Charging and melee

[mikekh]

The rules on charging state that (p53):

A charge can't be declared if it would contact only the flank or rear of an enemy base which is already in melee to its front, except by a legal flank or rear charge.

What is the definition of 'in melee'? My understanding is that a base is in melee if it is allocated combat dice. So third and fourth rank of pikes, for example, are not in melee. Is this correct?

Later, on p57,

'A charge which does not qualify as flank or rear can... In the manoeuvre phase the chargers must, if possible, align with the enemy front...'

By enemy front is it meant the front of the enemy BG or the front of the contacted enemy base

Thanks

Mike

[sagji]

The rules on charging state that (p53):

A charge can't be declared if it would contact only the flank or rear of an enemy base which is already in melee to its front, except by a legal flank or rear charge.

What is the definition of 'in melee'? My understanding is that a base is in melee if it is allocated combat dice. So third and fourth rank of pikes, for example, are not in melee. Is this correct?

I don't think this is explicitly defined - I think it means contributing a dice or PoA as there is a rule in shooting that refers to 1st or 2nd rank and in melee which implies the 3rd rank could be in melee otherwise there would be no need to qualify in melee with the rank.

Later, on p57,

'A charge which does not qualify as flank or rear can... In the manoeuvre phase the chargers must, if possible, align with the enemy front...'

By enemy front is it meant the front of the enemy BG or the front of the contacted enemy base

Thanks

Mike

A front of the battle group.

[hammy]

My understanding is that you can make a non flank charge on a second rank base and contact it's flank even if the first rank is engaged in combat. This charge would be resolved as if the charge had been made against the front rank of the BG and at the start of the movement phase the charging BG would if possible pivot back and continue fighting as an overlap. Any other way of playing this leaves things open to no end of really nasty cheese.

The shooting rules prohibit shooting at first and second rank bases that are in melee. The charging rule prohibits non flank charges on the flank edge of bases that are in melee to their front. A second rank base is not IMO in melee to it's front although you could if you want argue that the shooting rule does to some extent act as "case law" that isn't the way FoG works, read each rule fully and you should get the correct interpretation.

[lawrenceg]

My understanding is that you can make a non flank charge on a second rank base and contact it's flank even if the first rank is engaged in combat. This charge would be resolved as if the charge had been made against the front rank of the BG and at the start of the movement phase the charging BG would if possible pivot back and continue fighting as an overlap. Any other way of playing this leaves things open to no end of really nasty cheese.

The shooting rules prohibit shooting at first and second rank bases that are in melee. The charging rule prohibits non flank charges on the flank edge of bases that are in melee to their front. A second rank base is not IMO in melee to it's front although you could if you want argue that the shooting rule does to some extent act as "case law" that isn't the way FoG works, read each rule fully and you should get the correct interpretation.

Given that a 2nd rank base contributes dice to the melee against an enemy base in front of it (just not in contact with its front) there is reasonable case that it is in melee to its front. The same could apply to 3rd and 4th ranks if contributing to a POA. None of these bases is eligible to be fed into a melee. Why can't they be fed in? Because they already are in the melee.

You can always move into a position of overlap in the manouvre phase.

[hammy]

I think people are getting very picky on words here. There is as all have said no definition of melee other than melee is a form of close combat and close combat actually applies to a whole BG.

The rule restricting non flank flank charges reads "can still contact the flank edge of an enemy base, provided that it was not already in melee to it's front"

There rule about expanding does not say bases in melee can't be fed in, it says "They must not be in a possition to contribute to combat..." It makes no mention whatsoever of melee so cannot be used as an argument here.

The rule about shooting into close combat says "A base cannot be shot at if it is in a possition to fight as a 1st or 2nd rank or overlap in melee this turn" It does not say bases in melee i.e. ones in the first or second rank of a BG in melee does it.

If I was umpiring an event I would allow a charge on the second or subsequent rank of a BG by an unengaged BG it would count exactly the same as if the charge had happened without the frontal contact i.e. the fight would be 2 dice each side and use the normal POAs for the troops in question as if they had charged each other frontally.

I have no problem with this and see it as an extra force with confidence in their charge hurling themselves into the fight rather than sidling up and joining in which is represented by moving to the overlap.

[SirGarnet]

Some thoughts on target bases "already in melee":

1. The text and diagram on p 92-93 and the text on p84 talk about the front rank, overlap and second rank elements fighting in melee, but does not mention "melee"in relation to 3rd+ ranks who count as POA.

2. Does "already in melee" just mean in close combat contact for purposes of the rule on p57? I assumed it did, but the rules use "melee" as a term for close combat in the melee phase distinct from "impact phase combat" (e.g., p68). "Close combat" or "combat" is used for both phases.

Now I'm wondering if this literally means the target BG base had to be in melee the last melee phase (i.e., the melee phase of its own turn). If it was not in melee, then it could be charged in front and charged in the side (but not counting flank or rear charge) in the same Impact phase.

The question is, why should they write the rule so it makes a difference whether charging with other friendly units in the Impact Phase or charging into an existing melee situation? Is this a clever mechanism to allow or encourage 2 BGs that could charge a target enemy to do so rather than one's charge excluding the other because of geometric nuances? Maybe because Impact matches up bases 1:1 without overlaps counting, but this lets the other BG that would otherwise be eligible to charge do so and get in position to conform/count for melee in the melee phase?

Or is "already in melee" used informally to mean already lined up ready to fight in a situation where it would fight as front edge, rear rank, or overlap in the later melee phase?

[hazelbark]

I think people are getting very picky on words here.

Gee Hammy, how often have you been picky when someone wanted to zap you in a tournament game.

[hammy]

I think people are getting very picky on words here.

Gee Hammy, how often have you been picky when someone wanted to zap you in a tournament game.

I might have done so occasionally

The reason I am taking the possition that I am is that I am sure that is the way it should be played. I think that people arguing inference from the shooting or movement rules as evidence that the impact rules mean something else is pushing a point.

[SirGarnet]

Hammy, I'm sorry I missed your long post since I had already started puzzling over the definition of melee.

I take your point as being that picking over this melee definition is mistaken - that who counts in the later Melee Phase doesn't matter in the Impact Phase and issue is that only the front rank is eligible to fight.

Would you also agree that this logic means you can hit the side of the front rank base rather than one behind if the front rank base does not already have an opponent who will fight it in the Impact Phase?


The key question is who fights in Impact. The rule says a charge on any of these flank edges is "treated as a normal charge on the enemy front." Therefore, if the front base has its front edge clear of enemy in Impact then it is paired up with the contacting new charger base to roll in Impact, even if that base contacted a rearward rank. Seems easy.

The same pairing off occurs if there is another BG friendly to the chargers that is in front edge contact with the front rank but it did not charge this Impact Phase and therefore can't roll.

But suppose the front rank base is alreadly engaged with another Impact opponent that already moved into contact. Since we are treating the new chargers as a normal charge on the enemy front, this is like the situation where that front rank base is hit by two charging BGs at once due to offset bases. In each of these cases, there are 2 bases Impacting but only one can pair off with the front rank base, the phasing player choosing. It may look odd that the front rank is paired with an opponent contacting several ranks back rather than the enemy base in front edge contact, but that seems the logical adn consistent answer. It also avoids gimmicking around with the rearward ranks.

Am I understanding this correctly or are you meaning something different?

Mike

[mikekh]

I didn't post this to split hairs, or to get advantage in a game or to look for cheese.

There is no duplicity in the question! The question essentially is; if a pike block (4 deep) is in contact to its front which of the 2nd, 3rd or 4th rank will a non-flank charge contact. (99.9% of the time it won't matter but that doesn't invalidate the question)

Thanks

Mike

[hammy]

I realise that people aren't trying to gain advantage, all I am trying to do is present what I understand to be the answer to this question.

IMO a pike formation that is in combat can be charged as a non flank charge on the flank edge of the 2nd-4th rank by another BG, this will result in a combat between one base of pike and one base of the chargers. The pike will fight as though they have been hit in the front of the BG i.e. as a 4 deep formation and the chargers will fight normally.

If a pike formation is charged by two BGs one in thr front and one making contact with the flank edge of the first rank in this manner then then there will be an impact combat with as many bases involved as there are in the front rank of the pike formation but the charging player could select to have one base of the BG that has made the 'flank' contact fight and all but one base of the BG that has charged frontally fight. This is because at impact the maximum number of bases fighting is the number of contacted bases on the side with less bases in contact and in this case that is the pike.

If two BGs charge into out pike so that one hits the front cleanly and the other hits the second rank in the edge then there will be an impact combat where there is one more base than the front rank of the pike involved but all th pike bases fighting will count as if charged in the front of their formation so fight at full effect. Charging into the side edge in a subsquent impact phase is really just a variation on this situation.

[SirGarnet]

Thanks, Hammy, that makes sense and should be easy to play. Then in the Mnv phase the BG conforms to the front if possible or an overlap position and we are back to a normal situation.

By extension can a 2+-wide BG hitting the side fight with 2 pairs in Impact by getting 2 bases stepped forward or front edge to side edge contact? E.g., one on the 2nd/3rd and one on the 4th rank.

[hammy]

Thanks, Hammy, that makes sense and should be easy to play. Then in the Mnv phase the BG conforms to the front if possible or an overlap position and we are back to a normal situation.

By extension can a 2+-wide BG hitting the side fight with 2 pairs in Impact by getting 2 bases stepped forward or front edge to side edge contact? E.g., one on the 2nd/3rd and one on the 4th rank.

I think that is the case, there is nothing preventing it happening but if you get a few bases out and look at the way things step forwards you will find it rather hard to actually achieve on the table.

[lawrenceg]

I think people are getting very picky on words here. There is as all have said no definition of melee other than melee is a form of close combat and close combat actually applies to a whole BG.

The rule restricting non flank flank charges reads "can still contact the flank edge of an enemy base, provided that it was not already in melee to it's front"

There rule about expanding does not say bases in melee can't be fed in, it says "They must not be in a possition to contribute to combat..." It makes no mention whatsoever of melee so cannot be used as an argument here.

The rule about shooting into close combat says "A base cannot be shot at if it is in a possition to fight as a 1st or 2nd rank or overlap in melee this turn" It does not say bases in melee i.e. ones in the first or second rank of a BG in melee does it.

If I was umpiring an event I would allow a charge on the second or subsequent rank of a BG by an unengaged BG it would count exactly the same as if the charge had happened without the frontal contact i.e. the fight would be 2 dice each side and use the normal POAs for the troops in question as if they had charged each other frontally.

I have no problem with this and see it as an extra force with confidence in their charge hurling themselves into the fight rather than sidling up and joining in which is represented by moving to the overlap.

I think if I were umpiring, I would say that any base contributing to a dice or POA in melee was "in melee", which is a reasonable definition in the absence of a formal one. It would be "in melee to its front" if the target of those dice was in front of it, not necessarily in contact.

In that case the 1st - 4th ranks of pike could not be charged, unless they were fighting as an overlap (and hence not in melee "to its front")

3rd and 4th ranks, although in melee, could still be shot at as they are not "in a position to fight as a 1st or 2nd rank ". However, if a base is in one of the formally defined overlap positions then it cannot be shot whatever rank it is in.

IMO a pike formation that is in combat can be charged as a non flank charge on the flank edge of the 2nd-4th rank by another BG, this will result in a combat between one base of pike and one base of the chargers. The pike will fight as though they have been hit in the front of the BG i.e. as a 4 deep formation and the chargers will fight normally.

I took this to mean that combat is treated as if the base impacted had been contacted on its own front so only ranks behind it would count for its POA.

About time the authors stepped in and told us what they intended.

[bigdamnhero]

Oh I get it now Mike - you want to know these definitions because you keep getting repulsed by my pike blocks!!!

[hammy]

About time the authors stepped in and told us what they intended.

I agree, I have to say that my standpoint is based on a conversation with one of the design team after an umpiring decision the other week in the Northern League and FWIW I intially ruled your way.

I have prodded the design team on their private forum so with luck there might be a definite answer and possibly an FAQ entry.

[SirGarnet]

I think if I were umpiring, I would say that any base contributing to a dice or POA in melee was "in melee", which is a reasonable definition in the absence of a formal one. It would be "in melee to its front" if the target of those dice was in front of it, not necessarily in contact.

Hammy's view has the benefit of being clear and playable, and makes focus on definition of "melee" a red herring. There are four tacks on this.

"Already in melee" means one of the following:
1. Troops in that were in "melee" the last melee phase against the same opponents (most literal interpretation)
2. Troops in a position that will be in "melee" this coming melee phase (if both sides are still fighting then)
3. Troops that will fight (roll dice) in the impact phase (Hammy's)
4. Troops that will fight or affect POAs in the impact phase

The definition of "melee" only matters for 1 & 2. For the closest thing to a definition, look at the text and diagram on p 92-93 and the text on p84 which describe who "fights in melee" -- front rank, overlap and second rank elements . Each front rank base has its own POA that applies to those fighting behind (p94).

It doesn't say that 3rd and 4th ranks affecting POAs "fight in melee," nor does it say they are not "in melee" if that means something different from "fight in melee".

For now I'll take Hammy's approach on charging into those juicy columns and pike blocks.

[mikekh]

The rules state

A charge can't be declared if it would contact only the flank or rear of an enemy base which is already in melee to its front, except by a legal flank or rear charge.

and all that I'm asking is what is the definition of 'in melee to its front.' No cheese, no attempt to gain advantage, no 5th column activity.
Just what does it mean?

[mikekh]

Bump!

[hammy]

I know that the design team have been talking this over and I am sure that when they have decided exactly what they mean we will find out.

At the moment I am playing that a second rank base is a fair target for a charge in a subsequent impact phase simply because it would be if the frontal charge and the 'flank' charge happened at the same time.