lurker]

The wording on reforming does not suggest that to me at all!!

Well - it all depends.. If a flank base does turn. Then I can see how in 'reforming' the flanked BG could turn - and then expand - fine.

However, if you are contacted solely in the flank - does the end base turn - as in 'the rules who shall not be named'? I can't find any reference (albeit in my 2 minute review)

Simon

[list_lurker]

However, if you are contacted solely in the flank - does the end base turn - as in 'the rules who shall not be named'? I can't find any reference (albeit in my 2 minute review)

Ok found it... page 12, 2nd para -5th bullet...

Makes sense now ...
[/muppet alert]