Slitherine

titanu wrote:Assuming all green bases are cavalry and are steady how many total bases are you fighting with?

Green get 8 dice.

No, still 2. The rule does not allow a third or fourth rank to fight.

grahambriggs wrote:No, still 2. The rule does not allow a third or fourth rank to fight.

?? What has this got to do with anything Graham? The rule allows bases in overlap postions to fight.
2 bases are in overlap position

In your view








faces up
faces down fighting facing up.
and are on the same side.
In your view the none of the fourth, fifth or sixth rank of the column can be overlaps as their ranks are not allowed to fight by the rule. You are saying overlaps must be in the first 2 ranks of their BG.

philqw78 wrote:

grahambriggs wrote:No, still 2. The rule does not allow a third or fourth rank to fight.

?? What has this got to do with anything Graham? The rule allows bases in overlap postions to fight.
2 bases are in overlap position

In your view








faces up
faces down fighting facing up.
and are on the same side.
In your view the none of the fourth, fifth or sixth rank of the column can be overlaps as their ranks are not allowed to fight by the rule. You are saying overlaps must be in the first 2 ranks of their BG.

Well, not exactly. One rule defines overlap positions:

"An overlap position is one with a base in any of the following situations:
 Full or partial side edge to side edge contact with an enemy base that is in front edge contact with friends." (etc)

So in your original diagram this is an overlap position as at least one base is in side edge contact with enemy bases which are in front edge with friends (bases 1, 3, and 4 of the column).

Then in the melee phase rules it tells you:

"Overlap positions are defined in the manoeuvre phase section.
Each overlapping file fights with the same net Points of Advantage (POA) and same number of ranks as if it was in front edge contact with the overlapped enemy base."

and there's a restriction "A base that can contribute to close combat to its front (with dice or by creating a Point of Advantage (POA)) cannot fight as an overlap."

There's also the combat mechanism section, that states in the melee table that cavalry get 1 dice per base in first 2 ranks

So each file of - and there's only one of them - gets the same number of ranks as it would if in front edge contact with - i.e. 2.

So if is, say, cavalry, it's third and fourth bases could be in overlap against and its fifth and 6th against another enemy. But the file would still only get 2 dice for the overlap because the restriction is per file i.e. "each file....same number of ranks as if in frontal combat". and despite the fact that the front two ranks aren't in the overlap position, you still get 1 dice per base in the front two ranks.

grahambriggs wrote:No, still 2. The rule does not allow a third or fourth rank to fight.

Graham, just to understand what your saying....

Suppose a file of a mixed BG (1st two ranks are HF and the 3rd rank is LF) has the LF base in side edge to side edge contact with an enemy base fighting a friend to the front. The HF bases are not in contact with the enemy base. Therefore, the LF base is the base that's in a valid overlap position but not the two HF bases. Are you suggesting that the overlapping BG fights with one of its HF bases because the LF base is a 3rd rank base???

I think the problem is there's no definition of "overlapping file" and it might be erroneous to assume it means the entire file of a BG. It could just mean the base in overlap position and any rear rank bases that could contribute in combat to that base.

shadowdragon wrote:

grahambriggs wrote:No, still 2. The rule does not allow a third or fourth rank to fight.

Graham, just to understand what your saying....

Suppose a file of a mixed BG (1st two ranks are HF and the 3rd rank is LF) has the LF base in side edge to side edge contact with an enemy base fighting a friend to the front. The HF bases are not in contact with the enemy base. Therefore, the LF base is the base that's in a valid overlap position but not the two HF bases. Are you suggesting that the overlapping BG fights with one of its HF bases because the LF base is a 3rd rank base???

I think the problem is there's no definition of "overlapping file" and it might be erroneous to assume it means the entire file of a BG. It could just mean the base in overlap position and any rear rank bases that could contribute in combat to that base.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. It's a bit odd and not intuitive, but the rules say one dice for each of the first two ranks. In your example, the LF base makes the overlap position for the file, which then gets one dice for each of it's front two ranks.

grahambriggs wrote:

shadowdragon wrote:

grahambriggs wrote:No, still 2. The rule does not allow a third or fourth rank to fight.

Graham, just to understand what your saying....

Suppose a file of a mixed BG (1st two ranks are HF and the 3rd rank is LF) has the LF base in side edge to side edge contact with an enemy base fighting a friend to the front. The HF bases are not in contact with the enemy base. Therefore, the LF base is the base that's in a valid overlap position but not the two HF bases. Are you suggesting that the overlapping BG fights with one of its HF bases because the LF base is a 3rd rank base???

I think the problem is there's no definition of "overlapping file" and it might be erroneous to assume it means the entire file of a BG. It could just mean the base in overlap position and any rear rank bases that could contribute in combat to that base.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. It's a bit odd and not intuitive, but the rules say one dice for each of the first two ranks. In your example, the LF base makes the overlap position for the file, which then gets one dice for each of it's front two ranks.

I admit that's how I've always played it but then again I've never had many extreme examples such as the case in the OP. I've re-read the rules and I'm am convinced that's what's intended. It would be nice if the glossary definition an "overlap" didn't just say see Manoeuvre and Melee sections.

So:

"An overlap position" exists if a base meets any of the conditions as described in the manoeuvre section on pages 75-76.

"An overlap" is the file of troops in a BG for which at least one base in the file is in an "overlap position". The whole file fights "as if" in front edge contact with the overlapped enemy base. The combat dice are then determined normally by the table "Melee Phase Dice" on page 93 (i.e., for "other troops" it's "1 dice per first 2 ranks" in the file).

However, I can see that it could be interpreted differently....as Phil has above. Essentially that the base in the "overlap position" is the de facto "front rank base" and the "overlapping file" is defined accordingly.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. It's a bit odd and not intuitive, but the rules say one dice for each of the first two ranks. In your example, the LF base makes the overlap position for the file, which then gets one dice for each of it's front two ranks.

Page 92 (Melee Phase) 3rd bullet: "REAR ranks of an eligible troop type....can fight if they belong to the same BG as the front rank or OVERLAP they are BEHIND" (Bold and caps are mine)

Also, all discussion of overlappers is done by base not file. All discussion concerning the overlapped BG is by file.

bbotus wrote:

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. It's a bit odd and not intuitive, but the rules say one dice for each of the first two ranks. In your example, the LF base makes the overlap position for the file, which then gets one dice for each of it's front two ranks.

Page 92 (Melee Phase) 3rd bullet: "REAR ranks of an eligible troop type....can fight if they belong to the same BG as the front rank or OVERLAP they are BEHIND" (Bold and caps are mine)

Also, all discussion of overlappers is done by base not file. All discussion concerning the overlapped BG is by file.

Yes indeed. So if you have a BG of cavalry in single rank fighting and a second cavalry BG butting up behing it the second BG can't fight. So yes, rear rank of overlaps can fight. Either by adding dice or POAs. And other parts of the combat mechanism tell you which ranks contribut POAs, which dice, etc.

So, for example, if I have a 10 base BG 2 wide and 5 deep of pike fighting a one wide column of triarii, my file in frontal contact will get POAs for 4 deep pike, and two dice fighting. As will the overlap.

Or are you saying that this rule allows the fifth rank of pike to fight?

Your second point is inaccurate I think. For example, in the melee section:

"Each overlapping file fights with the same net Points of Advantage (POA) and same number of ranks as if it was in front edge contact with the overlapped enemy base."

This refers to overlappers by file does it not?

B ut the file starts at the overlapping base. Base 1 and three in the OP

philqw78 wrote:B ut the file starts at the overlapping base. Base 1 and three in the OP

Unfortunately, nowhere in the rules does it actually say that the base in the overlap position is treated as the front rank base or even that this base even gets to fight / contribute POA. If the base in the overlap position were defined as a "front rank" base then "we're good to go" because the definition of a "file" in the glossary is "a single front rank base and all the bases of the same BG lined up behind it".

However, the rules are pretty unhelpful with whether or not the base in the overlap position is a front rank base or not. "Front rank base" is not in the glossary. The melee phase section refers to bases whose front edge is in contact with enemy, but when referring to the overlap situation simply says "an overlap fights against the same enemy base as the friendly base for which it provides an overlap"....but which base in the "overlap" is the front rank base? The base in the overlap position or the front of the overlapping file? No clarity.

It should be pointed out that a file can have more than one front rank base. If a BG is attacked in the rear as well as the front, and a file has enemy bases in contact with the front and rear of the file, the rear rank base is turned and is treated as a "front rank" base. So there is a precedence that a file can have more than one "front rank" base but is it intended that a base mid-way in a file in an overlap position be treated as such???

The only resolution is to ask dave_r and go with the opposite; and if the authors agree with dave, then for sure it's the other way around.

shadowdragon wrote:The only resolution is to ask dave_r and go with the opposite; and if the authors agree with dave, then for sure it's the other way around.

That seems fairest

grahambriggs wrote:Your second point is inaccurate I think.

That should teach me not to make broad, general statements. I stand corrected.

Or are you saying that this rule allows the fifth rank of pike to fight?

Do I really need to answer this question? Although, interestingly enough, the RAW do allow the 5th rank base of pike to fight against another BG as an overlap if it is in position to do so.

It doesn't really. It is not a front rank base. This is what happens when people take a single sentence out of context and ignore the general rules for close combat. Unfortunately, since it is endemic on this board and the authors themselves are afflicted by the disease, there can never be any final resolution.
I'm a firm champion for treating a file as a single unit for combat purposes.

gozerius wrote:It doesn't really. It is not a front rank base. This is what happens when people take a single sentence out of context and ignore the general rules for close combat. Unfortunately, since it is endemic on this board and the authors themselves are afflicted by the disease, there can never be any final resolution.
I'm a firm champion for treating a file as a single unit for combat purposes.

.and what of a file that this attacked in the front and the rear? Does it only get to fight to the front? Can't it fight in both directions? If not, then why the extra -1 POA for fighting in two directions?

shadowdragon wrote:

gozerius wrote:It doesn't really. It is not a front rank base. This is what happens when people take a single sentence out of context and ignore the general rules for close combat. Unfortunately, since it is endemic on this board and the authors themselves are afflicted by the disease, there can never be any final resolution.
I'm a firm champion for treating a file as a single unit for combat purposes.

.and what of a file that this attacked in the front and the rear? Does it only get to fight to the front? Can't it fight in both directions? If not, then why the extra -1 POA for fighting in two directions?

Then it is no longer a file, but two files back to back. Facing is everything.

gozerius wrote:

shadowdragon wrote:

gozerius wrote:It doesn't really. It is not a front rank base. This is what happens when people take a single sentence out of context and ignore the general rules for close combat. Unfortunately, since it is endemic on this board and the authors themselves are afflicted by the disease, there can never be any final resolution.
I'm a firm champion for treating a file as a single unit for combat purposes.

.and what of a file that this attacked in the front and the rear? Does it only get to fight to the front? Can't it fight in both directions? If not, then why the extra -1 POA for fighting in two directions?

Then it is no longer a file, but two files back to back. Facing is everything.

For a situation where a base "in overlap position" is in the middle of some bases, why can't this be considered two files, one behind the other? Why should facing be everything? If two BG's are facing the same way but one behind the other they are are not one file but two files. "Facing is everything", where is this stated in the rules. It only says a file is a front rank base and the bases behind it. If a base in an overlap position is considered a "front rank base" - and why not? It is in contact with an enemy base. - then the BG could be two files one behind the other.

I don't really care one way or another. It is just a rules mechanism, but there is a lack of clarity in the rules which should be sorted out. That is the only point that is relevant in my view.

Let's get really silly with a situation.

A friendly BG is in melee with a one-rank deep enemy BG. The BG in question is 6 ranks deep - 2 HF followed by 4 LF bases. It is facing the same way as its friends. It is in side-edge-to-side-edge contact with the enemy BG but only the very last LF base is in the this position. Does this BG fight with it's two HF bases?

Now what if that BG is also in melee with an enemy to its front so that the 2 HF bases are in melee with that new enemy BG. The LF base at the back is still in an overlap position and can't contribute melee dice or POA. So now the overlapping BG fights as part of the overlap, no? Plus we have two files where there used to be one file. Or, do we now claim that the overlapping bases can't fight in the overlap?

It is just a rules mechanism, but there is a lack of clarity in the rules which should be sorted out. That is the only point that is relevant in my view.

Having a little more input from the authors would be nice but that has also been said to be inconsistent. So we can't win.

But this thread has been good because you all forced me to re-read the rules multiple times. The rules are clear enough for my mind.

bbotus wrote:

It is just a rules mechanism, but there is a lack of clarity in the rules which should be sorted out. That is the only point that is relevant in my view.

Having a little more input from the authors would be nice but that has also been said to be inconsistent. So we can't win.

But this thread has been good because you all forced me to re-read the rules multiple times. The rules are clear enough for my mind.

I'm not sure that input from the authors would help because I'm not sure they thought of these weird / extreme situations that are a product of Phil deciding the read the rules and his various quizzes.

I've also read the rules multiple times and think that on balance Graham is probably right but it leads to some bizarre situations whereas Phil's case makes more sense and won't be as problematic. So I waffle seeing the logic on both sides. Put me down for a 51%-49% - only because I'm not doing decimals.