Thanks for the reply Si. My only concern is that B is not a legal overlap by the wording in the rules.
Steve
Quirky Feeding-In Situation
Moderators: philqw78, terrys, hammy, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Moderators, Field of Glory Design
If we were to assume that E is allowed to expand on the right, then B would fight it as well as A (not an overlap - but as a normal front edge contact). E wouldn't count as fighting in2 directions.
You may find that this situation will be cleared up when the next FAQ comes out.
There's a clarification of another situation that directly affects this one as well.
My ruling would be that E shouldn't be allowed to expand on this side at all, because it drags ito the combat another BG that wasn't originally in a position to take part in the melee.
You may find that this situation will be cleared up when the next FAQ comes out.
There's a clarification of another situation that directly affects this one as well.
My ruling would be that E shouldn't be allowed to expand on this side at all, because it drags ito the combat another BG that wasn't originally in a position to take part in the melee.
-
sagji
- Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
- Posts: 567
- Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2005 12:13 pm
- Location: Manchester, UK
But this has odd consequences.terrys wrote:My ruling would be that E shouldn't be allowed to expand on this side at all, because it drags ito the combat another BG that wasn't originally in a position to take part in the melee.
Code: Select all
AAABBB
AAABBB
EEEE
EEEE
EEEE
I knew when I wrote this that someone would pick up on that.By the same reasoning E can't expand here as it would "drag" B into the combat.
The actual definition is 'front edge contact' with a new BG - not corner to corner
As an additinoal point - contacting an overlapping BG is legal since it's already contributing to the melee.
To add to a few comments
In the one above you can effectively bring in a new BG garaually in 2 phases - 1) get it into overlap and then 2) engage it frontally thereafter if you have enough bases. We are happy with this as a gradual process. Those made an overlap can move away in their go if they want to.
The reason the definition is this way is that you cannot lock a new BG into an existing melee without it having been already been involved as an overlap, or it having a chance to get away if it wanted to do so.
As ever all abstractions have trade-offs, but to Rogers points the abuse he mentions are much the lsser of 2 evils for two reasons IMO:
1. The troops to the side could always already stop an overlap by moving less than a base widths away from those expanding such that there isn't room. So the potential for such "cheese" to stop expansions exists already but generally isn't worthwhile. In addition I beleive such a stopping of expansion is philosophically sound and therefore at worst very mild cheese.
2. The primary thing we want to make sure is that if you do get round a flank well then you get to charge the flank. Getting to charge a flank is not easy in FOG and deserves its reward. I would consider it more "chessy" that the BG expands to weasle out of getting the flank charge it deserved.
So I think on balance we have the right philosophy and then the better of the emchnical choices from a game balance point of view.
Si
In the one above you can effectively bring in a new BG garaually in 2 phases - 1) get it into overlap and then 2) engage it frontally thereafter if you have enough bases. We are happy with this as a gradual process. Those made an overlap can move away in their go if they want to.
The reason the definition is this way is that you cannot lock a new BG into an existing melee without it having been already been involved as an overlap, or it having a chance to get away if it wanted to do so.
As ever all abstractions have trade-offs, but to Rogers points the abuse he mentions are much the lsser of 2 evils for two reasons IMO:
1. The troops to the side could always already stop an overlap by moving less than a base widths away from those expanding such that there isn't room. So the potential for such "cheese" to stop expansions exists already but generally isn't worthwhile. In addition I beleive such a stopping of expansion is philosophically sound and therefore at worst very mild cheese.
2. The primary thing we want to make sure is that if you do get round a flank well then you get to charge the flank. Getting to charge a flank is not easy in FOG and deserves its reward. I would consider it more "chessy" that the BG expands to weasle out of getting the flank charge it deserved.
So I think on balance we have the right philosophy and then the better of the emchnical choices from a game balance point of view.
Si
Simon Hall
"May your dice roll 6s (unless ye be poor)"
"May your dice roll 6s (unless ye be poor)"
