Overlap Question

[neilhammond]

Hi,

I should know the answer to this, but...

We had the following situation yesterday:

SSSXXXX
SSSXXXX

1112222
1112222

Unit S and X are lines up and facing enemy unit 1 and 2, the seperation is less than 1MU. Everyone is MF EXCEPT unit S who are skirmishers.

Units 1 and 2 declare a charge against S and X. S elects to evade. Now if 1 goes straight ahead it will zip past enemy unit X and therefore not contribute as an overlap in melee

You'd get something like :

SSS (evaded)
SSS

111 (charged past overlap position, incl VMD)
111XXXX
___XXXX (in melee against 2)
___2222 (in melee against X)
___2222

We assumed that unit 1 could wheel slightly in the charge and contact the leading side edge of unit X. It won't count for impact, but will for melee as an overlap (once the unit conforms)?

Alternatively, unit 1 could wheel a bit less, and contact the side edge of the rear rank, thereby contributing extra dice (on both sides) to the impact combat. It would then, presumably, conform to an overlap position for melee.

Finally, unit 1 could chose to do what it did, can charge past unit X.

Is this correct?

[andy63]

Surely Neil if you wanted 1 to contact X,You must state this and what angle you wanted to charge when you declared your chargers.
If you declared 1 to charge straight forward at X and these evade you follow your line which is stright forward and could only contact other enemy what the skirmishers reveal in your path.

Andy.

[shall]

The way you did it they can charge past. If you want to hit with both then declare both 1 nd 2 as charges andlged to the right. Then both will hit the MF. Thus its in your control once you realise.

Si

[andrewgr]

The way you did it they can charge past. If you want to hit with both then declare both 1 nd 2 as charges andlged to the right. Then both will hit the MF. Thus its in your control once you realise.

Si

I'm sorry, I don't understand this answer. Could you please explain more verbosely what you mean?

Do both 1 and 2 need to declare a chare on X, so that 1 can't declare a charge on S? And if this happens, can S just stay where it is and not eveade, since 1 will be angling towards X?

Or does 1 declare a charge on S, but state that it's wheeling before the charge so that it's striking it at an angle, so that if and only if S evades it will continue on and hit X? And if so, why would 2 need to declare that it was angling to the right, as your post stated?

This is really confusing to me.

[shall]

What I am saying is that if you want to make sur you contact XXX with 1 you can charge including a whell and charge 1 first (its your choice as you are active). Then the Ss evade and 1 definitely hits XXX with a base.

Then charge 222 thereafter and it can wheel a bit - or shuffle a half base to get around friends - and hits XXX as well.

If instead you want to try to catch the skirmishers then charge directly ahead.

Skirmishers are not that strong in FOG (realistically strong I woudl argue). The above choices leave it to you in control of more battle groups to make the call "chase the skirmishers" or "concentrate on the enemy heavy foot".

It may feel a bit strange at first glance but the mechanics of it work really well.

Si

[neilhammond]

Hmm. So... could unit 111 declare a solo charge on SSS and XXX? Wheeling slightly to charge diagonally across the front of SSS, but still contacting with all three of its front rank bases?

Unit 222 just stands and watches. This assumes there is enough seperation between the opposing lines to ensure that 111 can fit into the gap.

Perhaps I'm still in DBM mode, but I'd argue that was an illegal more, although I can't find anything to the contrary in the rules. The only restriction seems to be to stop if I tried to contact with less than 3 bases frontage.

[shall]

We allow it and it works with skirmishers facing you. With heavies it ain't so easy.

I find it reasonable in the heavy troops are in general going to ignore skirmishers in that interests of hitting better stuff. It also gives the initiative to the man with the 2 BGs of heavier troops.

Si

[hammy]

Hmm. So... could unit 111 declare a solo charge on SSS and XXX? Wheeling slightly to charge diagonally across the front of SSS, but still contacting with all three of its front rank bases?

Unit 222 just stands and watches. This assumes there is enough seperation between the opposing lines to ensure that 111 can fit into the gap.

Perhaps I'm still in DBM mode, but I'd argue that was an illegal more, although I can't find anything to the contrary in the rules. The only restriction seems to be to stop if I tried to contact with less than 3 bases frontage.

If you want BG 2 to stand and watch there is nothing to prevent this. I am not sure why you think it would be ilegal. BG 1 can wheel as long as the wheel would not result in less bases contacting enemy and in this case there is no problem with that. BG 1 doesn't even need a big gap as it only needs to get a corner in contact to fight

[neilhammond]

I am not sure why you think it would be ilegal. BG 1 can wheel as long as the wheel would not result in less bases contacting enemy and in this case there is no problem with that. BG 1 doesn't even need a big gap as it only needs to get a corner in contact to fight

Okay, just testing my knowlege of the rules here: If SSS weren't skirmishers then can unit 111 can still elect to wheel and charge diagonally, thereby contact SSS and XXX while 222 waits and watches? Not great in melee with double overlap but 111 might get luck in the impact

Or, can 111 and 222 charge diagonally across to effectively "shift" one base sideways? There is no particular advantage here, but I can see in other circumstances you may want to do this.

[shall]

You can as long as it doesn't decrease the number of bases in contact - which limits it a fair degree. But may be worthwhile in some circumstances and I see as a general - "get the pikes" order. Also restreicted as the distance between lines closes - which is realistic.

Si