Clarification on restricted area

martindneiluk · Post by **martindneiluk** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 10:23 am

In the rules the restricted area affects a battle group 2 MUs directly in front of an enemy battle group. The game situation was as follows.

Two battle groups with vases A and B in melee contact with enemy C. There is a one base gap through which skirmishers S want to move in order to reach routers behind A and B. S is within 2 MU straight ahead of A.

AAAA <gap> BBBB
CCCCCCCCCCCC
SSSS

Question: does the 2 MU restricted area of A extend beyond C to prevent S moving through the gap?

Martin

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Sat Apr 12, 2008 9:10 pm

Now that is a good question....

I have always played it that another BG in the way stopped the restricted area but I can't immediately find anything to confirm that in the rules.

Hmmm

martindneiluk · Post by **martindneiluk** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 6:51 am

Yes, it puzzled some of us at the club too. I guess it all hinges on the definition of "direct"; does it mean without intervening BGs or even impassible terrain? (which I'd think is logical).

Martin

davem · Post by **davem** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 8:45 am

I would certainly expect to play it that the restricted zone is broken by enemy in the way, esp. when completely in corner to corner contact as in your example.
I'd see no issue with you moving the skirmishers through the gap provided they can manouver there as a group with correct wheels etc.
The thing that may stop you continuing clear through the gap is that your skirmishers are in full side edge to side edge contact with enemy and thus may be required to stop there as they are now considered to be in combat.
It seems as though you may have come across a situation that requires a clarification from the authors.

Regards

Dave M

MarkSieber · Post by **MarkSieber** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 2:23 pm

Am I correct in understanding that it is permissible for light foot to pass through a friendly unit which is in melee--even if the bases passed through are in overlap? Perhaps I'm not reading the diagram correctly.

rogerg · Post by **rogerg** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 2:55 pm

An interesting coincidence, I have just started another thread including this very topic before reading this. My understanding is that the resticted area is not blocked by other bases, friends or enemy. I suggest a convenient amendment would be to add that bases in melee, other than as an overlap, exert no restricted area.

Montagu · Post by **Montagu** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 6:30 pm

IMO, the rule of "restricted area" is like other similar rules for "zone of control" (or influence). Which are rules trying put into game terms the RL effect of troops moving so close to each other. In a tactical game like FOG, it's the front of the BG. So... in RL, a unit that was moving close (or past) another would instinctively assume a very defensive posture because they would want to be ready the enemy surged forward to engage them. If they moved at full speed they could get caught unprepared for a sudden attack.

All that as my reasoning why a second unit should/could be shielded from the restricted area.

A RL modern example of this would be... (work with me here)... imagine a high school where the halls are 10-15 feet wide. You need to get to your locker which is down the hall somewhere past where the school bully. The bully is leaning against his locker looking for a victim to hit with a rolled up newspaper. If you walk down the hall without looking at the bully he is likely to hit you with the paper or push you or trip you or etc. Now if once you are in range of his attacks you keep eye contact and slow down you can be ready to dodge, block, evade his attacks.

PS No I am not scarred for life from the bullies I have meet. Although, I did grow up big and strong so I take great pleasure in putting bullies in their place.

davem · Post by **davem** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 7:17 pm

All very interesting, but what we're looking for here is a game mechanism that allows or disallows Martin's interpenetration. A rules clarification, as I understand it, does not seek to create new rules but it is intended to make clear those that already exist.
My initial reading of the rules indicates to me that the skirmishers should be able to manouver to enter the gap, but I also think that once they are in edge to edge contact with enemy bases, they become part of the combat and are fixed in position until the BG's involved break.
I hope that one of the authors can shed some light on ths point.

Regards

Dave M

shall · Post by **shall** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 6:30 am

In the rules the restricted area affects a battle group 2 MUs directly in front of an enemy battle group. The game situation was as follows.

Two battle groups with vases A and B in melee contact with enemy C. There is a one base gap through which skirmishers S want to move in order to reach routers behind A and B. S is within 2 MU straight ahead of A.

AAAA <gap> BBBB
CCCCCCCCCCCC
SSSS

Question: does the 2 MU restricted area of A extend beyond C to prevent S moving through the gap?

Martin

For now assume yes, although just to confirm from 3 of us I have bounced it to Terry and Richard.

We set the Restricted Area up to be quite a short distance in the game so that if you want to do this you need to either

a) think ahead and have them in a formation where they can do so from close - so have the LF in column ready to prusue through said hole
b) keep them out of the main tussle of 2MU so they can contract and do it
c) if not you are delayed as you need to retire away and reform for the task

Lots of reasons for it this way but the simple one is that the 2MU zone is the action zone. We do not consider push backs explisitly for instance for good reasons. When within 2 MU you are considered too close to the bully to ignore him, even if you are shielded to some degree who knows in detail what is going on that close at the micro level.

It also gets rid of several cheese possibilities and to name but one good one ..... take a line of legionaries in column all pinned to the side by an ambush of MF Gauls (such games happen and more are in the draft campaign supplement). If you allow such flexibility the opponents can put a long line of LF through them and free them. The legion then turns 90 degrees and goes away. Whereas with the rule as set you basically would have to turn to face the threat whcih is much more realistic.

In essence one of the reason people are liking FOG is perhaps that there are lots of decisions and forethought required that only emerge with experiential learning. This version of the RA gives less flexibility and therefore makes you plan in advance which increases the reward for skill.

SAHall

nicofig · Post by **nicofig** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 7:40 am

We will be clarified in the next FAQ ?

sgtsteiner · Post by **sgtsteiner** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 8:25 am

Hi

Whilst not strictly addressing the Restricted Area rule I do note that Shock troops can be 'influenced' whilst behind other troops into being forced to charge so in principle FOG 'allows' such Zones Of Control to extend thru BGs.
Personally I would prefer that any BG in the 2MU Restricted Area Zone counts pinned. It is only 2MU afterall and only applies in Manv phase.

Cheers

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 5:10 pm

sgtsteiner wrote: Whilst not strictly addressing the Restricted Area rule I do note that Shock troops can be 'influenced' whilst behind other troops into being forced to charge so in principle FOG 'allows' such Zones Of Control to extend thru BGs.
Personally I would prefer that any BG in the 2MU Restricted Area Zone counts pinned. It is only 2MU afterall and only applies in Manv phase.

I tend to agree,

Luddite · Post by **Luddite** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 6:31 pm

I'll lend my support to that.

This isn't DBM after all

sgtsteiner · Post by **sgtsteiner** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 9:46 pm

Hi

Luddite wrote:I'll lend my support to that.

This isn't DBM after all

Indeed although DBMM has a 40mm 'Threat Zone' that pins any elements therein wether other elements intervene or not.

Cheers

martindneiluk · Post by **martindneiluk** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 10:07 pm

Just to add some slight, but probably irrelevant detail to the situation I described...originally the gap was 2 bases wide but my opponent expanded his line to one side thus narrowing the gap. I hadn't anticipated this and had lazily placed my skirmishers at an angle behind my in contact BG, rather than in rear contact as my diagram shows (I removed unecessary details for a simpler question). Moving through at the angle then caught me in the restricted area.

If, as Simon suggests, I had planned ahead I would have anticipated my enemy expanding the line and kept my skirmishers in a neat column opposite the narrow gap and outside of the threat zone and then passed through to catch the routers I wished to catch. I like this subtelty and appreciate that my question has revealed some tacit design intent. This makes FoG interesting and enjoyable in my opinion.

Still, I think some clarification in the FAQ is necessary.

Many thanks for the comments.

Martin

davem · Post by **davem** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 10:24 pm

Moving this on a little from the RA question. If you do have your skirmishers in a nice column and able to move into the gap, once they are in edge to edge contact with enemy, surely they are now in combat and unable to pass through the gap?

Regards

Dave M

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 4:47 am

I don't recall anything that says that if you become eligable to fight as an overlap you have to stop and do so - certainly troops in overlap can move away from such a position.

shall · Post by **shall** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 7:13 am

Correct Nik - you can always move normally and charge from an overlap-only position

Si

martindneiluk · Post by **martindneiluk** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 7:38 pm

Yes, as Nik says, the skirmisher BG didn't have to join the fray as an overlap. I only realised this when I witnessed Nik perform the manouver a few weeks back. I was non-plussed but its all there in the rules.

Martin

davem · Post by **davem** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 9:01 pm

martindneiluk wrote:Yes, as Nik says, the skirmisher BG didn't have to join the fray as an overlap. I only realised this when I witnessed Nik perform the manouver a few weeks back. I was non-plussed but its all there in the rules.

Martin

So a column of skirmishers can enter a gap contacting enemy on both side edges and pass through without a bye-your-leave?
Hmmm.

Regards

Dave M