base removal of pikes

[shall]

yes that's correct

Si

[TERRYFROMSPOKANE]

This would be a reform and can occur as the first action of a maneuver phase. From page 70: "A BG can reform in either side's manuever phase.....A BG must reform if it is to make any volluntary move. (Other than to feed more bases into an existing melee)" Thus, the BG is not forced to reform but must do so to make a move later in the maneuver phase.

Terry G.

[Blathergut]

Thank you gentlemen!

[rogerg]

Sorry to keep this one going, but I remember another thread where an 8 base pike BG, 2 wide, 4 deep had one file in contact and one in overlap. If a base was lost in combat I think the decision was that it could not be filled from the back of the overlapping file as that was also engaged in combat.
The enemy, having removed a rank from the pike, and hence the 4th rank pike PoA, would lose that advantage if the 4th rank was filled from another engaged file.

I will check the rules when I get home!

[Blathergut]

Sorry to keep this one going, but I remember another thread where an 8 base pike BG, 2 wide, 4 deep had one file in contact and one in overlap. If a base was lost in combat I think the decision was that it could not be filled from the back of the overlapping file as that was also engaged in combat.
The enemy, having removed a rank from the pike, and hence the 4th rank pike PoA, would lose that advantage if the 4th rank was filled from another engaged file.

I will check the rules when I get home!

I cannot find mention of this in the rules. They seem to suggest the fill can come from anywhere. Now, an 8 base pike block, having lost 1 4th rank base, wouldn't shuffle the remaining 4th rank base over...I don't see anything in the rules that allows for that??? Otherwise, pikes and spears would be shuffling 2nd or 3rd or 4th rank bases around. Is this possible?

Page 91...impact phase..."only bases coming in contact as a result of a charge this impact phase fight"
Page 93...bases w front edge contact fight plus 2nd rank (1 dice per base in first 2 ranks)

Once a 3rd rank base was lost, I can see the remaining 4th rank coming in...or not, as Simon explained...owner's oreference. Page 116 only states that front rank positions must be filled from any available rear ranks, not 2nd or 3rd ranks must be filled.

[nikgaukroger]

key bit is, I think, on page 116 that says "Non-front rank bases must hbe used if any are available, and can be from any part of the battle group."

[sagji]

In response to request for author to wade in ....
It is arguable whether this is a compulsory move or not, but the general principle was that you can be forced out of formation by something you are forced to do by the rules.
Thus I would also allow the option to fill from the short column leading to a 4-2 formation.
Si

My first thought is that it isn't a move, as it is only ever described as filling in.
On further reflection I think the use of the pharse "compulsory move" is misleading, because it implies:
You can't do it in an evade, unless you tried to stand and failed - otherwise it isn't compulsory.
You can do it when dropping back friends in a charge without orders, but not in an ordered charge.
You can't do it when stepping forward - as that is not a "move".
You can't do it when turning to face a flank or rear charge - again not a "move".
You can't do it when shuffeling up, or filling in, to replace losses - again not a "move".

I suspect the intent is you can never do in a charge, but you can do it in any evade, and in any of the other actions I list. I think you should also be allowed to do it in feeding more bases in.

There appear to be issues with most of the exceptions to normal formation.
1) A column with a kink in the front 1/2 can't feed more bases into combat - before moving it is in normal formation so can't reform, after feeding more bases in it still has a kink, but is nolonger a column so isn't in normal formation, and doesn't have an exception.
2) The exception for facing in multiple directions doesn't apply for flank, or rear contact that doesn't result in fighting in multiple directions - so a flank/rear charge has to turn all bases, not just those contacted.
3) What is a "compulsory move".
4) No issues.
5) The exception for breaking of the single contigus block constraint permitted for an incomplete interpenetration is missing. Does this exception also apply to BGs that can't both fill in a vacated front rank position and remain contiguous (such as a column fighting both front and rear that losses a base)?

[DaiSho]

of course it would be a lot easier and would have caused less disagreement on the list if you just hadn't blown the death roll.

Next time just roll higher!

Ian

[deadtorius]

of course it would be a lot easier and would have caused less disagreement on the list if you just hadn't blown the death roll.

Next time just roll higher!

Guilty as charged for poor dice rolling

I will go with Simon and assume filling in is optional since it appears to have been a bit of an oversight in the rules. Thank you for your input all.. even you blathergut

and best part is no can of worms appears to have been opened

[shall]

1) A column with a kink in the front 1/2 can't feed more bases into combat - before moving it is in normal formation so can't reform, after feeding more bases in it still has a kink, but is nolonger a column so isn't in normal formation, and doesn't have an exception.
2) The exception for facing in multiple directions doesn't apply for flank, or rear contact that doesn't result in fighting in multiple directions - so a flank/rear charge has to turn all bases, not just those contacted.
3) What is a "compulsory move".
4) No issues.
5) The exception for breaking of the single contigus block constraint permitted for an incomplete interpenetration is missing. Does this exception also apply to BGs that can't both fill in a vacated front rank position and remain contiguous (such as a column fighting both front and rear that losses a base)?

Well we didn't want masses of legalise on page 23 of book! The intent of each is clear enough.

1. I would allow such expansion and reform them if space demanded - clearly the logical intent of the authors or its silly and a misfit withh all other combat rules.
2. This is already clear in the rules - see facing in 2 directions definition.
3. Agreed and we may need to calarify - my general defintion being something you are forced to do. Therein do lie few issues and I shall consult with the triad
4. good news
5. The formation is not changed, the splitting is just a way to how that interpenetration is incomplete.

Si

[sagji]

1) A column with a kink in the front 1/2 can't feed more bases into combat - before moving it is in normal formation so can't reform, after feeding more bases in it still has a kink, but is nolonger a column so isn't in normal formation, and doesn't have an exception.
2) The exception for facing in multiple directions doesn't apply for flank, or rear contact that doesn't result in fighting in multiple directions - so a flank/rear charge has to turn all bases, not just those contacted.
3) What is a "compulsory move".
4) No issues.
5) The exception for breaking of the single contigus block constraint permitted for an incomplete interpenetration is missing. Does this exception also apply to BGs that can't both fill in a vacated front rank position and remain contiguous (such as a column fighting both front and rear that losses a base)?

Well we didn't want masses of legalise on page 23 of book! The intent of each is clear enough.

1. I would allow such expansion and reform them if space demanded - clearly the logical intent of the authors or its silly and a misfit withh all other combat rules.

I agree that this is what should happen, but it isn't what the rules actualy permit - therefore there is an issue. A solution might be to reword the start to "... a battle group that moves when one base wide ..."

2. This is already clear in the rules - see facing in 2 directions definition.

I only have a fighting in two directions definition, so will assume you intended that.
I think you have missed the issue.
Example a BG that isn't in contact with any enemy is charged in the rear by a BG that contacts only one base.
By the rules on being contacted the contacted base turns. As there is no exception to the rule on having to face in the same direction the remainder must also turn, but what happens if it was contaced on a shallow file so can't reform facing in the opposite direction - does it all turn and "reform" on the contacted base?
If however the BG had been in contact with enemy to the front, then only the contacted bases would turn as the exception for fighting in two directions would apply.

3. Agreed and we may need to calarify - my general defintion being something you are forced to do. Therein do lie few issues and I shall consult with the triad
4. good news
5. The formation is not changed, the splitting is just a way to how that interpenetration is incomplete.

Si

But the BG is nolonger in normal formation which requires that the BG be a contiguous block. The interpenetration clearly says the BG must be split, so there is an implied exception, but without an explicit one it is hard to rule out there being other implicit exceptions - such as for a BG that can't both remain contiguous and fill in a lost front rank base.

[shall]

Well we could write 2 pages of legalise to cover it all but frankly it seems a bit pointless. Happy to deal with specific case law as needed though.

On the column note that you can reform at any time during the manouvre phase of either player, which technically seems to solve that one.

On the interpenetration it is just a way tyo record that they haven't made it through and not a change of formation - although yes we could have cited it as an exception. But the general cases are not going to override specifics in the rulebook anyway.

On the fighting in two directions I am indeed missing the point and don't see what the issue is, if its forced on you is covered by the compulsory move generality anyway, and isn't it going to be put in legal formation anyway once they all turn under the reform rules?

Happy to kick around a bit but we shouldn't take a general rule to overule specific rules, or much unravels in all rule sets....

Si

[rich0101]

Yes, but a different thread says that they would stay in the 4-2 formation.

[sagji]

On the column note that you can reform at any time during the manouvre phase of either player, which technically seems to solve that one.

No it doesn't as you can only reform if not in normal formation and a column with a kink is in normal formation.

On the interpenetration it is just a way tyo record that they haven't made it through and not a change of formation - although yes we could have cited it as an exception. But the general cases are not going to override specifics in the rulebook anyway.

On the fighting in two directions I am indeed missing the point and don't see what the issue is, if its forced on you is covered by the compulsory move generality anyway, and isn't it going to be put in legal formation anyway once they all turn under the reform rules?

Happy to kick around a bit but we shouldn't take a general rule to overule specific rules, or much unravels in all rule sets....
Si

It is more of a consistency thing - some specific rules get listed as exceptions (fighting in 2 directions and orb), while others don't (incomplete interpenetration, contacted to flank or rear)

This creates issues.
As fighting in 2 directions is listed as an exception, but being contacted to flank or rear isn't, this implies that a BG contacted to flank or rear, that isn't consequently fighting in two directions, can only face in one direction so the whole BG turns. If the intent was that only contacted bases turn then the exception should have been for flank or rear contact which would also cover fighting in 2 directions.
As the list of exceptions is incomplete it becomes difficult to tell if a specific rule is an exception to the general - can a BG break the contiguous constraint if that is the only way to fill in for a loss?

I believe the intent is:

A BG must remain a contiguous block - except as a result of incomplete interpenetration.
A BG must face in one direction - except when in orb, "moving" as a column, or as a result of being contacted to flank or rear.
A BG must have a single front edge and "equal" ranks - when deployed, reformed, turned, expanded or contracted (including dropping back, and feeding in more bases)

[shall]

So you re saying troops fighting in 2 different directions is a normal formation ... you are arguing from both directions at once my friend. Either the 4 bullets are exceptions to normal formation or they are other normal formations. Can't have it both ways. They are clearly the former. Feels like argument for arguments sake beyond monte python levels.

[shall]

Yes, but a different thread says that they would stay in the 4-2 formation.

Already corrected this. Sadji led me down a dodgy path and i couldn't find the bit that I thought we had put in to deal with it. But it is there.

Si

[shall]

As the list of exceptions is incomplete it becomes difficult to tell if a specific rule is an exception to the general - can a BG break the contiguous constraint if that is the only way to fill in for a loss?

It has no choice, it is compulsory to refill the front rank, and therefore both covered by the general rule, and by an additional specific rule, and these are entirely consistent unless you seek to bend the general words (which is what they are) heavily to say otherwise ... which one can always do however hard we try. At some point if the intent is obvious then surely take the interp that fits the obvious intent!

As for consistency issues, you can create them if you want to, but specific rules override general rules in every ruleset I have ever seen. Is that all we need to say officially?
Must say I am a bit baffled by this stream - seems like lots of worry over the completely obvious relating to a general introduction section that is part of getting people to understand what a BG is and how it sits on the table. I really must be missing something.

Dan, as you had some issues could you try to educate me as I am at a bit of a loss as to why any of it would matter on a tabletop given the rest of the rules.

Si

[Blathergut]

Dan, as you had some issues could you try to educate me as I am at a bit of a loss as to why any of it would matter on a tabletop given the rest of the rules.

Si

Am good if you mean me. Deadtorius and I had a question about the pike block but this seems to have gone on somewhere else since. We're good I think. You have been a great help.

[shall]

Ok thanks

Happy to help with further issues - as long as I can figure out what the issues are...

Si

[deadtorius]

I think we cleared the whole pike block question up, not sure what that other stuff was about from the first posting, but it seems to have nothing to do with my original query.
thanks for your help.