Mixed Battle Groups- Clarification on rear contact

[spike]

Impact Phase
When a Bg is charged in the rear, (and there is no other conatct with an enemy unit) then the rear elements fight the contact- In a mixed BG of Hv and Lt foot this would be the LF fighting as LF factors.


However

In the following Melee Phase what can the contacted BG do?
Can it re-order itsef to place the Hv foot to the front, representing the LF falling through its comrades and the heavy foot turn to face the chargers (which would happen in the manovre phase)

or

Does the BG's LF remain in contact in the melee phase, with the HF unable to intervene.

This needs clarification please

Spike

[andy63]

Hi Spike on page 27 6th bullit it says, Bases contacted on a side or rear edge, or a rear corner, by an enemy flank or rear charge are immediately turned 90 or 180 degrees to face the chargers ,using the normal rules for turning, provided that they are not already in contact with enemy to their front.
When you look at page 20 Turning 180 Degrees it says, The battle group ends in a block of the same width and depth as before facing in the opposite direction, with its new front edge on the line of its old rear edge. The bases comprising the old front rank become the new front rank, and so forth.
So to me it says you fight the 1st round combat with your heavy foot to the front with your lt foot at the rear.
You will automatically drop 1 cohesion level being it in the rear and you fight at a -- factor in the impact phase.
I am sure this is correct if not im sure one of the rule writers will respond.

ANDY E.

[andy63]

Hi Spike on page 27 6th bullit it says, Bases contacted on a side or rear edge, or a rear corner, by an enemy flank or rear charge are immediately turned 90 or 180 degrees to face the chargers ,using the normal rules for turning, provided that they are not already in contact with enemy to their front.
When you look at page 20 Turning 180 Degrees it says, The battle group ends in a block of the same width and depth as before facing in the opposite direction, with its new front edge on the line of its old rear edge. The bases comprising the old front rank become the new front rank, and so forth.
So to me it says you fight the 1st round combat with your heavy foot to the front with your lt foot at the rear.
You will automatically drop 1 cohesion level being it in the rear and you fight at a -- factor in the impact phase.
I am sure this is correct if not im sure one of the rule writers will respond.

ANDY E.

[rogerg]

The problem here is with "base contacted on a rear edge" not "battle groups contacted on a rear edge". This suggests that only the bases contacted turn to face.

[andy63]

I know what you are saying Roger and its got me, it does say on page 35 under conforming to enemy in close combat:
A battle group that has some bases facing at 90 or 180 degrees to the rest (due to enemy contacting its former flank or rear) does not conform to enemy.
So that now surgesting that from the original question that only the rear rank turns.
What happens in the melee combat : ie does then the original front rank of a mixed BG swap with the light supporting foot or does it stay the same!

Andy E

[rogerg]

I think we need the authors to clarify this one.

If they decide the whole group turns then I will want compensation for Roll Call where my Dailami rear rank LF dragged down the whole BG when they got a pasting a couple of times. (Please do not ask why I let the enemy get behind me in the first place)

[shall]

At impact only those bases contacted turn and fight.

The active players troops conform, so nothing turns other than those bass contacted.

In conforming it says

"A BG that had some bases facing at 90 or 180 degrees to the rest (due to enemy contacting its former flank or rear) does not conform to enemy"

However rules for feeding more troops into a combat still apply.

Si

[andy63]

Ok Si i can live with that, the moral of this is dont get caught up the rear especially if mixed BG with Light foot as support.

ANDY

[shall]

Not a bad moral to the story .... and after all such troops have a weak rear..so to speak

Si

[spike]

Impact Phase
When a Bg is charged in the rear, (and there is no other conatct with an enemy unit) then the rear elements fight the contact- In a mixed BG of Hv and Lt foot this would be the LF fighting as LF factors.


However

In the following Melee Phase what can the contacted BG do?
Can it re-order itsef to place the Hv foot to the front, representing the LF falling through its comrades and the heavy foot turn to face the chargers (which would happen in the manovre phase)

or

Does the BG's LF remain in contact in the melee phase, with the HF unable to intervene.

This needs clarification please

Spike

Unfortunatly the majority of the respondants answered the question I did not ask, I we are aware of what happens at impact.

The question is in the "Melee Phase" what happens...

Can the rear contacted BG reform so that the Heavy foot face the contact

OR

does it have to stay in the formation it finds itself in due to the rear contact


Feeding bases into an existing melee only applies to expansion and contraction of groups. This is not feeding bases, but changing the order of combat. I think we are looking at the reforming section before this at the beginning of the manover section.
Here it states "If, as a concequence of previous events a battle group is no longer in normal formation it can reform in either side's manoeuvre phase"

The normal formation of mixed BG is Heavy/Medium Foot to the front and missile troops to the rear, however is this what is ment by "normal" formation?

Spike

[rbodleyscott]

I think you have answered your own question Spike.

There is nothing in the rules to allow the victim BG to swap out the LF from close combat.

There is nothing "illegal" about a formation with LF in front and HF behind.

Ergo, the LF must fight on, with 2nd rank support from HF if these elect to turn. These will use normal HF dice, but the same POA as the LF.

Painful. So don't let it happen. And if it does, hope your LF die without disrupting your BG.

[rogerg]

Richard, your reply raises another issue. The second rank of HF behind the LF use the same POA as the LF? Have I missed something here? What if the HF are swordsmen for instance. Do they not get this advantage?

What happens the other way round? It is quite common for a three rank HF, HF, LF battle group to lose an HF element at the front. Does the HF, LF file remaining then fight with one and a half bases at the factors of the HF?

It would be very nice if this were correct. I did experiment with what the old Middle Assyrian army would work like with BG's of half MF, half supporting LF. If the LF fight in melee effectively as half a base of the MF in front, this would be quite a nice arrangement. The BG's would be fragile, but not so bad that they could not be used.

[hammy]

Richard, your reply raises another issue. The second rank of HF behind the LF use the same POA as the LF? Have I missed something here? What if the HF are swordsmen for instance. Do they not get this advantage?

What happens the other way round? It is quite common for a three rank HF, HF, LF battle group to lose an HF element at the front. Does the HF, LF file remaining then fight with one and a half bases at the factors of the HF?

It would be very nice if this were correct. I did experiment with what the old Middle Assyrian army would work like with BG's of half MF, half supporting LF. If the LF fight in melee effectively as half a base of the MF in front, this would be quite a nice arrangement. The BG's would be fragile, but not so bad that they could not be used.

My understanding is (and there is nothing in the rules to say otherwise) that each base fighting uses it's own POA's so protected MF swordsmen in the second rank would get a full dice at ++ or + depending on if the LH are swordsmen.

The interesting questuion is would the LH count as fighting LF for their dice allocation. I think they would but it isn't actually as bad a fight as it looks for the mixed BG. Especially if it can expand a full file of MF.

Hammy

[spike]

Richard

I wish I had but....

I think you need to add a specific entry to the Glossary section at to what mixed BG's are, and amend the rules as required in the "reforming" section and "conforming to enemy in close combat"section to ensure there can be no confusion as nowhere does it state in these section that a battlegroup cannot exchange elements in contact.

In fact searching the rules to find a referance I can't (I found over 100 instances of "Close combat" in the document and "base" is used nearly 500 times) anywhere in the rules find a rule which states that bases in a BG can't move around in or out of combat, as long as the BG itself remains in combat (where there are specific rules). So while it may be your intention and a common understanding that this how they work, it is not what the rules are saying. -(unless you have amendments I have not seen!)

Spike

[rbodleyscott]

My understanding is (and there is nothing in the rules to say otherwise) that each base fighting uses it's own POA's so protected MF swordsmen in the second rank would get a full dice at ++ or + depending on if the LH are swordsmen.

Apart from:

 In close combat, each front rank base uses its own POAs. Rear rank bases (except support shooters in the impact phase – see below) use the same net POAs as the front rank.

----------------------------------------

I think you need to add a specific entry to the Glossary section at to what mixed BG's are, and amend the rules as required in the "reforming" section and "conforming to enemy in close combat"section to ensure there can be no confusion as nowhere does it state in these section that a battlegroup cannot exchange elements in contact.

In fact searching the rules to find a referance I can't (I found over 100 instances of "Close combat" in the document and "base" is used nearly 500 times) anywhere in the rules find a rule which states that bases in a BG can't move around in or out of combat, as long as the BG itself remains in combat (where there are specific rules). So while it may be your intention and a common understanding that this how they work, it is not what the rules are saying. -(unless you have amendments I have not seen!)

Clearly a clarification will be required.

[hammy]

My understanding is (and there is nothing in the rules to say otherwise) that each base fighting uses it's own POA's so protected MF swordsmen in the second rank would get a full dice at ++ or + depending on if the LH are swordsmen.

Apart from:

 In close combat, each front rank base uses its own POAs. Rear rank bases (except support shooters in the impact phase – see below) use the same net POAs as the front rank.

Doh!

OK, so I diddled myself against Mr Ruddock then I assumed my rear rank swordsmen were just that and not effectively heavy weapons.

Usefull to know for the MAWS comp.

Hammy

[rbodleyscott]

OK, so I diddled myself against Mr Ruddock then. I assumed my rear rank swordsmen were just that and not effectively heavy weapons.

Useful to know for the MAWS comp.

Beware base losses, however.

I used Medieval Swedish vs a pike army, relying on their armour to survive. However, unfortunately, the pikes won the impact phase (+POA) and even when the Swedes were not disrupted, they lost a front rank base, thus exposing the rear rank swordsmen who then did not count their POA vs steady pikes.

You really need to keep some spare bases in the 3rd rank. (And before anyone asks, yes, bases from the 3rd rank can replace front rank losses.)

Non-front rank bases must be used if any are available, and can be from any part of the battle group.

[rogerg]

Thanks Richard, it is amazing how many times one can read something and only see what one expects, not what is really there. That clears up the second ranks issue.

As to the moving bases in contact, I suspect we have assumed that the feeding more troops in rule about only moving those bases not already contributing to the fight means I have assumed that those already contributing are not to be moved around within the BG. I have clearly assumed the intention of the rule writers.

[shall]

I agree we can put an example of the interpretation but the rules are pretty clear ... only by inventing something that isn't there can you find a logic to allow them to swap their ranks around. I do think that its worth a wbsite example to save anyone worrying about it though.

Moral of story ...if you have mixed formations with waek rear ranks don't get charged in the rear ........... it seems a reasonable moral to me.

Si

[spike]

I agree we can put an example of the interpretation but the rules are pretty clear ... only by inventing something that isn't there can you find a logic to allow them to swap their ranks around. I do think that its worth a wbsite example to save anyone worrying about it though.

Moral of story ...if you have mixed formations with waek rear ranks don't get charged in the rear ........... it seems a reasonable moral to me.

Si

Si

Pervceved interpretation on the meanings of rules writers, I'm sure Richard had enough of that in his discussions other rules writers. However the beta tests job is to pull out as much of this as possible so you end up with a playable game.
Lastly if you think FOG has problems with interpretation, try reading the law.

Spike