Removing bases

[titanu]

In the situation below the cavalry facing in two directions lost the melee and lost a base.



My opponant decided to remove the base facing the light horse. And I could not see any reason why this could not happen. This leaves the situation:



Which means that now the rules have changed to stop wheeling within an inch of the rear aswell as the flank the LH cannot now charge the unit that there were in melee with except as a frontal charge. Is this correct?

[ravenflight]

Is this correct?

I'm not sure, but isn't there something about maintaining contact, thus the LH would then move into the flank of the cavalry in front of the base that was removed?

Is this V1 or V2?

Does it make any difference if it's V1 or V2?

[paullongmore]

I disagree with the initial premise of the question.
The rules on wheeling for flank and rear charges have not changed. The definition of a Flank and rear charge has been separated but the wheeling within an inch is only listed for flank charges. (V2 Pg60)

However, the geometry is interesting. The key point being you must strike the rear edge to qualify as a rear charge i.e. not the corner.
In V1 it is easy you move forward a smidgeon then wheel into the rear and it’s a rear charge.

In V2 a wheel must be at the start of the charge. Also wheeling is limited to 90 degrees.
I believe that a 90 degree wheel would put you exactly parallel to the unit you wish to charge and then a smidgeon forward gives you a rear charge, some would argue that it results in you being in contact with the rear but either way it’s a valid rear charge.
Anything less than 90 degrees would hit the corner which is not a valid flank charge, due to the wheel, and therefore as per the initial query is not a valid charge at all.

[kevinj]

Bob, this is covered under 15-6. The way I read that, you'd remove the one fighting as an overlap and shuffle the rest to retain contiguity, so the LH would stay in contact.

There's nothing in V2 that prevents wheeling within 1 MU for a rear charge, but the wheel must now be performed at the start of the charge, so if your LH were in the position in your second picture, they would not be able to charge the BG on the right, except as a frontal charge. That does seem a bit bizarre, but is probably sufficently rare that it shouldn't be a problem.

[grahambriggs]

Bob, this is covered under 15-6. The way I read that, you'd remove the one fighting as an overlap and shuffle the rest to retain contiguity, so the LH would stay in contact.

There's nothing in V2 that prevents wheeling within 1 MU for a rear charge, but the wheel must now be performed at the start of the charge, so if your LH were in the position in your second picture, they would not be able to charge the BG on the right, except as a frontal charge. That does seem a bit bizarre, but is probably sufficently rare that it shouldn't be a problem.

Agree except that if the LH were in that position they could charge and just wheel into the rear surely?

[paullongmore]

Apologies just noticed the right hand of the two cav bases is not fighting to its front so can of course be charged on the rear corner as a frontal charge. Interestingly the conform would drag then you all the way around to the front. Which might be desirable in certain situations.
Of course you would normally want the rear charge as per my previous post.

[kevinj]

Agree except that if the LH were in that position they could charge and just wheel into the rear surely?

Yes, looking at this again, as Paul pointed out, in this example they could wheel into the rear.

[dave_r]

The bit about charging flanks and rears simply states anybody starting within an inch cant wheel and count as a flank or rear charge?

[paullongmore]

Dave said

The bit about charging flanks and rears simply states anybody starting within an inch cant wheel and count as a flank or rear charge?

Can I have another umpire ?

Actually it doesn't say that at V1 or V2.

At V1 it states anybody starting within an inch can't wheel and count as a flank charge.

At V2 the requirements for a flank and rear charge have been seperated. Only under the requirements for a flank charge are you not allowed to wheel within an inch.

[timmy1]

Paul

I think you are on solid ground. All you have to do is tell your opponent and the umpire that dave_r ruled it and they will take the opposite ruling...

[paullongmore]

Sadly in the Northern Doubles, which I play in, Dave is the Umpire. Consequently his somewhat arbitrary (OK in this case just wrong) statements are more of a concern.

[timmy1]

OK, tell dave_r that Hammy agrees with his interp...

[zoltan]

Well I think you did the base removal wrong. V2 (digital) 15-6 prohibits breaking contact with an enemy BG so you must end with one base fighting the LH and one base fighting the foot. 15-6 explains how to do this in general although your specific example doesn't quite fit the RAW. However, you can still achieve the same result indicated by the RAW by turning one of the two remaining cav bases facing the foot 90 degrees and shuffling the LH up to match it.

[dave_r]

Sadly in the Northern Doubles, which I play in, Dave is the Umpire. Consequently his somewhat arbitrary (OK in this case just wrong) statements are more of a concern.

Umpires are, by definition, arbitrary.

[titanu]

Sadly in the Northern Doubles, which I play in, Dave is the Umpire. Consequently his somewhat arbitrary

Is it sad that you play in the Northen League or Dave's umpring?
Dave can be arbitrary but his decisions do sometimes relate to the wording of the rules which is not always the case!

[batesmotel]

For what it's worth, my reading of the base removal rules are that they prohibit removing a base in contact if another is available so that means that the cavalry base fighting in overlap would be removed and then the base facing the LH would be moved back behind the remain cav base facing the foot. The LH would be moved up to stay in contact.

Chris

[gozerius]

The base that is removed must be the one which was facing the BG that inflicted the most hits. Assuming that both BGs inflicted the same number of hits, the loser decides which base to remove. This means that either the base facing the HF or the LH must be removed. Whichever base is removed must then be replaced by the overlapping base. But this creates a gap in the front rank which must be filled by sliding a base sideways (owning player's choice). In either case, this will leave one enemy BG no longer in contact. Them's the breaks.

[prb4]

The base that is removed must be the one which was facing the BG that inflicted the most hits. Assuming that both BGs inflicted the same number of hits, the loser decides which base to remove. This means that either the base facing the HF or the LH must be removed. Whichever base is removed must then be replaced by the overlapping base. But this creates a gap in the front rank which must be filled by sliding a base sideways (owning player's choice).

I agree with this entirely, however your last statement:

In either case, this will leave one enemy BG no longer in contact. Them's the breaks.

I don't think is correct.

The enemy BG no longer in contact is simply moved to remian in contact.
The next melee round will be 1 base versus the HF and 1 base versus the LH and the cav will still be fighting in two directions.

[titanu]

In either case, this will leave one enemy BG no longer in contact. Them's the breaks.

I don't think is correct.

The enemy BG no longer in contact is simply moved to remian in contact.
The next melee round will be 1 base versus the HF and 1 base versus the LH and the cav will still be fighting in two directions.

Where does it say that in the rules?

[lawrenceg]

Would not a charge straight ahead by the LH into the flank edge of the rear rank qualify as a flank charge?

IMO the base fighting the LH must be a front rank base, so not eligible to be used to replace the lost base. If it was the originally lost base, it would have to be replaced. Either way, I don't think the 2nd picture would be a legal end-state.