Expanding into an existing melee

[ravenflight]

Page 23 is why I responded as I did. But if all umpires agree that this overlap is cheese and the BG in melee can still expand then I'm all for it.

You know, not everything is cheese. There can be several reasons why a player may put troops in that position. Maybe they were 5mm out of shooting range and wanted to shoot. Maybe the way the combats eventuated made the situation as shown. Maybe the player needed to allow space for an interpenetration.

The use of the term 'cheese' is extremely insulting to players who have tried to do the right thing, within the spirit of the rules yet end up in situations where it appears as cheese.

[philqw78]

Depends on the view of the rule if they can be expanded into, if they wanted it to be proper cheesy they would not have moved into overlap and there would be no dispute, and no expansion.

[nikgaukroger]

Page 23 is why I responded as I did. But if all umpires agree that this overlap is cheese and the BG in melee can still expand then I'm all for it.

You know, not everything is cheese. There can be several reasons why a player may put troops in that position. Maybe they were 5mm out of shooting range and wanted to shoot. Maybe the way the combats eventuated made the situation as shown. Maybe the player needed to allow space for an interpenetration.

The use of the term 'cheese' is extremely insulting to players who have tried to do the right thing, within the spirit of the rules yet end up in situations where it appears as cheese.

Bit of an over-reation there IMO. Pete is clearly talking about the possible deliberate use of this - we all know odd things crop up accidentally during games but here the point is deliberate exploitation.

[nikgaukroger]

Page 23 is why I responded as I did. But if all umpires agree that this overlap is cheese and the BG in melee can still expand then I'm all for it.

FWIW I've asked on the writers forum to see if this geometrical ploy can be removed for v2 - seems like a worthwhile exercise. In the meantime I am minded to allow the expansion, however, I don't think I could actually enforce it based on the rules

Of course it can't stop a player positioning a BG not counting as an overlap in such a way that an enemy BG cannot expand, however, at least in that case they are not getting the benefit of overlap combat dice themselves.

[elysiumsolutions@fsmail.n]

In my experience the legal formation rule is fine until you enter combat.

In the picture example obviously if all the units were not quite in contact the legal formation rule would stop the spears from expanding into a doglegged formation when the LF were stepped forward. This is a relatively common tactic moving light to stop the enemy expanding.
The geometry is exactly the same if the units are fighting in combat so page 23 appears to forbid it.
However, there are numerous times when the rule on page 23 does not hold
As an example if charging two units from the front which are staggered. If one presumes that the rule on page 23 is paramount it could be argued that since a charge is not a compulsary move and this will result in the unit entering an illegal formation then you cannot charge. Obviously reading the rest of the rules you can charge staggered units so we need to appreciate that the rule on page 23 says "In general".
I would argue that although the geometry is exactly the same the spears can expand on to the LF if they are fighting in overlap even if staggered this being one of the many exceptions to the general rule which are not listed.

Paul

[grahambriggs]

It seems that overlappers who aren't level are a bit of a gap in the rules. It's not a listed exception to the 'BGs must be rectangular' rule. However, it seems reasonable that they can be expanded into in the example picture and I suspect umpires would allow that.

It's a question of degree though. I suspect if the overlapping BG was not LF slightly ahead of the line but instead a deep column with only the rearmost ranks providing the overlap, it would look more odd. The spear unit would presumably have to feed in to the front of the column and would have no contact between the fed in bases and the rest of the BG. Or would it be ruled that base at the front of the column is not overlapping so you can't feed in???

[philqw78]

Indeed Graham, as a cunning bit of possible cheese, moving into column along the edge of the BG and going as far forward as possible, but still contributing to the melee, ensures keeping up with the enemy after any rout.

[petedalby]

The use of the term 'cheese' is extremely insulting to players who have tried to do the right thing, within the spirit of the rules yet end up in situations where it appears as cheese.

I do apologise - no insult was intended I can assure you.

As others have noted such an eventuality is not covered in the rules and some players have deliberately exploited this position in the past. I'm delighted that you're not one of them.

It will be no consolation to you, but my first 2 queries on the FoGR Forum were branded as 'cheese' - so I do know how it feels.

[hazelbark]

I think an overlap would and should be allowed for the integrity of the game.

Would because its expanding into contact.
Would because you can have an illegal formation as a result of combat, chargers feeding etc. Not allowing this has real ramifications.

The issue as everyone has pointed out is if the column is so deep and past the rear of the BG they can't expand or the BG is off set jsut enough that it is not contributing. I "think" I can toelrate the former as an extreme anomaly with enough people on the flank to be a thinks ar pretty bad anyway situation. The later is what would be nice to address, but that is hard.

[ravenflight]

The use of the term 'cheese' is extremely insulting to players who have tried to do the right thing, within the spirit of the rules yet end up in situations where it appears as cheese.

I do apologise - no insult was intended I can assure you.

As others have noted such an eventuality is not covered in the rules and some players have deliberately exploited this position in the past. I'm delighted that you're not one of them.

It will be no consolation to you, but my first 2 queries on the FoGR Forum were branded as 'cheese' - so I do know how it feels.

Thanks Pete, I appreciate your post.

I too have had a post labelled cheese, so am probably fairly sensitive to it as I am (I don't think) not a cheesy player.

As rules are extremely difficult to write it is without doubt that exploitations can occur where rules haven't been exact enough. However, to make the rules exact enough would require us to write a document the size of the Encyclopaedia Britannica.

Anyway - onto better topics

Thanks again for your comment.

[gozerius]

I have always permitted feeding bases into melee so long as the feeding BG retains its integrity. A BG with stepped forward files can still expand, as can a BG which is fighting in two directions. In the case posted the BG would maintain file contiguity and thus would be permitted to expand. In the case of an overlap in which the leading edge of the overlapping BG is behind the rear edge of the BG it is overlapping, it is highly unlikely to be able to maintain BG integrity to meet the overlap.

[caliban66]

The rules state that you can expand to meet and existing overlap. Rules also say that you can overlap in a side to side contact. So I think spears can expand to meet that overlap. Rules also say that BG that can´t conform still fight as conformed. I can´t find any reason reading the rules not to allow the expansion.