Can this BG Expand?

kal5056 · Post by **kal5056** » Fri Nov 18, 2011 6:05 pm

grahambriggs wrote:
kal5056 wrote:No No NO Graham.
If this were the case then anyone could protect Light Foot from being grabbed in over lap just by moving them slightly ahead of the front edge of a BG they are providing overlap support.

We have all had a situation where we did not bring light foot into over lap because there were stands in a non combat spot that could then grab the LF. Your interpretation provides a Cheesy way to protect these LF

Could not disagree with this interpretation more.

Gino
SMAC
So you're saying we'll disregard rules you don't like?

I agreed it's daft, but them what if this were a 10 deep column doing the overapping with it's rear two elements? would you still allow it?

kal5056 · Post by **kal5056** » Fri Nov 18, 2011 6:13 pm

Graham,
Are you saying that if you took a BG of 4 Knights into a 1 x 4 formation to minimize the impact POA's attacking a BG of spear that is only 2 wide that you cannot then cover the second spear?

That is just silly. I know of now one in the US that has ever tried to play this way and I am certain that if one were to try they would get an RBS endorsed punch in the nose.

You would move the rear two knights so that you are 2 x 2 covering the 2 wide foramtion of spear.

So if you are 10 deep then you move 2 x5 to cover the overlap.

The fact that the light foot then come into over lap and are 1/2 of a base ahead of the front of the spear does not "Protect" the light foot from being covered in an expansion by the knights.

As Dan has said all one would have to do is declare that all of thier BG;s are a Gnat's Todger offline and they can fight as an over lap (if forward) but cannot be covered.

That is dangerously close to the DBx Toenail of death foolishness.
Gino
SMAC

grahambriggs · Post by **grahambriggs** » Fri Nov 18, 2011 6:48 pm

No, I'm not saying that columns can't expand - i.e. 1x4 becomes 2x2. I'm just saying the rules say you have to be in a 'proper' formation unless one of the exceptions applies. feeding in isn't one of the exceptions. So the rules say that the gnat's todgered LF can't be brought into the melee.

Of course, most people play the game in a straight manner so wouldn't offset the LF anyway. But it's difficult to blame someone who plays the rules as written.

People are welcome to punch me on the nose if they like. Though to be fair, I can't really recommend it.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:28 pm

grahambriggs wrote:People are welcome to punch me on the nose if they like. Though to be fair, I can't really recommend it.

I'm sure it would bring joy to millions Graham

miverson · Post by **miverson** » Mon Nov 21, 2011 2:38 pm

As far as I am aware, no one has advanced an interpretation of the rules as written that would allow a unit in a legal formation to expand into an illegal one, be it a 1/2/4 rank structure or to cover an overlap that has advanced past the expanding unit's front line.

This is one of the reasons that the interpretation that allows stepped forward units to expand produces odd results. Under that interpretation, a unit that stepped forward could cover an advanced overlap, while a unit that was not stepped forward could not.

Incidentally, I have always played it that an overlap advanced past the frontline could not be matched due to the illegal formation problem. It doesn't actually come up that often, though. [/u]

bbotus · Post by **bbotus** » Mon Nov 21, 2011 8:45 pm

As far as I am aware, no one has advanced an interpretation of the rules as written that would allow a unit in a legal formation to expand into an illegal one, be it a 1/2/4 rank structure or to cover an overlap that has advanced past the expanding unit's front line.

This thread is getting very confusing but, yes, that interpretation has been advanced several times in this thread.

Let's say you have a unit of 2x2 knights in contact to the front. The enemy then moves up a unit of LF as an overlap. The knights then expand and draw the LF into the melee permanently. FAQ v5.01 #5 confirms this as legal. Now if we move the LF into side edge to side edge contact with the knights instead of corner to corner, we still get the overlap but now the knights are not allowed to expand and draw in the LF because they would go into an illegal formation per page 23? There are plenty of references in the rules to suggest that the knights are still allowed to expand and I'd say to not allow the expansion would give odd results. And we'd be back to playing DBM again. We are going to let the LF bottle up the knights?

iversonjm · Post by **iversonjm** » Mon Nov 21, 2011 8:49 pm

bbotus wrote:We are going to let the LF bottle up the knights?

We are, unless we rewrite the rule.

iversonjm · Post by **iversonjm** » Mon Nov 21, 2011 8:52 pm

bbotus wrote:
As far as I am aware, no one has advanced an interpretation of the rules as written that would allow a unit in a legal formation to expand into an illegal one, be it a 1/2/4 rank structure or to cover an overlap that has advanced past the expanding unit's front line.
This thread is getting very confusing but, yes, that interpretation has been advanced several times in this thread.

Where? Many folks have advanced an interpretation that would allow a unit already in an illegal (or non-general to please Dave) formation to do so, but I haven't seen anyone explain how the rules can be read to allow a unit still in a legal formation to do so.

bbotus · Post by **bbotus** » Mon Nov 21, 2011 9:10 pm

Where?

kal5056 wrote:
No No NO Graham.
If this were the case then anyone could protect Light Foot from being grabbed in over lap just by moving them slightly ahead of the front edge of a BG they are providing overlap support.

We have all had a situation where we did not bring light foot into over lap because there were stands in a non combat spot that could then grab the LF. Your interpretation provides a Cheesy way to protect these LF

Could not disagree with this interpretation more.

Gino
SMAC

nikgaukroger wrote:
I concur, and it is how I have ruled it. The other way encourages "geometric ploys" which is undesirable.

Posts by gozerius and philqw78 also lead me to think that they agree.

If I'm misquoting anyone, please say so and accept my apologies in advance. This is a difficult topic with a lot of implications for the game. I just want it to make sense and I want to get it right as the authors intended.

dave_r · Post by **dave_r** » Mon Nov 21, 2011 11:22 pm

I think the rules are fairly clear on this particular question - you cannot expand to a non-general formation by means of an expansion.

This means that as long as the LF in the example above are stepped forward then no you can't expand. RBS has said in the past that this sort of harassment is exactly what skirmishers should be doing. If there were any "proper" troops to scare them away then they wouldn't be there. As it is they get to take their free shot without risk.

kal5056 · Post by **kal5056** » Mon Nov 21, 2011 11:38 pm

But Dave,
What if you do the same thing with Med Foot Bow?

Are they skirmishers?

I am affraid that this is far far too far down the DBx road for our own safety.

Gino
SMAC

peterrjohnston · Post by **peterrjohnston** » Mon Nov 21, 2011 11:50 pm

Cue loads of arguments where someones BG is 3.999999 MUs away, thus can arrive 0.000001 further forward along the flank, preventing expansions.

What a load of bollocks.

IanB3406 · Post by **IanB3406** » Tue Nov 22, 2011 1:30 am

Well as a ref I'd just just be tempted to allow the expansion.....

However it is not uncommon for lf bg's to purposely get in the way of formation changes.....

kal5056 · Post by **kal5056** » Tue Nov 22, 2011 1:58 am

I agree that LF BG's can get in the way of expansions. But allowing them to fight in over lap AND block an expansion due to a rule interp (that is not in the spirit of the rules IMHO) is having your cake and eating it too.

My Avg spear 3 x 2 Average are about to engage a BG of Superior Spear that us 3 x 3 x2 and I off set every other BG of mine by 0.0001 MU just before he charges in. Now I have over laps on each of his BG's but have negated his ability to cover them or get his third rank in the fight.

How does this fit into the spirit of any of the ANTI-Wonky Geometry that we have tried to maintain in this game?

As a ref I will allow the expansion and likley look the other way for the "punch in the nose"

Gino
SMAC

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Tue Nov 22, 2011 8:19 am

Strange. We have found a hole in the rules and are saying how awful it is.

We are then working out the best way to exploit it.

grahambriggs · Post by **grahambriggs** » Tue Nov 22, 2011 10:15 am

bbotus wrote:
Where?

kal5056 wrote:
No No NO Graham.
If this were the case then anyone could protect Light Foot from being grabbed in over lap just by moving them slightly ahead of the front edge of a BG they are providing overlap support.

We have all had a situation where we did not bring light foot into over lap because there were stands in a non combat spot that could then grab the LF. Your interpretation provides a Cheesy way to protect these LF

Could not disagree with this interpretation more.

Gino
SMAC

nikgaukroger wrote:
I concur, and it is how I have ruled it. The other way encourages "geometric ploys" which is undesirable.
Posts by gozerius and philqw78 also lead me to think that they agree.

If I'm misquoting anyone, please say so and accept my apologies in advance. This is a difficult topic with a lot of implications for the game. I just want it to make sense and I want to get it right as the authors intended.

I'm sorry bbotus nbut I think you are confused. There are two things discussed in this thread:

1. The OP question of whether a BG which has already broken formation can feed in an extra file to the melee, even if the bases fed in aren't in a proper formation. Nik's agreement was to the contention that it can, and I agree.

2. The question of whether a BG that IS in proper formation can feed in and break formation while so doing. I believe the rules say it can't, which caused Kal's reaction.

grahambriggs · Post by **grahambriggs** » Tue Nov 22, 2011 10:27 am

kal5056 wrote:I agree that LF BG's can get in the way of expansions. But allowing them to fight in over lap AND block an expansion due to a rule interp (that is not in the spirit of the rules IMHO) is having your cake and eating it too.

My Avg spear 3 x 2 Average are about to engage a BG of Superior Spear that us 3 x 3 x2 and I off set every other BG of mine by 0.0001 MU just before he charges in. Now I have over laps on each of his BG's but have negated his ability to cover them or get his third rank in the fight.

How does this fit into the spirit of any of the ANTI-Wonky Geometry that we have tried to maintain in this game?

As a ref I will allow the expansion and likley look the other way for the "punch in the nose"
Gino
SMAC

Gino,

Your opponent could wheel and charge both BGs thus fixing the problem.

Of course, it's up to you how you umpire, and it certainly seems within the spirit to stop the silly millimetrics. I'd suggest though that you only allow it if the fed in bases make end up fighting bases that were in an overlap position

Reason being that otherwise there are situations where a new BG is approaching my flank at an angle and lining up to flank charge me from just over 1 MU. If I can just break formation and feed in bases to that flank I could pull that new unit into close combat, thus saving my flank. This would break the mechanism big time.

I'll put a v2 'tidy the wording' request in to specifically allow sensible feeding in

kal5056 · Post by **kal5056** » Tue Nov 22, 2011 3:53 pm

Graham,
I completely agree. You should not be able to expand and cover a BG that is not fighting you in over lap.
But you should ALWAYS be able to expand to cover a BG that is fighting against you in over lap unless blocked by another BG or other obstacle.

Gino
SMAC

dave_r · Post by **dave_r** » Tue Nov 22, 2011 4:53 pm

kal5056 wrote:Graham,
I completely agree. You should not be able to expand and cover a BG that is not fighting you in over lap.
But you should ALWAYS be able to expand to cover a BG that is fighting against you in over lap unless blocked by another BG or other obstacle.

Gino
SMAC

You are opening a can of worms here.

What if the BG that is overlapping is overlapping with the 5th or 6th rank - can you expand out and move to the front of the column and thereby create a gap in the unit?

What if the unit overlapping is facing the same way as the enemy BG? do you expand out to the rear of the column?

What happens if the column is kinked after the bases that are providing rear support?

gozerius · Post by **gozerius** » Tue Nov 22, 2011 4:58 pm

[quote="dave_r
What if the BG that is overlapping is overlapping with the 5th or 6th rank - can you expand out and move to the front of the column and thereby create a gap in the unit?

What if the unit overlapping is facing the same way as the enemy BG? do you expand out to the rear of the column?

What happens if the column is kinked after the bases that are providing rear support?[/quote]
Obviously, you can never feed bases into a melee if that would result in the BG losing its contiguity.
Not sure if you can overlap if facing the same direction as the enemy BG.
Kinked coplumn? Picture please?