Removing Bases

[stevoid]

Just played a good game bar one situation where we could not categorically decide on what should happen:

3 superior cavalry (with 2 bases affected by disorder) are fighting a BG of elephants and a BG of Battle Wagons with an elements gap between them as below:



ElEl___BWBWBWBW
_CvCvCv

After melee combat, the El inflict 1 hit and the BW 4, the Cv inflict 1 hit against each (the overlap chose to fight the elephant).

The Cv fail the death roll and need to lose a base.

Do they take off the base fighting the BW and not move either of their two remaining bases so as to remain fighting the elephant with 2 bases and with contact broken with the BW, e.g.

ElEl___BWBWBWBW
_CvCv

or, do they take off the overlap (or right-most) base and shuffle the others to be offset (not in corner to corner contact with the enemy) but remaining in some contact with both enemy, e.g.

ElEl___BwBwBwBw
__CvCv

I owe my opponent a beer if the answer is the latter.

Cheers,

Steve

PS - did we get the dice right for the Cv in the combat, i.e. still three dice as only 2 bases are disordered?

[bddbrown]

Base removal is covered on p66 of the rules (at least in my version). For something that should be simple of the surface, its all those edge cases that really cause the grief.

First bit from the rules is:
Close combat: Any front rank base facing the enemy battle group which inflicted most hits on the battle group.

Ok, so the Cv element facing the Bw is removed as the Bw did 4 hits and the El did 1.

But wait, the rules then go on to say:
If a battle group is in close combat with two or more enemy battle groups, do not remove a base that would leave any of the enemy battle groups (except those fighting only as an overlap) without a base to face (unless you run out of bases).

So we are left with no rules that determines the priority of the base removal. So you can remove any base you like:
If bases are of equal priority, the battle group’s owner chooses which to remove.

If you remove either end element then nothing else happens. You could remove the middle element and then the following rule comes into force:
If there are no such bases available, and there is a gap in the front rank, front rank bases in close combat must be shifted sideways to fill the gap. The player owning the battle group chooses which direction to shift, but if possible, it must leave at least one base in contact with each opposing enemy battle group (except those fighting only as an overlap).

Which would end up in the same situation as if you had removed an end element.


All in all this was a long winded way of saying it's totally the owners choice.

[hazelbark]

First bit from the rules is:
Close combat: Any front rank base facing the enemy battle group which inflicted most hits on the battle group.

Ok, so the Cv element facing the Bw is removed as the Bw did 4 hits and the El did 1.

But wait, the rules then go on to say:
If a battle group is in close combat with two or more enemy battle groups, do not remove a base that would leave any of the enemy battle groups (except those fighting only as an overlap) without a base to face (unless you run out of bases).

All in all this was a long winded way of saying it's totally the owners choice.

Interesting. I don't read it that way at all. As you quote, "Unless you run out of bases". You have run out of bases. The guy in front of the bw dies.

[rbodleyscott]

Interesting. I don't read it that way at all. As you quote, "Unless you run out of bases". You have run out of bases. The guy in front of the bw dies.

Yup

[stevoid]

Chaps, you may have missed the crux of my question which is about the "shifting sideways to fill the gap" - can such a shift be made (enforced as it were) so as to break corner to corner contact, i.e. if you remover the middle base do the two outer bases both move in to maintain contact with each other and the bases they are fighting or does one base move sideways and lose contact with the base it's fighting?

Steve

[stevoid]

Further background:

My opponent was of the view that I had not run out of bases, i.e.. I could remove the middle base, which then brings into play the rather tortuous para that goes from 67-68 (in my ver 6) whereby troops shuffle up to fill the vacated front rank position. His line, and I could see where he was coming from, was that I should then move the two outermost bases inwards to fill the gap as this maintained contact with both enemy BGs.

My line was that in the first instance I should remove the base facing the BW but even if I could/should remove the middle base, then I only needed to move one of the in-contact bases to fill the gap, not bot. My reading has me break contact with one enemy BG but maintains corner-to-corner contact with the other enemy base, his reading, based on it not saying that you can't do it, has me maintain contact with both enemy but lose corner-to-corner contact.

In the first instance, was it correct to remove the base vs the BW or was the overlap base also a valid/compulsory choice?

(I think the base v the BW goes).

Second, if a gap does occur between bases in a BG is it allowable/compulsory to shift bases as described above, i.e. break corner-to-corner contact so as to maintain contact with more enemy BG?

(I think not, but as my opponent pointed out, there is precedent in all the fighting offset rules, melees that don't line up etc - my thought is that FOG always try to tidy up such positions and never moves you into such when you're already lined up).

Guidance much appreciated

Steve

[babyshark]

Interesting. I don't read it that way at all. As you quote, "Unless you run out of bases". You have run out of bases. The guy in front of the bw dies.

Yup

That is certainly how I read it. The implied ending of "unless you run out of bases" is "unless you run out of bases that can be removed without leaving an enemy BG with no one to fight."

Marc

[stevoid]

Unless the overlap base is eligible for removal (fwiw I also think the base fighting the BW gets removed but my opponent would like concrete clarification).

Steve

[rbodleyscott]

Unless the overlap base is eligible for removal (fwiw I also think the base fighting the BW gets removed but my opponent would like concrete clarification).

Steve

I am giving concrete clarification that the one fighting the Bw is the one that should be removed. The overlap base is not "Any front rank base facing the enemy battle group which inflicted most hits on the battle group". It is not facing any enemy battle group. It is not, therefore, eligible for removal. (An overlap base is eligible to shuffle up to replace a removed base, but not to be a removed base).

The end result is that the Bw is no longer in combat with the Cv even as an overlap. However, the rules do allow it to shift sideways in its next move so that it is in frontal contact again.

[stevoid]

Yay, we did it right and my beer is safe

Steve

[stevoid]

The end result is that the Bw is no longer in combat with the Cv even as an overlap. However, the rules do allow it to shift sideways in its next move so that it is in frontal contact again.

Thanks for the edit about the BW shifting sideways, it saves me posing another question

- Pg 37, Moving into Contact says that a BW can join as an overlap and that this is the only situation where a BW can move into contact.

- Pg 37 - BGs Already in Contact but not Committed... suggests as per your post that a BG in corner to corner can shift sideways without specifically allowing BWs.

Is the BW able to do this in apparent contravention of the first clause because it is ALREADY in contact? If so, a very subtle (but understandable when pointed out) application of the rules.

Of course in this situation the BW actually shifts forwards relative to its disposition because it has been fighting with its side edge! Is that still sideways for these purposes?


Steve

[rbodleyscott]

Sorry,

I did not realise we were talking about battle wagons. (I am still used to Bw being Bowmen in DBM).

Perhaps Terry will like to comment on whether Battle Wagons can do the shift, I don't have my rules to hand.

[shall]

Just to add to Richard clarry (which I think we will FAQ on the website)

It is worth getting back to the intent of the clauses....

The purpose of the second clause about not removing the last base facing a battlegroup if possible is to say that another base should be removed if there is one available that would keep all BGs in contact somehow.

The phrase (unless you have run out of bases) probably should have said more completely "run out of bases that would not result in loss of contact with a BG".

So in the example you give the second clause does not come in as there is no such base in existence and the one facing the BWg gets removed under the initial clause - you have run out of such possibilities.

To contrast take the following situations

El....El......BWg BWg
CV Cv CV CV

Here there is a base that can be removed without losing contact with a BG, which is the left hand one. Had this been the situation the left hand base would be removed (or technically if you like the 2nd one with the left hand base shifting sideways to fill in, its the same).

As for the BWg I am 95% sure that we clearly state that BWg and Art cannot move to contact so they would not be able to take advantage of the option to move sideways as part of a conform at the beginning of thei movement phase. I;ll check that when I have the full rules handy and locate and confrim (or correct).

Si

[stevoid]

Simon,

I am a little unclear on your example vs Richards reply.

In Richards reply (and the rules as I read them), it seems that the overarching priority is to remove a base facing the BG that inflicted the most casualties, in this case the BWs. As the El inflicted less they aren't a consideration.

Or, are you saying that the clause on not removing a base if it would disengage an enemy BG overrides that?

In any case, I think it is clear that an overlap is not a candidate for removal, which is how we played it.

Furthermore, with regard to the BW being able to shift into contact, it might be argued that they are already in contact (corner-to-corner) so they are merely adjusting their position as per p. 37 Front corner to corner contact only... My only concern is what does 'sideways' really mean in this context as a BW is not orientated like other bases.

Finally, pg. 67, Base Removal, says that when a base to be removed as been displaced by a commander then remove the displaced base. However this could end up with:

Enmy1Enmy2Enmy3Enmy4
.........Base..Comm..Base..

which seems odd as now 4 enemy bases fight (2 as overlaps) as opposed to

Enmy1Enmy2Enmy3Enmy4
....................Base..Base..
....................Comm

Where only 3 enemy bases fight.

The first situation also causes fun if the commander dies, or later moves away - yes, just a reform, but unnecessary if the normal displacement of a commander is followed.

Surely if the commander is to remain fighting in the front rank another front rank base should be removed?

Steve

[shall]

The primary principle is remove the base where the most damage is done. So spot on with that.

However we want to keep fights alive where possible so the second clause cuts in if:
- removing such a base would take the BG out of contact AND
- there is another base in frontal combat that can be removed without desengaging an enemy BG

So in most cases the top one takes over. Its only in a situation where this would take it out of combat and there is a way not to do so that the second cluase cuts in.

In your example there is no such base available (you have run out of such possibles)

Hence my second example where there is such a base available due to there now being 2 fighting the troops on the left instead of 1.

Hope that helps

Si

[stevoid]

Yes, I think we understand base removal completely now.

Am interested as an upcoming umpire on whether the BG can "slide sideways" to fill the gap, i.e. is there a technicality with it already being in corner-to-corner contact and also just what sideways means in this case.

Similarly, in an academic umpire way, I'm curious about the movement of the commander base after the displaced base dies.

Steve

[shall]

Just to be clear could you draw me the two situations and I'll get back to you on it

Si

[stevoid]

Just to be clear could you draw me the two situations and I'll get back to you on it

Si

Si,

I don't have any Battle Wagons but when I can borrow some I'll take some shots to demonstrate the first part of the outstanding question. However, it really is just a semantics clarification as in:

- if a Battle Wagon is already in corner-to-corner contact (by legal means), then is it allowed to 'slide sideways' into full contact with the enemy base, i.e. does the clause that BWs can only ever contact enemy by moving into overlap not apply in this case because the BW is ALREADY in contact?

- and, if so, then what does 'slide sideways' mean in relation to a BW that is actually moving forwards relative to its own facing?

Yes, these are obscure clarifications and we wouldn't expect the rules to have gone into this detail, but the situation did occur in a game and I'd hate to umpire it if it mattered without some back up. I can see one player arguing that they can slide sideways as they are already in contact and the other countering that it doesn't matter because that's not sideways for the BW.

Personally, I don't think a BW in this situation can move into full base contact.

Cheers,

Steve

[terrys]

- if a Battle Wagon is already in corner-to-corner contact (by legal means), then is it allowed to 'slide sideways' into full contact with the enemy base, i.e. does the clause that BWs can only ever contact enemy by moving into overlap not apply in this case because the BW is ALREADY in contact?

The rule states:

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

Since NO base is allowed to move into contact other than an overlap in the movement phase, then the BW cannot move into 'Full Contact' at all - ever!


Especially because of the other 2 rules:

Battle wagons and artillery cannot move in the impact phase. They cannot charge and they cannot intercept.

Battle wagons and artillery never expand or contract in melee.

[shall]

Yeo my view too

Si