Slitherine

How can you claim the overlapping bases do not qualify for the POA for being in open, then say that they get to claim the -1 CT modifier for being in open if they win? You are entirely inconsistent.
The base in overlap is in open and fights the base it overlaps with the POA modifiers based on its own position, not the position of its opponent. In this case the MF get no POA against steady spear, so the overlapping file fights at +.

gozerius wrote:How can you claim the overlapping bases do not qualify for the POA for being in open, then say that they get to claim the -1 CT modifier for being in open if they win? You are entirely inconsistent.
The base in overlap is in open and fights the base it overlaps with the POA modifiers based on its own position, not the position of its opponent. In this case the MF get no POA against steady spear, so the overlapping file fights at +.

Read what I wrote. I am saying choose one or the other, not both. Either they give the minus to Cohesion or they fight as if in frontal contact. It cannot logically be both.

I wrote:If the overlapping base counts as in open terrain for POA it also implies the MF must take -1 for their cohesion test if they lose, as they are losing to HF in open terrain. The same would be true against a cavalry overlap. Is this the way it is played?

But conversely it probably should be both the way the rules are written
Fight as if in frontal contact
&
Losing to HF in the open
But that is illogical Captain, but perhaps the way it is supposed to work

I think you are reading too much into the rule. A base entirely in open doesn't lose it's POA for fighting in the open just because the base it overlaps has its front partially in terrain.

But it is what the rule says, like it or not. I have never played it that way, and have never seen anybody play it that way. But then I only started reading the rules properly recently.

Oye, my head is spinning

Could it be the " each overlapping file fights w the same POA's and same # of ranks as if it was in front edge contact with the overlapped" bit on page 86 be simply there to clarify what/how files fight in situations in the maneuver phase (75- 76) ESPECIALLY the second last bullet when you have an overlapping file that is not in edge OR corner contact with the overlapped base in question , but a friendly unit to the overlapper has front edge contact to the overlapped enemy flank edge ( would involve 3 bg's ) ?? Or a situation where say a column of 4 deep pike moves up to side edge to side edge contact with an enemy BG? ie there just to clarify "yes the pike gets 2 dice and the 4th rank poa"

Anyhow, I read it as that the overlapping red file gets the spear POA AND the blue, if losing the combat takes the -1 CT modifier.

My question is, the red left file is disordered and loses 1 dice in three..... or does the red BG lose 1 in 3 as a whole ? pg 134 "lose one dice per full x dice, ie round up" The left file only has 2 dice and page 132 , Effects of disorder" seem to make it clear that disorder is situation dependant for the bases "in the situation". It seems odd that if this is the case the BG doesnt lose a dice at all, despite 50% of its troops are disordered.

It doesn't lose a dice at all as it hasn't got got three in terrain.

I read it as that the overlapping red file gets the spear POA AND the blue, if losing the combat takes the -1 CT modifier.

Blue would not be -1 for facing steady HI in the open because it is not. It is facing a disordered base of HI partly in terrain.

My question is, the red left file is disordered and loses 1 dice in three..... or does the red BG lose 1 in 3 as a whole ? pg 134 "lose one dice per full x dice, ie round up" The left file only has 2 dice and page 132 , Effects of disorder" seem to make it clear that disorder is situation dependant for the bases "in the situation". It seems odd that if this is the case the BG doesnt lose a dice at all, despite 50% of its troops are disordered

Disorder is by base not by file per page 26. In Phil's example, only 1 base is in disordering terrain so no dice are lost. If 2 bases were in disordering terrain, they still wouldn't lose any dice as you only lose 1 die for every 3 disordered dice.

I have never played it that way, and have never seen anybody play it that way. But then I only started reading the rules properly recently.

OK, so I'll agree that the RAW could be tightened up to be more explicit, if that will make you happy. But it is written clearly enough that everyone (I hope) is playing it correctly. Let's move on before 'le fromage commence à sentir'.

bbotus wrote:But it is written clearly enough that everyone (I hope) is playing it correctly.

No, it is written so it can clearly be seen almost everyone is playing it incorrectly.

Blue would not be -1 for facing steady HI in the open because it is not. It is facing a disordered base of HI partly in terrain.

Red is partially HF in open terrain. The rule states
"Medium foot testing for having lost close combat even partly against mounted troops or heavy foot in open terrain" and the appendix clarifies that it is the HF that need to be in open to cause the minus and they are fighting with bases that are.

Consider



and are opposing MF. is cavalry all are in open terrain and cavalry are the overlap. Surely this causes a minus to CT. Since according to the appendix it is the troops causing the minus that must be in the correct type of terrain. There is no difference to the effect of the wording upon the cavalry if all the MF bases are in terrain but the overlapping cavalry is still in open. Just like the HF above.

philqw78 wrote:I'm aware of that. But the rules on P86 say:
"Each overlapping file fights with the same net POA's and same number of ranks as if it were in front edge contact with the overlapped enemy base"
If it were in front edge contact it would be in the terrain in my example so no plus for 4th rank of pike.

It could be in front edge contact without being in terrain. It doesn't say front edge AND front corners to front corners.

grahambriggs wrote:It could be in front edge contact without being in terrain. It doesn't say front edge AND front corners to front corners.

Good point, you win in the original post, sort of.

What if you make the piece of terrain square.

Now what. To be in partial frontal contact it must be in terrain.

Not necessarily, my front edge could contact the blue flank.

Which would make the 'sort of' winning I said above worth arguing, even though its silly.

"Medium foot testing for having lost close combat even partly against mounted troops or heavy foot in open terrain"

I read this a little (lot) different. If the MF lose while fighting 2 BGs and 1 of them is Mtd or Heavy in open, then the MF would take a -1 CT.

Consider



and are opposing MF. is cavalry all are in open terrain and cavalry are the overlap. Surely this causes a minus to CT. Since according to the appendix it is the troops causing the minus that must be in the correct type of terrain. There is no difference to the effect of the wording upon the cavalry if all the MF bases are in terrain but the overlapping cavalry is still in open. Just like the HF above.

The MF are fighting the MF not the overlappers. Overlappers only provide dice to help beat the enemy. You always fight the base directly in front of you. You can never fight the base that is overlapping you. If you could, then Pages 76-77 are superfluous.

bbotus wrote: If you could, then Pages 76-77 are superfluous.

P 76 and 77 are about those BG touching enemy but are not commited to close combat. These BG are not fighting, they are not adding any dice. Overlaps do. So overlaps are in close combat and are therefore fighting.

Someone who stands there to be punched by one man whilst trading blows with another could I suppose claim to only be fighting one of them, but both his opponents would be fighting him.

I guess the question really is: Where are we going with this?

I agree with Graham that an overlap that is in the open does not need full frontal contact to count POA's as if in frontal contact so would not fight as if disordered in the original diagram.

Not sure on the overlap giving a minus to MF cohesion if the MF is as in the original diagram, but since a bit of it is sticking out of the rough it should take a minus for facing HF in open from the overlap. IMO. So keep your MF totally in terrain.

I guess we go back to your comment some time ago.

philqw78 wrote:But it is what the rule says, like it or not. I have never played it that way, and have never seen anybody play it that way. But then I only started reading the rules properly recently.

Why do you think everyone is not playing the rules the way you are currently interpreting them?

I was assuming frontal contact would have to be full frontal, but have agreed with Graham it does not. So as far as I know people are playing that OK.

As for overlaps in good going not causing a minus to CT I believe a lot of people may be playing it incorrectly.

What is the authors' intent and could they agree on it is the next question.

As for overlaps in good going not causing a minus to CT I believe a lot of people may be playing it incorrectly.

What is the authors' intent and could they agree on it is the next question.

I've just gone though a 1000 posts on this site and nothing on the overlaps causing the minus CT. No questions, no author responds (of course). Are you sure you are reading it right when a lot of people may be playing it incorrectly? I find I make the most reading errors when I take something specific but fail to keep the overall context in mind.

philqw78 wrote:But bases in overlap count POAs as if in frontal contact?

That would put them in the same situation as the base in terrain, so POA's for pike and spear should be evens

This is a false statement. The rule says that a base in overlap fights the same enemy base as the friendly base for which it provides overlap. There is no "as if" qualifier. Bases fighting compare the overall POAs of opposing bases. So in this instance the overlapping HF in open terrain gets a + for being spear in 2 ranks and the MF get no sw POA because they are fighting steady spear. The fact that the MF is facing a base that is disordered directly to its front is immaterial to the POA solution for the overlapping file.

Similarly, should the MF lose, they were in close combat with HF in the open, thus would suffer the -1 CT penalty.
The requirement for the CT modifier is that the affected BG was in close combat with HF in the open. A base in front edge contact or in an overlap is in close combat.
Bbotus had it right all along.