Knights Breaking off

[mceochaidh]

HF HW charge enemy HF HW. A 6 base BG of Friendly knights also charge, with one base in direct contact and one base in overlap and 4 more knight bases not in contact at first impact. These 4 bases have enemy LF handgunners directly to front, so move as far as they can to come into contact during impact, while staying in corner to corner contact with knight base in overlap. After impact move it looks like this: K is Friendly knight H is friendly HW E is enemy HW and G is enemy LF.

KKHHHH
KKKK EEEEEE

GGGGG

Knights end up less than 1 MU from enemy gunners. Impact is resolved and enemy HW (E) is disrupted. H is also disrupted. After shooting phase, K is disrupted. Since E is not steady, I believe knights have to remain in contact and cannot break off. In the subsequent melee phase, no changes occur due to low dice rolls on all sides. In the next shooting phase, knights become fragmented. I don't think they could contract away from the enemy gunners because they could not add any bases to the melee. It appears that they must just stand and take fire from the enemy gunners. Do they have any other choices. Can they break off because they themselves are not steady? Can they continue forward in echelon during first impact, thus causing the enemy LF to evade? If so, what choices do they have afterward if the enemy LF come back to shoot and the knights are still in melee?

[mceochaidh]

The diagram should have the row KKHHHH opposite the enemy EEEEEE with one K in overlap.

[hazelbark]

You cannot voluntarily break off. You stay stuck in if the infantry are disordered.

In the Kn initial charge they would have tried to step forward into the handgunners who if contacted would have evaded.
Again this is automatic and not voluntary.

If they can't feed bases in, they stay there.

Note I don't have the rules but there is a provision for contracting bases that are otherwise not engaged. You can read that in the bullets about feeding bases into melee.

But it is entirely likely that somewhere in this process the KN were going to get shot by the Handgunners.

[petedalby]

Dan has it about right. And the bases can only contract if by doing so they can POA or bases to the melee - the Knights appear to be unable to do either.

Did you remember that the HG hit the Knights on 5's because they are in melee?

[mceochaidh]

When the knights hit the enemy HW the knight BG had one base directly opposite the HW. The next base stopped because it would be in overlap during the melee phase. Should this base have continued along side the enemy HW? If so, since it would not have hit any other enemy, it would have to stop at the point its back corner was next to the front corner of the knight in frontal contact with the enemy HW. Since this base would not have contacted any enemy, could it then still be in overlap during melee, as it would be in side base to side base contact with enemy HW? The four remaining knight bases would then be less then 1 MU from the enemy handgunners. Could these 4 knight bases continue their advance in impact phase causing the HG to evade? Based on Dan's comment above, it seems so and it seems they must do this. This would result in a line of knight bases in echelon after the evade.

I was confused by the -1 for the HG to hit the knights as it states "by or at a BG in Close Combat other than only as an overlap." I took this to mean that any bases not in close combat would not benefit from the -1. Does it instead mean that if any bases of a BG are in close combat, than the entire BG benefits from the -1?

Thanks for the replies.

[philqw78]

I was confused by the -1 for the HG to hit the knights as it states "by or at a BG in Close Combat other than only as an overlap." I took this to mean that any bases not in close combat would not benefit from the -1. Does it instead mean that if any bases of a BG are in close combat, than the entire BG benefits from the -1?

Yes. If the BG has any bases fighting other than as an overlap -1 to hit. If all the BG's bases that are fighting are fighting as overlap no -1 to hit them

When the knights hit the enemy HW the knight BG had one base directly opposite the HW. The next base stopped because it would be in overlap during the melee phase. Should this base have continued along side the enemy HW? If so, since it would not have hit any other enemy, it would have to stop at the point its back corner was next to the front corner of the knight in frontal contact with the enemy HW. Since this base would not have contacted any enemy, could it then still be in overlap during melee, as it would be in side base to side base contact with enemy HW?

Bases can only step forwards if they can make contact with enemy. So it would not move forwards at all

The four remaining knight bases would then be less then 1 MU from the enemy handgunners. Could these 4 knight bases continue their advance in impact phase causing the HG to evade? Based on Dan's comment above, it seems so and it seems they must do this. This would result in a line of knight bases in echelon after the evade.

No. Since you cannot step forwards more than 2 MU ever, and you can only step forwards that far if you are at least 2MU deeep (you cannot break up the BG to step forwards)

[petedalby]

In this example the bases are only fighting as an overlap - so the minus 1 POA does not apply.




Now the bases are fighting, other than as an overlap, so the minus 1 POA does apply.

Hope that helps.

Where abouts are you based?

[kal5056]

I thought that if the battle group was fighting then any bases shot at get the -1 poa
Bases fighting or in overlap are not eligible targets.


Gino
SMAC

[petedalby]

I thought that if the battle group was fighting then any bases shot at get the -1 poa
Bases fighting or in overlap are not eligible targets.

Correct on both counts - but if fighting 'only as an overlap' the -1 POA does not apply.

Which is what I have tried to illustrate - although not very well it seems.

[philqw78]

I thought that if the battle group was fighting then any bases shot at get the -1 poa
Bases fighting or in overlap are not eligible targets.


Gino
SMAC

The base fighting in overlap is not an eligible target. However in Pete's first illustration BG is only in overlap, the 2 right hand (as we look) bases are not fighting so are eligible targets with no negative POA

In the second is fighting and not just in overlap. So the -1 does apply and only the single right hand base can be a target as the other 2 are fighting

[petedalby]

Which is what I have tried to illustrate - although not very well it seems.

I see now - I failed to explain that and were 2 distinct BGs fighting an enemy BG

[kal5056]

Can someone point out where rules say bg fighting as an overlap does not get -1 poa against shooting.
PROBABLY obvious.
Gino

SMAC

[philqw78]

Haven't got my rules to hand but try looking at the poa's

[petedalby]

Can someone point out where rules say bg fighting as an overlap does not get -1 poa against shooting.

Page 101.

"at a BG which is partly in close combat other than only as an overlap."

The bold is mine.