Shifting into Melee and Expanding

bbotus · Post by **bbotus** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 12:15 am

A unit of foot knights (k) in a 1x6 column is charged by an enemy cav unit (C) in a 1x2 column. In the maneuver phase a 2nd cav unit (D) joins the melee as an overlap against the foot knights. The foot knights hold in good order and the charging cav unit breaks off in the JAP. The position at the start of the foot knights (k) turn is this. C & D face down and k faces up:

C
C

..DD
..DD
k
k
k
k
k
k

In the foot knights maneuver phase, they shift 1 column to the right to engage the cav unit that fought as an overlap. Since the cav (D) is in a 2x2 block, they cannot evade. Page 72, 1st bullet, says that a unit "already in contact" with the enemy can expand by one file. The heading on Page 76 says the BGs "already in contact" may shift into melee. The question is: Can the unit shift into melee and expand one file in the same maneuver phase?

C
C

..DD
..DD
..kk
..kk
..kk

I wouldn't ask but Mr Scott has done such a great job of being very specific in the rules and he intends the rules to get more stands involved in melee.

P.S. If you must know, the foot knights were supporting a unit of mounted knights which were utterly destroyed and picked up in a previous JAP. Made me shed a tear. Then we used a sledge hammer on all dice involved.

imanfasil · Post by **imanfasil** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 4:46 am

No. The first step of the maneuver phase after conforming is feeding bases into melee. As you were not in melee at the start of the manuever phase, you have basically missed it for this round. You will shift to initiate contact and be overlapped in the first round of melee. During your opponents next maneuver phase you will be able to feed more bases into hand to hand expanding to match his existing overlap. Then during your manuever phase after that you could expand to be 3 wide and be overlapping the cav.

bbotus · Post by **bbotus** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 7:01 am

So all I had to do was read the turn sequence chart more closely. Thanks for the help.

batesmotel · Post by **batesmotel** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 4:49 pm

I do not believe any automatic shift occurs to conform to the overlappers so the rest of the question is mute. In the knight's turn I think they can wheel sufficiently to charge the overlappers which would then be resolved as equivalent of a frontal charge since it would not be a flank charge.

Chris

zoltan · Post by **zoltan** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 6:56 pm

batesmotel wrote:I do not believe any automatic shift occurs to conform to the overlappers so the rest of the question is mute. In the knight's turn I think they can wheel sufficiently to charge the overlappers which would then be resolved as equivalent of a frontal charge since it would not be a flank charge.

Chris

Yes, that's my understanding. There's no such thing as a "free shift sideways" to initiate a new melee. The knights must declare a charge on the cav. In this case the knights will probably wheel a gnat's todger before either hitting the front corner or the side edge of the cav. In the case of hitting the side edge, the knights would fight impact there but then in the manouevre phase be picked up and placed squarely at the front of the cav (as it was not actually a flank charge). They could then expand from column to match the cav.

bbotus · Post by **bbotus** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 7:09 pm

Read page 76 'Battle Groups Already In Contact But Not Yet Committed To Close Combat'. BGs in corner to corner contact are allowed to shift 1 base width sideways to get into melee contact.

In my example the foot knights did not want to impact the cav because the knights were 'offensive spear' and the cav had 'other lance'.

zoltan · Post by **zoltan** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 9:46 pm

I take it back! I've never noticed that rule before.

So you can move into combat in the manouevre phase.

So back to your original question, I guess the point is can you BOTH move sideways into frontal contact AND then expand to match the cav overlap? Can't see why not.

berthier · Post by **berthier** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 10:45 pm

You might want to check the the errata which changes a key sentence on p. 75. The original first sentence from the section entitled MOVING INTO CONTACT WITH ENEMY BATTLE GROUPS was changed in the errata to read as follows:

Battle groups can move into contact with enemy battle groups in the manoeuvre phase, but only to join an existing melee in an overlap position only.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Sun Oct 09, 2011 1:10 am

berthier wrote:Battle groups can move into contact with enemy battle groups in the manoeuvre phase, but only to join an existing melee in an overlap position only.

Thats not completely correct. BG in side edge contact with enemy can turn into front edge contact with them in the manoeuver phase, providing they are not in melee. That enemy can also evade if capable.

But shifting, I'd need a rulebook for that.
Did anyone come back from Britcon with an extra one?

berthier · Post by **berthier** » Sun Oct 09, 2011 1:39 am

In this case they are not in side edge contact, they are in corner to corner contact.

This would probably be one of those that some cleaning up. As a referee, I would not allow it without some significant convincing.

bbotus · Post by **bbotus** » Sun Oct 09, 2011 2:16 am

Battle groups can move into contact with enemy battle groups in the manoeuvre phase, but only to join an existing melee in an overlap position.

TECHNICAL NOTE: I deleted the last 'only' from the quote since it is not in the errata.

Interesting because the original text on page 75 said, "BGs can ONLY move into contact with enemy BGS in the manoeuvre phase, but only to join an existing melee in an overlap position" The errata deleted the word 'only' the first time it appears in the sentence. If you turn the page and read page 76, RBS then describes 2 other ways units can move into contact when it is not joining an existing melee. He spends a half page describing how to shift into contact and when it is permitted in the manoeuvre phase. Then he spends another half page describing how and when you can turn 90 degrees to contact enemy in the manoeuvre phase. He did not change any of that in the errata so it is definitely allowed.

imanfasil gave me the answer. The turn sequence chart says movement comes after feeding bases into melee. So a unit could shift sideways into contact but would have to wait until the next manoeuvre phase to match an existing overlap or wait until its own next manoeuvre phase to expand and create an overlap.

berthier · Post by **berthier** » Sun Oct 09, 2011 2:45 am

My quote was directly from the errata.

http://www.fieldofglory.com/file/FoG_Errata_V1_17.pdf

Reading p. 76 the first paragraph example is for breaking a frontal opponent and in this case the frontal opponent broke off and was not broken. If the author's intent was for this to apply in all cases, IMHO is not clear and perhaps should be tagged for clean-up in V2 or a future errata/FAQ.

imanfasil · Post by **imanfasil** » Sun Oct 09, 2011 5:51 am

If the frontal opponent recoiled more than 2 MU (so I am outside his ZOI) I don't see the difference between having broken him and not pursued and him recoiling. Either way I am standing in corner to corner with an enemy, not in an ZOI... seems like exactly what is described.

bbotus · Post by **bbotus** » Sun Oct 09, 2011 5:54 am

My apologies. You are correct on the 'only'

The RAW does give the example of frontal opponents breaking but it is one example. The implication is that other things can happen that would cause the same situation, such as a break-off.

I do agree that there are a lot of things I'd like to see more examples of in the book. Or, it'd be nice to have an RBS site on the web with different examples.

imanfasil · Post by **imanfasil** » Sun Oct 09, 2011 6:00 am

The Errata doesn't effect things at all. That is about moving into contact with enemy BGs - the section we are talking about is BGs that are AlREADY in contact with an enemy BG but not fighting...so we are not moving into contact... we are starting in contact... corner to corner.

dave_r · Post by **dave_r** » Sun Oct 09, 2011 9:19 am

imanfasil wrote:The Errata doesn't effect things at all. That is about moving into contact with enemy BGs - the section we are talking about is BGs that are AlREADY in contact with an enemy BG but not fighting...so we are not moving into contact... we are starting in contact... corner to corner.

Yes it does - you can't move into melee combat other than to join an existing melee as an overlap? Since this isn't an existing melee then you can't move into melee combat.

Seems fairly straight forward.

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Sun Oct 09, 2011 9:33 am

dave_r wrote: Seems fairly straight forward.

Always is when you don't read the rules

imanfasil · Post by **imanfasil** » Sun Oct 09, 2011 9:41 am

You English must have a different set of rules... here in Texas page 75 (which has errata) talks about moving into contact with enemy BGs. Page 76 (completely different huge 24pt font section) talks about BGs that are already in contact with the enemy corner to corner but not fighting yet. The rule on page 76 has no errata.

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Sun Oct 09, 2011 9:58 am

imanfasil wrote:You English must have a different set of rules...

Its just Dave - he just isn't aware that many of the pages actually exist ...

dave_r · Post by **dave_r** » Sun Oct 09, 2011 12:57 pm

But surely the errata clearly states that you can only join a melee in the manoever phase if you join as an overlap?