Pike POA's

[TERRYFROMSPOKANE]

I had two 2x4 pike BG's in frontal combat with two 3x2 Spear BG's with each spear BG having an extra file hanging out the ends in overlap positions. One Spear BG broke and the Pikes in contact with them pursued but did not catch them. While the first two ranks of pikes had moved forward out of contact with the remaining enemy BG, the third rank qualified as a "side edge to side edge contact with an enemy base that is in front edge contact with friends" overlap.

1. The next turn happens to be mine, but I don't think I am allowed to move my purusing pikes backwards to conform (and bring the front rank into the overlap position) as they are already in a legal overlap position. The BG can not turn 90 degrees because of other friends.

2. Assuming I am correct about "1", I don't think I can claim the normal pike POA as my 3rd and 4th pike ranks do not qualify as "at least three ranks". Ditto for the "4th rank of pikes" POA.

Is that correct, or should I get both POA's because the BG considered as a whole is indeed 4 ranks deep?

Thanks, Terry G.

[richnz]

you count the BG as a whole.

[hazelbark]

Correct if you are not in contact you don't conform backwards, but you count the full file for the POA for overlaps. Obvisouly max 2 dice.

[deadtorius]

unless I am mistaken, I don't think you would have left ranks 3 and 4 behind in the first place. Battle groups stay together and you can always move away from an overlap position if you want to.
I believe the entire battle group either pursues or if part of the battlegroup is in frotntal contact the entire battle group stays put and will not pursue.
Hope that cleared up some issues for you

[TERRYFROMSPOKANE]

Apparently I was not clear enough. The entire BG did pursue as a whole, but did not catch the routing spears. Each 25mm Pike base is 20mm deep and I am using 40mm MU's. The pikes rolled a "2" and pursued 2 MU = 80mm. This meant the front two bases moved right past the remaining spear BG (2 bases deep @ 20mm per base = 40mm), while bases three and four wound up in side edge contact with the spears. I am aware the whole BG could have moved off in my next Movement Phase, but I wanted to keep them as an overlap and I couldn't turn them 90 degrees.. My gut feel was since the first two bases were not in overlap contact and weren't behind the bases that were in such contact, they shouldn't count and the pike BG shouldn't get the "third rank" and "fourth rank" POA's.

The replies indicated my guts were wrong and the whole BG gets to count. That's a lot simpler for sure.

Terry G.

Smiley pikes are facing down and worried spears are facing up.

[shall]

Assuming something still fighting to the front ...

They would still count as an overlap counting any bases that qalify. You need to be in partial edge contact with a side edge of an enemy front fanrk base in combat to be an overlap at the side. So if exactly as drawn then the 2nd pike base is in and you would indeed add 2 overlap dice but without the 4th rank +.

The alternative is to turn 90 but you say there wasn't space.

Simon

[TERRYFROMSPOKANE]

Yeah, I got lazy and left out the other pike unit. There should be another BG of smiley pikes facing down and in frontal contact with the worried spears facing up. HOWEVER, now I am confused. I understood the first two responses to mean I should count the whole BG even though the front two ranks had pursued past the spears. Thus, 1 POA for "three ranks deep" and another for "4th rank of pikes". Your response seems to indicate:

1. sunglasses below counts as an overlap even though it is only in rear corner to rear corner contact with the spears. Thus, three pike ranks in contact = 1 POA. I wouldn't have thought such contact counted as partial edge contact. The fault may be in the diagram. While my smiley pikes appeared in a straight line when I previewed and again when I posted my original message, I see the front (bottom) two have shifted 1/2 a column to the right in my message as shown in your response.

2. ? below does not count and therefore the pikes only qualify as three ranks deep and lose the "4th rank" POA. Again, my understanding of the original two responses was that I was to count the whole BG and would thus gain the "4th rank" POA.






Again, smiley pike file on the left is facing down in a straight line column while worried spears are facing up and in frontal contact with another enemy pike BG. The upper two smiley pikes are in full side edge to side edge contact with the worried spears. Sunglasses is in rear corner to rear corner contact and "?" is not in contact with the spears at all.

Thanks, Terry G.

[shall]

Ok First misunderstood your diagram due to missing pike block. Missed the pikes area facing down not up.

I think you can read this one either way, but I have taken it to apply as bases not as a BG.

To paraphrase

Page 75 overlaps says

"an overlap position is one with a base in any .... base in side edge contact with a front rank enemy base"

Page 92 melee has

* An overlap fights against the same enemy base as the friendly base for which it is providing an ovelap"

* Rear ranks of eligible troop type can fight if they belong to the same BG as the front rank or overlap they are behind"

Thus I read it that an overlap is defined by a base, and then you see who is behind it. I can see how you could read it as the BG is in ovelap, but then bullet 2 on page 92 makes little sense to me. Hence I have always defined it by base first and then anyone behind it. Personally I find the paikes losing some effectiveness as they pursure forwards quite reasonable.

So certainly I would rule it that a base in side edge contact with the front rank enemy is the ovelap and count anything behind it as a potentail POA assist. Of course this may be one where the three authros might rule differently.

Si

[TERRYFROMSPOKANE]

Well, that's what I thought too. The ranks should have to be to the rear of the first overlapping rank to count.

Terry G.

[rbodleyscott]

So certainly I would rule it that a base in side edge contact with the front rank enemy is the ovelap and count anything behind it as a potentail POA assist. Of course this may be one where the three authors might rule differently.

It might indeed. And I think we have ruled on this one before, to the effect that the 3rd and 4th rank POAs do count. (Although the situation may, or may not, be different from the one we ruled on).

However, as a reality check, don't forget that all 16 ranks of a pike phalanx would really fit in the depth of 1 base. So if they are overlapping at all, it is hard to see why they wouldn't count the normal POAs for their formation.

[shall]

Yes indeed, but if only that deep they are entirely past the battle in question in reality .... so that argument works the opposite way ... and was IIRC part of the reasoning for it being as written.

If you take the diargram and that argument the two BGs wouldn't even be near each other by now as they are both about the depth of a single base in reality and therefore by now a full 60mm apart and not overlapping at all .... being 1/4 of effective bow range apart. So the reduced effect something relying on depth made some sense within the abstraction of physical base sizes.

If one takes the RAW mean, I am in the camp that its not the 3rd and 4th rank bonuses personally, hence my ruling that way the times I have been asked.

Always good to have the authors with a different view Maybe Terry has a 3rd view to add to the fun.

On a more serious note maybe we need to discuss off-line and FAQ that one.

Si

[Ghaznavid]

Always good to have the authors with a different view Maybe Terry has a 3rd view to add to the fun.

I would certainly hope he can add more then one, 3 people and just 3 opinions sounds not at all like a bunch of wargamers.

On topic: Personally I prefer Simons interpretation, it's simpler and (to me) more logical.

[shall]

FWIW Terry plays it the same way as me - checked when he was round for a game last week.

So I think its:

• An overlapping base has to have side edge contact
  +s apply to it and anything supporting it form behind but not those in front

Which is as written to me, although I can see how one could spin it the other way.

Si

[lawrenceg]

The case in which all 4 ranks count is the one where a non-flank charge contacts the BG in the flank of a rear rank element.

FWIW, I'm with Simon on what the RAW imply for overlaps.

IMO the opposite interpretation could be rationalised: although the base depths are exagerrated so the troops are not in contact, having an enemy pike block behind your flank is likely to have a detrimental effect on morale . We might also consider that the position of the troops could be anywhere in the BG's footprint. The physical effect of troops in a "formal" overlap position would be negligible anyway. Even with a pike, very few of them would be within stabbing distance.

[philqw78]

The physical effect of troops in a "formal" overlap position would be negligible anyway. Even with a pike, very few of them would be within stabbing distance.

But a BG represents a number of Pike blocks some some could turn in to fight

[shall]

Which is why we allow any such material effect anyway Phil. Its all a balanced abstraction within a game.

What we want are shifts in effectiveness in the game that reflect reality within that abstraction.

So here we had 2 choices:

a) as troops go past they have full effect as if they were still exactly yo the side - give pikes 4 ranks even if touching with the last base.
b) as troops go past their overlap power diminishes gradually - drop from 4 to 3 to 2 to 1 ranks with POAs dropping as well.

We chose (b) which I believe is best both as an abstraction of reality and as a game mechanic in terms of feel.

Si

[philqw78]

And adding any dice is not negligible if you can roll 5's and your opponent 3's