Feeding more bases in melee

olivier · Post by **olivier** » Wed Nov 12, 2008 7:46 pm

Hello,
an odd situation in our last tournament.
A BG of danish knight (in blue) impact against a BG of latinikon (in red). After impact and in the beginning of the manoeuvre phase can they expand in the light blue position?

Thanks for the answer

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Wed Nov 12, 2008 7:53 pm

I don't think so as they are not really meeting the first sentance in the "Feeding More ... Melee" section which says the the BG can feed more bases into a melee until they are all fighting. In the light blue position it is not fighting.

However, moving it there does not contravene any of the bullet points which is why, I suspect, you are asking the question

olivier · Post by **olivier** » Wed Nov 12, 2008 8:10 pm

Exactly!

I was a bit surprised but, as said the another player... and the umpire, nothing forbid this interpretation of the rules

babyshark · Post by **babyshark** » Wed Nov 12, 2008 9:11 pm

Interesting indeed. There is nothing in the rule (p.72) that specifically addresses the issue. However, the "preamble" (if you will) and the text of the rule itself are discussing the methods by which a battle group can feed more bases into a melee "until they are all fighting." There is a clear intent that this rule be used to increase the number of bases contributing to a melee.

Were I the umpire presented with this situation I would have no trouble ruling that the proposed expansion was illegal, at least under the "Feeding bases . . ." rule. (Without double checking I will say that I doubt it would be allowed under expansions in the maneuver phase either.)

Marc

BrianC · Post by **BrianC** » Wed Nov 12, 2008 9:21 pm

Unless I missunderstood the question, which has happened before in the past, does not the 3rd bullet on page 73 dissallow such a feeding in move? The base that is being fed (moved) is fighting as an overlap is it not? So therefore cannot be moved. I just checked the expansion in the maneuver phase on page 46 and you can only expand if not egaged in close combat. So I think that would say no to both methods of expansion.

Brian

olivier · Post by **olivier** » Wed Nov 12, 2008 10:15 pm

There is a clear intent that this rule be used to increase the number of bases contributing to a melee.

As the blue player said, his intention was to feed more bases in melee, it's only the red player who won't if he doesn't expand the red bases on the left...
As you said, nothing adresses this issue except the spirit of the rule

The base that is being fed (moved) is fighting as an overlap is it not?

No, all the bases are knight and fight only in one rank.
I agree that only feeding permit to move some bases in a BG in close combat.

BrianC · Post by **BrianC** » Wed Nov 12, 2008 11:02 pm

olivier wrote:
There is a clear intent that this rule be used to increase the number of bases contributing to a melee.
As the blue player said, his intention was to feed more bases in melee, it's only the red player who won't if he doesn't expand the red bases on the left...
As you said, nothing adresses this issue except the spirit of the rule

The base that is being fed (moved) is fighting as an overlap is it not?
No, all the bases are knight and fight only in one rank.
I agree that only feeding permit to move some bases in a BG in close combat.

Thanks Olivier. I missed the knight part. I have never used knights nor know how to but hope to some day. I knew I missed something in the original post

, but at least I think I got it right for the troop types I normally use. Still good to know for future reference.

SirGarnet · Post by **SirGarnet** » Wed Nov 12, 2008 11:43 pm

It's not the spirit of the rules that prevents it. The authors were clear on what needs to happen.

p72 first sentence: "A battle group involved in close combat can gradually feed more and more of its troops into a protracted melee until they are all fighting."

Then, it states the following mechanisms, contractions and expansions "are merely rule mechanisms to achieve this." So you are only allowed to use the mechanisms to achieve this purpose, which requires each expansion and contraction add more troops to the melee.

I think you would be satisfied that this is locked down against both clueless and intentional abuse if the last bullet point in col 1 of p73 was broken into two bullets, replacing "provided that they could then contribute to the melee-(with dice or by creating a POA)" with a separate bullet reading

"A base can't move unless it then contributes to the melee with dice or creating a POA."

P.S. On p46 expansion and contraction moves are not allowed for BG in close combat.

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Thu Nov 13, 2008 8:00 am

babyshark wrote:Interesting indeed. There is nothing in the rule (p.72) that specifically addresses the issue. However, the "preamble" (if you will) and the text of the rule itself are discussing the methods by which a battle group can feed more bases into a melee "until they are all fighting." There is a clear intent that this rule be used to increase the number of bases contributing to a melee.

Were I the umpire presented with this situation I would have no trouble ruling that the proposed expansion was illegal, at least under the "Feeding bases . . ." rule. (Without double checking I will say that I doubt it would be allowed under expansions in the maneuver phase either.)

Marc

Agreed - that is how I would rule it were I umpiring. I think the first sentance in the section makes things quite clear and you cannot just use the bullet points in isolation.

Pikeaddict · Post by **Pikeaddict** » Thu Nov 13, 2008 9:50 am

Hello,

I was the blue danish player.
I find it important to express some ideas at this stage.

First, as Oliver said, my intention was clearly to extand the melee and to feed more base in combat.
If I don't extand the line, the red player matches the overlap and I loose the advantage of the wider front.
Therefore I extanded the line in anticipation of this matching which of course the red player didn't want.

If you consider the spirit of the rule, you can also consider that the blue player want to feed more base in mele and make his wider front talk in terms of advantage while the red player tries to stop this advantage and refuse to extand.
This refusal can also be discussed as in reality, the red player would have to match this extansion in order to avoid being totally outflanked...

Beeing the player in phase and having to extand first would also be a disadvantage then : I could not extand the line as said in the rules and the opposing player could match the overlap gained earlier.

In my opinion, the spirit of the rule and the spirit of the game must both be considered in this situation.

Jerome

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Thu Nov 13, 2008 10:07 am

So why didn't you expand on the other side, which would have been legal. And the red could only expand one base so would still have been overlapped.

Anyway I think it must be there for play balance otherwise it could create a lot of extra expanding cheese just to block gaps in the line.

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Thu Nov 13, 2008 10:10 am

I think we have to assume there was something blocking expansion on the other side that is not shown for simplicity.

olivier · Post by **olivier** » Thu Nov 13, 2008 12:19 pm

I think we have to assume there was something blocking expansion on the other side that is not shown for simplicity.

No, just a BG of varangian guard waiting to jump in the flank!

With the expansion on the right, the blue player can't protect his flank.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Thu Nov 13, 2008 12:30 pm

Cheese then

Pikeaddict · Post by **Pikeaddict** » Thu Nov 13, 2008 12:33 pm

nikgaukroger wrote:I think we have to assume there was something blocking expansion on the other side that is not shown for simplicity.

Indeed, a melee was beeing fought on the other side blocking any expension, otherwise, I would have developped my line on the left.
There is no interest in extending my right without opposition if I can extend my left with an overlap !!
That's why I find it pointless to forbid to extand the line as descibed in the rules...

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:44 am

For what it is worth I think this was an illegal expansion - I follow your reasoning Jerome but it does not meet the requirements of the rules - sorry.

Pete

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Fri Nov 14, 2008 7:44 pm

Having just taken a look at the results I see this ruling didn't hurt you too much Olivier!

Congratulations!

Pete

olivier · Post by **olivier** » Sat Nov 15, 2008 11:39 am

Thanks Pete.
The situation was a losing fight in my refused flank anyway!

My only hope in this wing was to buy some time to win elsewere with the varangian and an other group of latinikon.
It was a great victory for the Empire as only mercenary were killed !

Home troops are intact and ready to collect new taxes ...