Quirky Feeding-In Situation

[stevoid]

This one happened at Call-to-Arms this year.


AAA
EE BB
EE

The A BG is fighting the E BG (who are knights), they are facing each other (up and down this page). The B BG is on the side as the A BG and is facing to the left of the page (all ready for a legal flank charge next turn).

E wants to feed-in into the front line even though it ends up in side-to-front contact with B (there is exactly enough room). We ruled that this was legal as there seemed to be nothing to directly forbid it and it seemed unreasonable not to allow it.

We also ruled that B should be able to declare a charge the next turn even though it would have zero distance to move.

Note that we considered B to be not eligible to contribute to the combat after the feed-in as it is not in a legal overlap position.

Comments please....

Cheers,

Steve

[rogerg]

On first look, I am inclined to thing that if a base of E feeds into that position, the base turns, B closes up and E fights in two directions using one base against B. B will conform as required in its turn. This is not too dissimilar to feeding in on to an overlapping base of a previously unengaged battlegroup.

[stevoid]

On first look, I am inclined to thing that if a base of E feeds into that position, the base turns, B closes up and E fights in two directions using one base against B. B will conform as required in its turn. This is not too dissimilar to feeding in on to an overlapping base of a previously unengaged battlegroup.

Any rule references to support that idea (it had not occurred to us)?

Steve

[philqw78]

E ends in legal edge contact with B. B is therefore an overlap and E is fighting in two directions. If only one base moves to the right hand edge of E it does not have to turn as it is in contact to its front. E has saved itself from a flank charge but is at a minus POA (fighting in 2 directions) and is fighting B without return.

However, E cannot expand as it is not feeding bases into the melee, they are already in the melee, because both of E's ranks are in a position to add dice. So this is moot.

[sagji]

E ends in legal edge contact with B. B is therefore an overlap and E is fighting in two directions. If only one base moves to the right hand edge of E it does not have to turn as it is in contact to its front. E has saved itself from a flank charge but is at a minus POA (fighting in 2 directions) and is fighting B without return.

However, E cannot expand as it is not feeding bases into the melee, they are already in the melee, because both of E's ranks are in a position to add dice. So this is moot.

As E are knights, see first post, the rear rank doesn't add dice so can expand.

I suspect E doesn't trun as
a) the turning to flank are impact rules and this is in the normal movement.
b) E has not been contacted on the flank - it is the moving BG so is doing the contacting.

Even if E does turn then I don't think the - for fighting in more than one direction applies - IIRC there is a paragraph somewhere that says it can only apply as a result of a legal flank/rear charge which doesn't apply here.

[rogerg]

I still haven't read the rules, but that last post seems to be correct. Turning is a repsonse to contact. The base does not turn. This means it is not fighting in two directions, but is just overlapped. In following turns it may get an opportunity to expand against B with a turned base, if it has any remaining bases. In this case it would have to turn a base and take the penalty of -1.

I hope this interepretation holds. This will prevent players putting a BG perpendicualr to the line to force an expanding base to turn.

[stevoid]

E ends in legal edge contact with B. B is therefore an overlap and E is fighting in two directions. If only one base moves to the right hand edge of E it does not have to turn as it is in contact to its front. E has saved itself from a flank charge but is at a minus POA (fighting in 2 directions) and is fighting B without return.

However, E cannot expand as it is not feeding bases into the melee, they are already in the melee, because both of E's ranks are in a position to add dice. So this is moot.

Ah, but as per my orig post, B is not in a legal overlap position!

I'm looking forward to hearing from the authors or their henchmen

[stevoid]

E ends in legal edge contact with B. B is therefore an overlap and E is fighting in two directions. If only one base moves to the right hand edge of E it does not have to turn as it is in contact to its front. E has saved itself from a flank charge but is at a minus POA (fighting in 2 directions) and is fighting B without return.

However, E cannot expand as it is not feeding bases into the melee, they are already in the melee, because both of E's ranks are in a position to add dice. So this is moot.

As E are knights, see first post, the rear rank doesn't add dice so can expand.

I suspect E doesn't trun as
a) the turning to flank are impact rules and this is in the normal movement.
b) E has not been contacted on the flank - it is the moving BG so is doing the contacting.

Even if E does turn then I don't think the - for fighting in more than one direction applies - IIRC there is a paragraph somewhere that says it can only apply as a result of a legal flank/rear charge which doesn't apply here.

In short, you agree with letting the expansion happen as we did?

What about the flank charge next turn?

Steve

[rogerg]

I have read the rules finally. I can find no requirement for the base to turn. The rules definitely state that if bases are not turned then the fighting in two directions does not apply.

I can see no rule that would allow a flank charge. The bases are already in contact and charging is a method of coming into contact. The 'turning into contact' rules do not allow bases able to fight as overlaps to turn to flank contact. The intention is to have them stay as overlaps or move away, turn and charge 'properly'. Setting up this 'corner position' to catch an expander seems very much against the general intention of the rules. 'B' is just an overlap. The only advantage is that if it can expand it will get an extra base fighting.

[stevoid]

Again, B is not a legal overlap after E expands.

[philqw78]

I've now got home and read the rules. Feeding more Bases into an existing melee, P73. First bullet.

"Only bases that fulfill the following criteria can be moved"

"- something irrelevant"
"-They must not have any enemy bases in front edge contact with them or able to fight them as an overlap."

This, I believe applies, as the move involves having enemy bases in front edge contact with them before it ends, therefore they cannot complete the move.

[stevoid]

That sounds relevent! The only trick will be if it applies at the start or throughout. Good spotting, now I hope we get a definitive answer from those on high....

Steve

[stevoid]

On reading that section again myself I believe the restriction in only applicable at the start, i.e. to be able to moved they have to fufill those conditions.

[philqw78]

If it only applies at the start of the move it lets a silly situation develop. Therefore I'd apply it. But then I wasn't foolish enough to write any wargaming rules.

[philqw78]

And I would say that the move ends as soon as they come into front edge contact with enemy forcing them to turn to face and get a -1 POA
But then I've never been foolish enough to umpire.

[sagji]

Again, B is not a legal overlap after E expands.

True but its front edge is in contact with the enemy so it can fight - not as an overlap but as a "main fighter"

[rogerg]

... And will conform in its next movement phase.

[shall]

A cracker chaps and not fully covered.

PHILOSOPHICAL VIEW. Our general intent, I would suggest, was that such adding more bases into an existing combat allowed you to expand to fight someone already involved in fighting you, but not to draw a new BG into a fight that it was not currently engaged in.

UMPIRE VIEW. However as written to-date and clarified I think you would reasonably argue putting it in and counting the troops as having a flank contact but not turning - so no -1 POA for two directions and the side BG effectively acting as an overlap to flank. As an umpire I would not have allowed the charge - should have stayed a bit further away. But that is just a personal ruling and nothing else.

FWIW there is an item in the forthcoming FAQ than would have one argue that the expansion is not allowed as it invovles a new BG that was not currently acting as an overlap. Wait and see what you think when it is loaded up.

Si

[ars_belli]

A cracker chaps and not fully covered.

PHILOSOPHICAL VIEW. Our general intent, I would suggest, was that such adding more bases into an existing combat allowed you to expand to fight someone already involved in fighting you, but not to draw a new BG into a fight that it was not currently engaged in.

For what it's worth, to me this view makes more historical sense, and also seems less likely to encourage fromage production.

Cheers,
Scott

[rogerg]

The opposite appears more likely. We will have players putting groups at ninety degrees to block expansions. Surely the historical sense is that these troops are standing there, the fight comes to where they are, they fight.

I'm suprised by Simon's philosophcal view. The BG is next to the fight, by choice of the player. If his opponent expands into it then it fights. Bases side by side represent a continuous line. The fact that they are in separate BG's is an artificial rules construct.

This is comparable to expanding into a BG that was formerly only providing an overlap. If players don't want bases to fight, they should keep them out the way.