Lancers in overlap

teboj17 · Post by **teboj17** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 7:34 pm

So this came up in a game recently. A unit of knights with lances was fighting in an overlap to a foot unit that was fighting another foot unit. In front of the knights about 1 inch away I had a unit of medium foot offensive spear. So the Knights did not have to test to charge my medium foot as they were fighting in overlap. Now since I was within 2" I was pinned and basically I had to just sit there until the other combat was over. If I had charged the knights (who were already fighting as an overlap) they would have gotten their lance bonus as well as their mounted vs medium foot, as well as my unit not being able to use their offensive spear as i was charging lancers.
So this situation seemed like an unfair advantage to Lance armed Knights. It seems since they have all these advantages that they should at least either have to test not to charge or at least do not receive their lance bonus since they are already fighting and which they would not gain their momentum and speed, which is where a lance gets its advantage from.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 7:48 pm

The lancers do have to test not to charge as they are only in overlap.

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 7:54 pm

Well the authors have remarked the scale of the bases is not a precise representation of troops being at the front of the base at all times. Also it doesn't take very long for a horse to be moving at a speed where the lance is going to be able to skewer a lot.

Your proximity strike me as understandable. There's a big fight going on real close we can turn and run or we an loiter about and see if we want to get involved.

If the combat went on long enough you could turn march away from the RA and then march out.

Similarly if its only 1 base you would "probably" survive the impact with no worse than a disorder and then with overlap still ahve 3 dice to 2.

teboj17 · Post by **teboj17** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 11:47 pm

I did look in the rulebook to see if they had to charge or not but could not find where it said they still had to.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Wed Apr 06, 2011 7:10 am

From the rules
"MOVING FROM AN OVERLAP POSITION
A battle group which fought in melee in a previous turn as an overlap only, can choose to charge a different enemy or evade in the impact phase, move normally in the manoeuvre phase, or continue to fight against its existing opponents in the next melee phase."
There is no rule precluding shock troops from the test not to charge. Unfortunately, for a lot of rules, if there isn't a rule against it it happens.

I'm sure its stated elsewhere but am sat at work at the moment so reading rules is not good.

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Wed Apr 06, 2011 7:51 am

philqw78 wrote:I'm sure its stated elsewhere but am sat at work at the moment so reading rules is not good.

But you have started taking them into work. Sad, sad.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Wed Apr 06, 2011 8:18 am

rbodleyscott wrote:
philqw78 wrote:I'm sure its stated elsewhere but am sat at work at the moment so reading rules is not good.
But you have started taking them into work. Sad, sad.

No I used the not red bit of version 2 that is in my e-mail. Still sad as I should have deleted it as it is already way out of date.

FOGwargames · Post by **FOGwargames** » Wed Apr 06, 2011 10:10 am

Phil, I thought you were going to post about the issue we had on Monday? The issue whereby the priority of base removal in close combat meant that one battle group ceased to be in combat after winning etc.
cheers
pete

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Wed Apr 06, 2011 10:34 am

Here we go. I haven't had chance to upload the photo yet so

_..

All are knights

is disrupted and has lost a base

has just lost a base

does 4 hits to

_

does three hits to

does no hits to

and three hits to

_

does 2 hits to

Both

and

lose a base

We figured out that

loses the base in front of

and

must lose a base in front of

This means that

now no longer overlaps

as

lost a base and closed up. This seems a bit unfair

gozerius · Post by **gozerius** » Wed Apr 06, 2011 2:06 pm

philqw78 wrote:Here we go. I haven't had chance to upload the photo yet so

_..

All are knights
is disrupted and has lost a base
has just lost a base

does 4 hits to _ does three hits to
does no hits to and three hits to _ does 2 hits to

Both and lose a base

We figured out that loses the base in front of and must lose a base in front of

This means that now no longer overlaps as lost a base and closed up. This seems a bit unfair

But, Phil,
Surely you followed the requirements laid out in the base removal section that prohibit removing a base that would cause a BG to lose contact with its close combat opponents. Since

must lose the base facing

, and

must lose a base facing

the correct base to lose would be the center base of

with the base to the right sliding over to maintain contiguity. In this way all of the BGs originally involved in the melee remain in contact, at least as overlaps.

FOGwargames · Post by **FOGwargames** » Wed Apr 06, 2011 9:00 pm

Ok. So the top middle BG loses the centre base and the one to its left slides over. That means it has lost contact with the centre bottom BG, but at least all BGs remain in some contact and the individual bases of the BGs remain adjacent to each other.