Base removal and legal formations

[zoltan]

There's an 8 base battle group of MF 4 bases wide by 2 bases deep; front rank heavy weapon and rear rank bow.

Move 1: Enemy shooting results in a base loss; one of the HW bases is removed and the rear rank bow base pushed forward into the font rank.

Move 2: Enemy shooting results in a base loss; a second HW base is removed due to weight of shooter numbers. Is another rear rank bow base pushed forward into the font rank creating a formation with 4 bases in the front rank and 2 in the rear rank? Or is the is the battle group moved into a 3x2 formation?

[petedalby]

I believe it remains 4 bases wide with 2 bases in the back rank.

[kal5056]

Remember there is nothing illegal about a 4 in 1st row and 2 in 2nd row formation.

Gino
SMAC

[titanu]

There's an 8 base battle group of MF 4 bases wide by 2 bases deep; front rank heavy weapon and rear rank bow.

Move 1: Enemy shooting results in a base loss; one of the HW bases is removed and the rear rank bow base pushed forward into the font rank.

Move 2: Enemy shooting results in a base loss; a second HW base is removed due to weight of shooter numbers. Is another rear rank bow base pushed forward into the font rank creating a formation with 4 bases in the front rank and 2 in the rear rank? Or is the is the battle group moved into a 3x2 formation?

On your Move2: You do NOT have to take a second HW you can choose the Bow figure already in the front rank.

[petedalby]

Bob is probably correct - base losses for shooting is the base nearest to the shooters - and if bases are of equal priority the owner chooses.

See page 124.

Unlike FoGR there is no proportional base rule in A&M.

[zoltan]

Bob is probably correct - base losses for shooting is the base nearest to the shooters - and if bases are of equal priority the owner chooses.

See page 124.

Unlike FoGR there is no proportional base rule in A&M.

Thanks - remember that I said the second HW base was removed due to weight of shooter numbers. i.e. more shooters near to the HW target base than the bow target base.

[titanu]

Bob is probably correct - base losses for shooting is the base nearest to the shooters - and if bases are of equal priority the owner chooses.

See page 124.

Unlike FoGR there is no proportional base rule in A&M.

Thanks - remember that I said the second HW base was removed due to weight of shooter numbers. i.e. more shooters near to the HW target base than the bow target base.

Yes but that was the whole point of my reply you do NOT remove casualties in proportion or nearest to the shooters.

[zoltan]

Yes but that was the whole point of my reply you do NOT remove casualties in proportion or nearest to the shooters.

So you are saying I can choose whichever front rank figure I like regardless of the proximity or number of shooters to the base I select to remove?

[prb4]

Actually you HAVE to remove the base being shot at closest to the BG causing the most hits.
If there are several equidistant bases then the player who is being shot at chooses which base to remove.

So if nothing has changed since removing the first HW base it is likely that the bow base in the front rank would be next to be removed.

[petedalby]

So if nothing has changed since removing the first HW base it is likely that the bow base in the front rank would be next to be removed.

That is certainly how I understand it.

[grahambriggs]

Yes but that was the whole point of my reply you do NOT remove casualties in proportion or nearest to the shooters.

So you are saying I can choose whichever front rank figure I like regardless of the proximity or number of shooters to the base I select to remove?

No. You MUST remove the base that is nearest the shoorers (see base removal rules). However, if there are several such bases (for example if your front edge is parallel to the front edge of the enemy doing all the shooting) you get to choose which base to remove, so you could remove either type of base, at your choice.

However, if you are even at the slightest angle, you'll lose the choice as there will always be one base which is closer than the others.

[hazelbark]

The rules are explicit on the base closer

So as briggs said.

[bbotus]

Has anyone ever had a situation come up where unarmored LF got into the front rank of a mixed BG? How would you handle the shooting POAs since the front rank now has mixed armor classes?

I probably should have started a new thread but this just seemed the right place to ask this hypothetical question.

[zoltan]

Let's start again.

1: the bow cause the HW/Bow to lose a base. Must I remove the blue HW? Assuming yes, the situation becomes "2".

2. the bow cause the HW/Bow to lose a (second) base. Must I remove the blue Bow or can I select another front rank HW base (for reasons best known to myself)?

[petedalby]

I believe you may choose Steve since all bases appear to be at an equal distance from the shooters.

[zoltan]

I believe you may choose Steve since all bases appear to be at an equal distance from the shooters.

Regardless of the fact that the 'weight of shooters' are close to the blue bases?

[philqw78]

Has anyone ever had a situation come up where unarmored LF got into the front rank of a mixed BG? How would you handle the shooting POAs since the front rank now has mixed armor classes?

I probably should have started a new thread but this just seemed the right place to ask this hypothetical question.

You should be able to tell which bases are shooting at the LF and which at the better armoured so use those POA

[petedalby]

Regardless of the fact that the 'weight of shooters' are close to the blue bases?

Have a read of page 124 - it doesn't mention weight in there.

[rbodleyscott]

Regardless of the fact that the 'weight of shooters' are close to the blue bases?

Have a read of page 124 - it doesn't mention weight in there.

[zoltan]

Regardless of the fact that the 'weight of shooters' are close to the blue bases?

Have a read of page 124 - it doesn't mention weight in there.

So it means what it doesn't say then?