Deep column overlap - Now with pictures !!

stenic · Post by **stenic** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 1:11 pm

We had a situation in our game Monday; a column of MF Xbow were just past the rear edge of an enemy BG and under half a base width away from their flank edge. Said enemy BG were in melee with a BG friendly to the Xbow. In the manouevre phase the Xbow moved forward and sidled sideways less than half a base width to become an overlap. The enemy looked to match this overlap but to do so would have broken apart their BG due to the front of the XBow being too far forward for the enemy to maintain contact with each other.

We could see no resolution other than to leave the enemy as they were and unable to match the overlap. As it happened the overlap was ineffectual due to -- POA but is there a proper solution to this?

Thanks,

Steve P

marioslaz · Post by **marioslaz** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 8:09 pm

Not sure I understood correctly, anyway you must remember you can move a base to match an overlap only if that base are not fighting, that is it is not contributing to melee with dice or POA. So, to mantain BG integrity it isn't the only requisite to move a base during a melee to match an overlap

sagji · Post by **sagji** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:18 pm

You are correct the BG must remain contiguous (p23), however the sequence of play has feeding more bases in before movement and thus you can't feed in the extra bases in in the turn the enemy moved the overlap in in, you would have to wait to the next turn.

In fact the BG must remain in normal formation unless any of the exceptions apply, and that means if the BG that moves in is even slightly past the front edge of the enemy then the enemy usually can't expand.

Ghaznavid · Post by **Ghaznavid** » Fri Jul 10, 2009 12:19 am

sagji wrote:In fact the BG must remain in normal formation unless any of the exceptions apply, and that means if the BG that moves in is even slightly past the front edge of the enemy then the enemy usually can't expand.

That is what I believed too, but this thread suggests otherwise: viewtopic.php?t=11143

shall · Post by **shall** » Fri Jul 10, 2009 9:06 am

The general rules written are not intended to overule the spefici rules that follow. As Sadji seems very hung up on the general rule part and the definition of a compulsory action I will pass it back to RBS and TS as well.

Of you take a look at the base removal part above it is indeed possible for a pike block to have a 4-1 formation in a combat, which is a clear breech of formation rules forced by a specific rule later. This over-empahsis of the rigid formation interp actually fooled me away from what I was pretty sure happened for a while - see my cock-up in that section

We may need to clarify this as a general principle inthe next FAQ. I wouldn't want , rpesonally, a general intorduction point that is designed to get people into the book and rules, to take precedent over specifi rules desinged to accurately handle specific siutations. Down such a path lies much past WRG chaos.

Si

stenic · Post by **stenic** » Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:04 am

Sorry, I wasn't clear on this one. I took pctures but only just got around to sorting them out.

This is the position after impact. Danish Knights intercept the Teutonic knights who arecharging the Danish foot (Failed CMT).

To the right is a firest with MF Xbow moving through in colum.

Note the Danish knights are in 2by2 formation.

Now after my manouevre, my MF Xbow have moved forward and slipped across into overlap. Can the Danish knighst match this overlap?

Ignore the kinked line, we know we should have retained a stepped forward formation rather thank kink the line. That made no odds and is irrelevant to the question.

thanks,

Steve P

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Fri Jul 10, 2009 12:13 pm

Can the Danish knighst match this overlap?

I don't believe so - no.

Pete

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Fri Jul 10, 2009 1:33 pm

I'm intruigued as to how the Two-tone knights ended up in that V formation

Agree with Pete BTW.

sagji · Post by **sagji** » Fri Jul 10, 2009 1:57 pm

No - however I don't think the move to get there was correct - the column had a kink before the move, and some of the bases haven't reached the kink, so the column should have still had a kink at the end of its move, so could not have slide sideways to form an overlap.

While there is nothing the Knights can do to counter the overlap I think there should.

stenic · Post by **stenic** » Fri Jul 10, 2009 3:11 pm

nikgaukroger wrote:I'm intruigued as to how the Two-tone knights ended up in that V formation

Incompetence

The 2 Teutonic knights fighting the foot should just be stepped forward but we were in auto mode and concentrating on the overlap question so just conformed then realised we did not have to but it it was academic.

I think the kink is irrelevant too as we reset the scene after the event to take the picture. at the time there was no real kink.

Steve P

shall · Post by **shall** » Fri Jul 10, 2009 4:42 pm

No - however I don't think the move to get there was correct - the column had a kink before the move, and some of the bases haven't reached the kink, so the column should have still had a kink at the end of its move, so could not have slide sideways to form an overlap.

While there is nothing the Knights can do to counter the overlap I think there should.

I suppose Page 70 .... reforms at any time in manouvre phase, takes out the kink and slides 1/2base to line up. Although not a situation I have seen at all I must admit.

Nothing Kn can do and with enemy that far past them I think that's quite reasonable. Have seen that one before.

Si