Support Shooting in the Impact Phase

atatnet · Post by **atatnet** » Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:19 pm

Kindly clarify the following situation:

Dominate Roman mixed BG facing upwards: 1,2,3, and 4 = HF;5 and 6=LF Bow from the same BG;
E=enemy BG facing downwards.
Note: The "-----" is empty space not occupied by any BG and is inserted here to align the "EEEE" in the illustration:

-----EEEE

1234
56

If the enemy charges (downwards) and contacts HF base 4 only (from the front of 4) in the Impact Phase, can LF 5 and 6 perform support shooting in this Impact Phase?

Robert241167 · Post by **Robert241167** » Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:28 pm

Hi there.

Impact shooting will only count from the shooting base in the same file as the base contacted.

From your example there would be no impact shooting.

Rob

RobKhan · Post by **RobKhan** » Thu Apr 14, 2011 9:57 am

I have never played with such formations before, so when can a player with such BG formation adjust the second rank bows to the danger side to enable them to shoot in the impact phase?

RobKhan

Currently a pointy stick thrower - then run like hell.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Thu Apr 14, 2011 10:10 am

Only by doing legal formation changes. They can't just shift around as there is nothing in the rules to allow it. So contract and then expand again.

recharge · Post by **recharge** » Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:48 am

On the other side; id a mixed BG charges (or a Bw group) do they getg rear rank shooting at impact?

John

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Thu Apr 14, 2011 12:25 pm

Certainly NO. They only shoot in impact if receiving a charge

atatnet · Post by **atatnet** » Thu Apr 14, 2011 3:08 pm

Thanks for the answers and the supplementary questions.

recharge · Post by **recharge** » Fri Apr 15, 2011 11:34 am

Thanks, Phil. That's what I thought but my opponent was convinced otherwise

John

ScotGore · Post by **ScotGore** » Fri Apr 15, 2011 5:43 pm

philqw78 wrote:Only by doing legal formation changes. They can't just shift around as there is nothing in the rules to allow it. So contract and then expand again.

Are you saying that if they saw this threat while still active in thier own movement phase, they could not move the two back bases from the left side of the formation to the right side of the formation. They must instead, spend one movement expanding into a single line, then in a subsequent movement step, contract back to two ranks with the stands on the right side. It seems reasonable that this could be accomplished as a move and movement is allowed in the rules. Maybe I misunderstood your answer.

Scot

kevinj · Post by **kevinj** » Fri Apr 15, 2011 5:56 pm

Scot, it may be reasonable, but there isn't a move option that allows it. The best option is probably to contract, leaving the LF as third rank which would enable them to shoot if the BG is charged.

ShrubMiK · Post by **ShrubMiK** » Fri Apr 15, 2011 10:11 pm

I suspect the reason it is not allowed to adjust formations like that on the spot is at least partly to discourage the use of such ahistorical formations in the first place!

Although you could equally make the argument that the rigid rectangular bases are a historical, and that in reality the two LF bases would be spread out to half depth along the whole of the 4 front rank bases, thus should still be able to shoot in impact anywhere along the line but at reduced effect. Making rules to cover the various situations that could arise might be complicated though.

RobKhan · Post by **RobKhan** » Sun Apr 17, 2011 12:52 pm

It seems to me that we have a situation here that wasn't thought about when the rules were finalized.

In a flank charge it is possible for bases to turn 90 degrees in the impact phase, inside the movement phase expansions are allowed to extend the combat and stands can be brought from one side of a BG to another to enter combat, BUT there is no mechanism to deal with a lateral move of stands, except by a bizarre contraction then expansion over 2 turns to do so.

Clearly ridiculous, and an extremely poor simulation.

So, either the stands are in the wrong place when the enemy charges in and they don't shoot, or a rule is required to simulate their presence supporting the entire front rank of the BG.

As a suggestion, and to keep it as simple as possible, allow them to support shoot with a minus 2 POA (instead of the -1) to represent the poorer tactical situation compared to having stands behind the contacted front rank stands.

RobKhan

Pointy stick chucker - then run like hell.

atatnet · Post by **atatnet** » Sun Apr 17, 2011 2:07 pm

I would suggest that the impact shooting can take place whichever front rank base or bases is/are contacted (without any further penalties). This would simulate the spreading out of the missile troops at the back rank.

dave_r · Post by **dave_r** » Sun Apr 17, 2011 11:24 pm

RobKhan wrote:It seems to me that we have a situation here that wasn't thought about when the rules were finalized.

In a flank charge it is possible for bases to turn 90 degrees in the impact phase, inside the movement phase expansions are allowed to extend the combat and stands can be brought from one side of a BG to another to enter combat, BUT there is no mechanism to deal with a lateral move of stands, except by a bizarre contraction then expansion over 2 turns to do so.

Clearly ridiculous, and an extremely poor simulation.

So, either the stands are in the wrong place when the enemy charges in and they don't shoot, or a rule is required to simulate their presence supporting the entire front rank of the BG.

As a suggestion, and to keep it as simple as possible, allow them to support shoot with a minus 2 POA (instead of the -1) to represent the poorer tactical situation compared to having stands behind the contacted front rank stands.

RobKhan

Pointy stick chucker - then run like hell.

Or you could just assume that the general had made a massive mess of the entire situation and the rules shouldn't need to cope with the commander being a wally.

You've made your bed by having a dodgy formation and now you have to lie in it.

ShrubMiK · Post by **ShrubMiK** » Mon Apr 18, 2011 8:40 am

What the defending commander *should* have done is put the LF bases behind bases 1 and 4 in the front rank.

That way, if the charger wants to avoid support shooting he has to charge the middle of the formation...and then he'll be double-overlapped in melee instead of single-overlapped.

Update: just noticed the scenario as posted has the chargers in single rank, which changes things slightly: it is not possible for the chargers to avoid support shooting! And the overlap equation may be different: if the charging BG is knights they would want to contact as many of the defending bases as possible to maximise the dice advantage in melee.