How to count pike ranks for POAs

[madmike111]

Had this arise in a game yesterday.

AAAA
AAAA
BBBB
BBBB

RRRR
RRRR

'A' and 'B' are 2 pike BGs each 2 ranks deep lined up behind each other. 'R' is the enemy Romans.

The player claimed that the POA for pike ranks doesn't state that the 3rd and 4th rank have to belong to the same BG. In the above case even though pike 'B' is only 2 ranks deep with pike BG 'A' in support it gets the +2 POA.

Is this correct?

Overall I didn't think it was a great idea even if allowed.

[OldenTired]

Had this arise in a game yesterday.

AAAA
AAAA
BBBB
BBBB

RRRR
RRRR

'A' and 'B' are 2 pike BGs each 2 ranks deep lined up behind each other. 'R' is the enemy Romans.

The player claimed that the POA for pike ranks doesn't state that the 3rd and 4th rank have to belong to the same BG. In the above case even though pike 'B' is only 2 ranks deep with pike BG 'A' in support it gets the +2 POA.

Is this correct?

Overall I didn't think it was a great idea even if allowed.

wtf? that's pretty creative.

but the pikes behind aren't actually in combat. you have to join combat, either as an overlap or via impact.

they're providing rear support, but that's it.

[Andy1972]

wow! LoL! Nice thinking, but wrong... Talk about making cheese.. Sharp cheddar is quite good. Oldntired has it.

[madmike111]

I reread everything I could find in the rules and couldn't find anything against doing it.

[marioslaz]

I reread everything I could find in the rules and couldn't find anything against doing it.

There is nothing to reread. Simply, as already stated, the rear BG is not in melee and so it couldn't give POA. It give rear support, but if front BG break it will be a mess.

[stenic]

Take them aside, beat them with a stick for trying it on, then never play them again.

Steve P --> Harsh but fair

[hammy]

It is an 'interesting' idea, alas not one allowed by the rules. The point as made by others is that the rear BG is not in close combat so can't contribute.

If this was allowed then there would be a lot of armies where you could gain huge advantage by having a good BG in single rank with another not so good BG right behind provining extra dice. It really doesn't work.

[lawrenceg]

It is an 'interesting' idea, alas not one allowed by the rules. The point as made by others is that the rear BG is not in close combat so can't contribute.

If this was allowed then there would be a lot of armies where you could gain huge advantage by having a good BG in single rank with another not so good BG right behind provining extra dice. It really doesn't work.

Just from the rules, one could easily conclude that a BG providing a POA for rear ranks to a BG in front has "joined" a melee or impact combat, so is in close combat (as defined in the rules). THere is nothing to say you have to roll dice to join a combat.

The second BG cannot add extra dice, even if in a second rank, as the section on rolling dice says the bases have to be from the same BG as the front rank.

[marioslaz]

Just from the rules, one could easily conclude that a BG providing a POA for rear ranks to a BG in front has "joined" a melee or impact combat, so is in close combat (as defined in the rules). THere is nothing to say you have to roll dice to join a combat.

The second BG cannot add extra dice, even if in a second rank, as the section on rolling dice says the bases have to be from the same BG as the front rank.

Mmmmm... you failed to convince me. You can join a melee only as overlap in manoeuvre phase, otherwise you must charge, and you cannot do it through friends. So no melee for rear BG and no POA. The line of events is not "it gives POA -> it joined melee" but "it joined melee -> it give POA", this because POA is a part of combat mechanism.

[lawrenceg]

Just from the rules, one could easily conclude that a BG providing a POA for rear ranks to a BG in front has "joined" a melee or impact combat, so is in close combat (as defined in the rules). THere is nothing to say you have to roll dice to join a combat.

The second BG cannot add extra dice, even if in a second rank, as the section on rolling dice says the bases have to be from the same BG as the front rank.

Mmmmm... you failed to convince me. You can join a melee only as overlap in manoeuvre phase, otherwise you must charge, and you cannot do it through friends. So no melee for rear BG and no POA. The line of events is not "it gives POA -> it joined melee" but "it joined melee -> it give POA", this because POA is a part of combat mechanism.

There are numerous other ways to join a melee or impact combat.

For example, enemy charging you, or moving into frontal contact in the manoeuvre phase.

None of these ways is described in the rules as "joining a close combat".

If you just had the rule book and no other knowledge of wargaming, I think you would be quite likely to conclude that a BG of 2 ranks of pike behind another BG of 2 ranks of pike would provide POA and would have joined the close combat.

I don't think this was the authors' intention, but it's not obvious from the rules as written.

[nikgaukroger]

I don't think this was the authors' intention, but it's not obvious from the rules as written.

Personally I think that the rules as a whole give the context of everything is between BGs (more or less) and it comes under the "so obvious it didn't need to be stated" category.

Not 100% fool proof of course, but recourse to the big stick with nails through it usually solves that

[marioslaz]

There are numerous other ways to join a melee or impact combat.

For example, enemy charging you, or moving into frontal contact in the manoeuvre phase.

None of these ways is described in the rules as "joining a close combat".

If you just had the rule book and no other knowledge of wargaming, I think you would be quite likely to conclude that a BG of 2 ranks of pike behind another BG of 2 ranks of pike would provide POA and would have joined the close combat.

I don't think this was the authors' intention, but it's not obvious from the rules as written.

I don't want to discuss the cases you rose, even if I feel they are all wrong. I want to point on your last sentence. I play wargame since near 30 years and in the last weeks, reading on this forum, I discovered I made a lot of errors playing FOG games. I never thought my errors were due to rules bad explained. I really don't want to do the lawyer of authors, but nobody can think to all that other people can imagine when they read our sentences, so he can prevent all possible misunderstandings.

[shall]

top of page 90 "combat between unbroken BGs" as bb is not involved in combat it plays no port in the combat mechanism section.

a nice try though worthy of creativity prize ...

si

[gibby]

Maybe the 2 units moved as a battle line and it did not seem unreasonable to someone new with the rules that as they could move together that they could give support to each other.

Maybe the question should be whats the reasoning behind not allowing this to happen in the rules. Seems to me its something that could occur on a real battfield.

cheers
Jim

[lawrenceg]

top of page 90 "combat between unbroken BGs" as bb is not involved in combat it plays no port in the combat mechanism section.

a nice try though worthy of creativity prize ...

si

[Devil's advocate]
Well, it's unbroken and providing POAs, so it clearly does play a part in the combat mechanism setion.
[/Devil's advocate]

[babyshark]

Maybe the 2 units moved as a battle line and it did not seem unreasonable to someone new with the rules that as they could move together that they could give support to each other.

Maybe the question should be whats the reasoning behind not allowing this to happen in the rules. Seems to me its something that could occur on a real battfield.

cheers
Jim

The rear BG does provide support: rear support for cohesion tests. Just not POAs for melee.

Marc

[kal5056]

Lawrence,
You can not enter melee as you describe when you say:

"or moving into frontal contact in the manoeuvre phase. "

You must charge into contact to engage a melee with the couple of exceptions listed where you end up side to sode or corner to corner.

Gino
SMAC

[nikgaukroger]

Or be charged ...

[lawrenceg]

Lawrence,
You can not enter melee as you describe when you say:

"or moving into frontal contact in the manoeuvre phase. "

You must charge into contact to engage a melee with the couple of exceptions listed where you end up side to sode or corner to corner.

Gino
SMAC

YEs, those exceptions are what I was referring to. Your own front, not the enemy front.

[deadtorius]

I agree with the majority, nice try on the cheese but no they don't count for PoA's but do provide rear support. I also doubt that random ranks of pikes ever just happened to comr along and join into a pike push since it seemed like a good idea at the time.
Always keep in mind that the PoA's apply to battle groups and a battle group of 2 pikes is not a good idea.