BG engaged on both sides

[HarryKonst]

FoG 2.0 question.During a game we had the following situation;A BG of 4 Armoured Knights is facing south and is fully expanded in one row, with the 4 elements of knigts one beside the other.
The knights were charged in the impact face simultanously by two enemy BG.The first enemy BG was comprised of 4 steady cbowmen, it was facing north and contacted the front of the most left knight base, after passing a CMT (e.g the one end of the Kn BG).So in the melee phase the cbowmen had two of their bases frontally fighting one Kn base and the other two cb bases as an overlap.
The second enemy Bg was comprised of 4 disrupted H.Armoured Knights facing west(they were in a formation of two Kn. front and two behind). They flank charged the Armoured Knights BG on the flank of the right most base of it, turning it 90 degrees to the East.The Armoured Knights became Disrupted due to the flank charge and the close combats were solved (nobody had casualties during the cl.combats)
At the start of the manoeuvre face the Arm.Knights had three bases facing south (one in frontal contact with cb, one as an overlap against the cb and one not participating in the melee) and one facing east and in frontal contact with one base of H.Arm. Knights (the second base of the H.Arm.Kn was as overlap)
The H.Arm.Knights (owing the phase) expanded first on one side , so the turned base of the Arm.Knights had a double overlap.
So, the question is; what happens to the unengaged Arm.Kn. base (the one behind the turned)?1. Can it be used to match an existing overlap against the H.Arm.Knights?
2.Can it match the overlap of the Cbowmen?
3.Remains in place because its illegal to do any of the above?
The relevant rules are in page 79 about feeding more bases to an existing melee.Reading the rules carefully I find more possible the solution no 1, accepting that the unengaged base is now behind the turned, and the matching of the H.Arm.Kn. overlap is an expanding to the new direction.Otherwise It shouldn't move at all, since the Arm.Kn. Bg has no unengaged end to draw bases from.
I'm really interested to your opinion.Thanks in advance.-Harry

[batesmotel]

Since the opposite ends of the armoured knight BG are both in contact with the enemy BGs, I believe that the unengaged knight cannot be moved to provide an overlap versus either enemy BG due to the fact that the BG cannot be split and must remain contiguous. Similarly, if a BG of knights was 6 wide and the end stands were in contact with enemy, the stands int he middle of the BG could not be moved so as to split the BG.

Chris

[gozerius]

Now, when the inevitable base loss occurs, the base in contact with the BG doing the most hits must be removed. Then a base from the BG not in contact with the enemy must replace it. This will create a gap which then must be filled by shifting one or the other end of the line away from one of the enemy BGs, thus breaking contact with it. If the base facing the knights shifts, it breaks contact with the knights completely and the knights would be able to charge in a succeeding Impact Phase. If the base facing the Cbow shifts, the BG would still be in corner to corner contact and the Cbow could then shift sideways back into contact in the succeeding Maneuver Phase. Were I to rule I would only allow the shifting away from the CBow, since it remains in corner to corner contact.

[HarryKonst]

Thank you guys for the reply.Under FoG 1.0 I would agree 100% with Gozerius, but in FoG 2.0, take a look on page 79, the first bulletin top-right of the page.There it says that" troops can expand to match an enemy overlap even if this results in a stepped formation, even if they lose contact with their own battle group". Is the movement of the unengaged Knight to cover an existing overlap to the new direction, consider to be an expanding to that side, so the gap in the continouity of the group counts as legal, or am I misunderstanding the rule? Is there a difference between the versions that applys to the situation we are discussing?-Harry

[batesmotel]

Thank you guys for the reply.Under FoG 1.0 I would agree 100% with Gozerius, but in FoG 2.0, take a look on page 79, the first bulletin top-right of the page.There it says that" troops can expand to match an enemy overlap even if this results in a stepped formation, even if they lose contact with their own battle group". Is the movement of the unengaged Knight to cover an existing overlap to the new direction, consider to be an expanding to that side, so the gap in the continouity of the group counts as legal, or am I misunderstanding the rule? Is there a difference between the versions that applys to the situation we are discussing?-Harry

This exception for losing contact only applies in the case of a stepped formation. I suspect its inteded to allow moving a rear rank base from behind one that is stepped forward or a similar situation. In the stepped formation at least all the files of the formation would be contiguous in the dimension pararallel to the front rank. It doesn't cove the case of mamking a hole in the middle of the formation by moving a center base to one flank or the other.

Chris

[philqw78]

Though you could make the case that BG who cannot conform fight as if conformed so


__
_____________

can match the overlap from (who is actually facing the other way)

[bbotus]

Though you could make the case that BG who cannot conform fight as if conformed so


__
_____________

can match the overlap from (who is actually facing the other way)

All 3 BGs are conformed. is just not able to fight because the BG is fighting if 2 directions. If the base on the left is lost, breaking contact with , then the BG could 'reform' to fight (which is facing the other way); or, it could feed in 1 file, which would be the next base.

[petedalby]

FWIW I think Phil's suggestion is a reasonable one.

It doesn't make sense for a base in the middle of a combat to be making no contribution at all so I'd also allow it to fight vs the Knights.

But no - you probably won't find that in the rules.

[HarryKonst]

If the Arm.Knights were 6 for example all in one row and facing the same direction, and were engaged in combat at both ends with only one base at each end in frontal contact with enemy (all enemy facing the opposite direction) , then (as Chris says) the two middle bases can't contribute to combat since the Kn.BG has no unengaged end to move bases from.(Which is also corect IMO even in actual medieval combat).And that is rule in page 79.
But when the Kn.BG has enemy in front at one end and enemy in flank on the other end, then it is facing in two directions which means it has now two fronts and maybe the unengaged bases of the one front can be used to cover overlaps on the other front, perhaps by using that rule on page 79 about losing contact with their own battlegroup.
Whether the above MAYBE is a yes or a no is all I'd like to know by the authors, if possible, or all those who can give an official answer.You see, since we live in Athens-Greece we don't have much opportunities to participate in international events any more, so for us ( a "fanatic" nucleus of FoG players) the rules forum is very important for correcting our play.-Harry

[grahambriggs]

The H.Arm.Knights (owing the phase) expanded first on one side , so the turned base of the Arm.Knights had a double overlap.

No, you can only overlap a BG at the end of the line. "Internal" overlaps arenot allowed. So the HA knights will only get four dice.

[grahambriggs]

Thank you guys for the reply.Under FoG 1.0 I would agree 100% with Gozerius, but in FoG 2.0, take a look on page 79, the first bulletin top-right of the page.There it says that" troops can expand to match an enemy overlap even if this results in a stepped formation, even if they lose contact with their own battle group". Is the movement of the unengaged Knight to cover an existing overlap to the new direction, consider to be an expanding to that side, so the gap in the continouity of the group counts as legal, or am I misunderstanding the rule? Is there a difference between the versions that applys to the situation we are discussing?-Harry

Per previous response the HA knights do not get an "internal" overlap, so there is no base for the Arm knight to fight.

So, the HA knights get 4 dice in melee, at a ++ (armour, 2 direction). the Arm knight will be disrupted by the flank charge so (if they do not drop cohesion in impact), will have 2 dice at --

The way you played it (if HA knights got the incorrect two overlaps but the spare armoured base fights) would be 6 at ++ vs. 3 at --

So no much difference. The Arm knights are doomed.

[philqw78]

The H.Arm.Knights (owing the phase) expanded first on one side , so the turned base of the Arm.Knights had a double overlap.

No, you can only overlap a BG at the end of the line. "Internal" overlaps arenot allowed. So the HA knights will only get four dice.

They can get 6 dice


__
__
__

facing up
facing left

None of are internal overlaps

If there was another enemy base in contact with the left of then the left hand could be the overlap on or the base in contact with its LH side edge. Not both

[philqw78]

Per previous response the HA knights do not get an "internal" overlap, so there is no base for the Arm knight to fight.

There is no internal overlap.

So, the HA knights get 4 dice in melee, at a ++ (armour, 2 direction). the Arm knight will be disrupted by the flank charge so (if they do not drop cohesion in impact), will have 2 dice at --

The way you played it (if HA knights got the incorrect two overlaps but the spare armoured base fights) would be 6 at ++ vs. 3 at --

Where does the ++ come from Graham?
Fighting in two directions, single minus
Better armour, who gives a monkeys the knights are armoured

[HarryKonst]

__
________


= Armoured Knights
= H.Arm.Knights
= Crossbowmen
That is the situation after impact, at the start of the manouvre phase.All bases are looking to each other,e.g. the cb looked up, the Arm.KN down with one base looking right, the H.Arm. knights left.The most right base of the Arm.Knights had turned 90degrees facing the flankers .There was no internal overlap and the H.Armoured Knights owing the phase expanded first by one base.During the melee phase the H.Arm. Knights have one + (but not a second since that comes from the better armour of them).
Anyway the question is if the Arm.Knight base next to the turned one can match an overlap against the H.Armoured knights.Chris says no, do we have an agreement on that as an official answer?-Harry

[grahambriggs]

Per previous response the HA knights do not get an "internal" overlap, so there is no base for the Arm knight to fight.

There is no internal overlap.

So, the HA knights get 4 dice in melee, at a ++ (armour, 2 direction). the Arm knight will be disrupted by the flank charge so (if they do not drop cohesion in impact), will have 2 dice at --

The way you played it (if HA knights got the incorrect two overlaps but the spare armoured base fights) would be 6 at ++ vs. 3 at --

Where does the ++ come from Graham?
Fighting in two directions, single minus
Better armour, who gives a monkeys the knights are armoured

true, I was forgetting. Who cares, the armoured guys are dead meat anyway.

[grahambriggs]

The H.Arm.Knights (owing the phase) expanded first on one side , so the turned base of the Arm.Knights had a double overlap.

No, you can only overlap a BG at the end of the line. "Internal" overlaps arenot allowed. So the HA knights will only get four dice.

They can get 6 dice


__
__
__

facing up
facing left

None of are internal overlaps

So... in the example given, the crossbowmen get ont overlap and the HA knights two against the same BG? Don't have rules to hand but I think this is incorrect. You can only overlap a BG at either end of the BG, whether or not a base has turned from recollection (which of course may be wrong)

[philqw78]

As for the original post no the armoured knight cannot split their formation so cannot match an overlap on either side of their line. Troops can only be moved from rear rank or an unengaged end of a line. p79.

Anything else would be a generous gift from the umpire.

p82 and 92 Graham. Contact on the corner between 2 contacted edges is an internal overlap. And this is not it since the turned base is only contacted on one edge

[bbotus]

Anyway the question is if the Arm.Knight base next to the turned one can match an overlap against the H.Armoured knights.Chris says no, do we have an agreement on that as an official answer?-Harry

The only official answers come from the 3 authors. They don't like to contribute much. FWIW, Chris's answer is probably the correct interpretation even though Phil and Pete seem to disagree.

Phil and Pete: Let's change the situation a little bit. A unit in single line 6x1 (6 wide by 1 deep) is facing an enemy BG to its front and is hit in the right flank by the center of a 3x2 enemy BG (so it will get 6 dice in melee). Unlike the original question, this time the enemy unit in front does not charge in. Normally, in the maneuver phase, the defender would be allowed to reform to face its attacker and be able to expand to one side to match one of the overlaps so as to get 4 bases in the fight. But it chooses not to reform (page 77) because that would expose it to a 2nd flank charge. Instead, it feeds in one base from the left most file and has 2 bases fighting in melee. It does not get to count any bases still facing front because they don't meet the definition of overlap. In the original question, the base was conformed and facing forward. How is that any different from this situation other than the enemy in front moved into contact preventing it from reforming (page 77).

[philqw78]

FWIW, Chris's answer is probably the correct interpretation even though Phil and Pete seem to disagree.

I didn't disagree with Chris. I just said you could argue that ........

IMO Chris is right. And I added another bit to his ruling prior to your post, bases must come from rear rank or unenegaged end of line.

[HarryKonst]

So, it seems we have an agreement.Thank you all for the interest-Harry