Can a stand in contact with a router fight as an overlap?

iversonjm · Post by **iversonjm** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 2:13 pm

Its all in the title. I couldn't find a clear answer to this.

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 5:29 pm

Hi Matt - if you can't find it in the rules it's probably not there - but it doesn't seem very reasonable does it?

iversonjm · Post by **iversonjm** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 5:47 pm

petedalby wrote:Hi Matt - if you can't find it in the rules it's probably not there - but it doesn't seem very reasonable does it?

Now that I'm out of the heat of the moment it really doesn't, and we didn't end up playing it as an overlap. However, I think under the RAW if there is no exception for the situation then the default overlap rules apply and the stand can fight.

Do you agree Pete?

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 5:55 pm

Not if it is in frontal contact. Agree if side edge

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 5:56 pm

Do you agree Pete?

If I was asked to rule as an umpire I wouldn't allow it.

But I must concede that the wording on page 86 can arguably be said to allow it.

BillMc · Post by **BillMc** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 10:19 pm

If I understand the situation correctly; I would think that if it is in contact with a router, then casualties are taken in the Joint Action phase, so it does not fight (as there is no combat phase that applies). If it is in contact in the JA phase, it does kill a base.

Bill

grahambriggs · Post by **grahambriggs** » Tue Oct 04, 2011 11:48 am

Assuming it's in a legal overlap position, I believe it fights.

In the Melee section it says "An overlap fights against the same enemy base as the friendly base for which it provides an overlap" And also "There is no explicit shooting or close combat against, or by, broken troops. Damage inflicted on broken battle groups is assessed in the joint action phase."

So the overlap fights against the non broken enemy in melee, and there may or may not be more damage to the broken guys in the JAP.

imanfasil · Post by **imanfasil** » Tue Oct 04, 2011 4:11 pm

I'd say they cannot. Why? I'm pulling in the shooting rules... any BG pursuing and still in contact with the enemy cannot be shot. Thats even more protection than a BG gets for being engaged in melee where only parts of the unit actually throwing dice get to be safe from shooting. That combined with the fact that in the phase that ended with my still in contact I removed a base from the unit I am pursuing sounds a lot like I am still in combat with the broken unit... and if I am in combat to my front I cannot be an overlap.

Also a unit could not move into that position during the maneuver phase to join an existing melee as an overlap (since it involves front edge contact with a different enemy)... if its not a legal overlap position to walk into... how can it be a legal overlap?

grahambriggs · Post by **grahambriggs** » Wed Oct 05, 2011 11:15 am

imanfasil wrote:I'd say they cannot. Why? I'm pulling in the shooting rules... any BG pursuing and still in contact with the enemy cannot be shot. Thats even more protection than a BG gets for being engaged in melee where only parts of the unit actually throwing dice get to be safe from shooting. That combined with the fact that in the phase that ended with my still in contact I removed a base from the unit I am pursuing sounds a lot like I am still in combat with the broken unit... and if I am in combat to my front I cannot be an overlap.

If you want to extrapolate from the shooting section in this way then you might end up saying that a BG in front edge contact with the enemy can't fight as it can't be shot at...

I'm looking at the rules and reading what they say, whereas you seem to be looking at what they should say.

Also a unit could not move into that position during the maneuver phase to join an existing melee as an overlap (since it involves front edge contact with a different enemy)... if its not a legal overlap position to walk into... how can it be a legal overlap

It doesn't matter how you get into the overlap position. They happen to be defined in the movement section is all. If I end up in an overlap position by pursuit of an enemy that outdistances me I can fight as an overlap.

imanfasil · Post by **imanfasil** » Wed Oct 05, 2011 2:52 pm

Yes you can definitely fight as an overlap as a result of being outdistanced when pursuing... but whatever position you are in then... is obviously a legal overlap position... and therefore one you could have moved to on your own in the maneuver phase.

That is very different from the situation above where you can't move into the position touching the broken unit voluntarily. Isn't that part of the rules (p75?) all about defining the legal overlap positions? If it isn't listed there... its not a legal overlap position?

grahambriggs · Post by **grahambriggs** » Thu Oct 06, 2011 1:54 pm

imanfasil wrote:Yes you can definitely fight as an overlap as a result of being outdistanced when pursuing... but whatever position you are in then... is obviously a legal overlap position... and therefore one you could have moved to on your own in the maneuver phase.

That is very different from the situation above where you can't move into the position touching the broken unit voluntarily. Isn't that part of the rules (p75?) all about defining the legal overlap positions? If it isn't listed there... its not a legal overlap position?

The rules that define overlap just tell you what an overlap position is, not how you got there. There is a mechanism in the movement phase that allows you to voluntarily move to an overlap position in the movement phase. But it doesn't say that you can only count as overlap if you got there by that mechanism.

imanfasil · Post by **imanfasil** » Thu Oct 06, 2011 6:06 pm

Sorry, apparently we're missing each other on the American-English to UK-English translation.

I said what you said - you can get into overlap positions many ways - agreed. You can pursue into it, heck the battle can come to you giving you an interesting overlap without moving at all!

But there is one thing that all those overlaps have in common.... if you didn't get there by pursuit or whatever, you COULD have moved into that same exact position voluntarily in the manuever phase - as you can with any legal overlap position.

Therefore, if you couldn't move into that position voluntarily during the manuever phase it isn't a legal overlap position.

grahambriggs · Post by **grahambriggs** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 9:28 am

imanfasil wrote:Sorry, apparently we're missing each other on the American-English to UK-English translation.

I said what you said - you can get into overlap positions many ways - agreed. You can pursue into it, heck the battle can come to you giving you an interesting overlap without moving at all!

But there is one thing that all those overlaps have in common.... if you didn't get there by pursuit or whatever, you COULD have moved into that same exact position voluntarily in the manuever phase - as you can with any legal overlap position.

Therefore, if you couldn't move into that position voluntarily during the manuever phase it isn't a legal overlap position.

I don't think the logic works here (oeither that or I'm missing something). I agree you can get into am overlap postition without moving at all. But that does not mean that you have to be able to move to that position voluntarily.

So, for example, heavy artillery can't move at all. But if the enemy pitches in to them, they can still count overlaps. The overlaps rules simply describe the relative position of bases. You imply that it matters whether the overlapping base cound have move to that position in the movement phase. I see nothing in the rules that requires this.

Am I missing something here?