Slitherine

Gonzo wrote: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.

Really

The Rules wrote: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

But if you read the rest of the thread you will realise what has been said.
Also

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.

He doesn't agree with the CT modifier. Keep up

Yes, really. Don't put words into the rules that are not there. A base does not fight "as if in frontal contact" with the base it overlaps, it fights it. The two bases compare their relative POAs. In this case that means that the overlapping HF considers his POAs for being spear in two ranks in the open. The MF considers that he is fighting steady spear. You muddy the waters when you introduce language into the rules that does not exist.

The relevant passages I cite are page 92, "In the melee phase", second bullet; page 94 "Scoring hits - Points of Advantage", second bullet. In neither of these passages is it expressed or implied that the overlapping bases use POAs of the bases in front edge contact with the enemy. Furthermore, the text regarding the effects of disorder is clear that only those bases at least partially in disordering terrain suffer disorder.

Bbotus had it right all along.

He doesn't agree with the CT modifier.

You are both right. Thanks

gozerius wrote:Yes, really. Don't put words into the rules that are not there. A base does not fight "as if in frontal contact" with the base it overlaps, it fights it. The two bases compare their relative POAs. In this case that means that the overlapping HF considers his POAs for being spear in two ranks in the open. The MF considers that he is fighting steady spear. You muddy the waters when you introduce language into the rules that does not exist.

Adding words that aren't there? Try reading the rules! They have been quoted enough times in this thread.

A base fights exactly as if in frontal contact. It says so. Where does your wording come from. I can't remember seeing it in the rules.

Excellent! So by this definition we now know that a base that is overlapping a base whose front edge opponent is in terrain which is impassible to the overlapping base is immediately destroyed for being in impassible terrain. Or do you mean something else?

My passages cited are mentioned in my previous post. Pages 92 and 94. They deal with who fights and how POAs are allocated. I take the passage you cite to mean that the mechanism for determining how an overlap contributes to a fight is assessed the same as for a base in front edge contact, not that the overlapping bases are to be considered actually occupying the position of the base in front edge contact. Else it would be addressed on page 94 re POA allocation as it is for second rank bases.

gozerius wrote:Excellent! So by this definition we now know that a base that is overlapping a base whose front edge opponent is in terrain which is impassible to the overlapping base is immediately destroyed for being in impassible terrain. Or do you mean something else?

It could not be in contact with a base entirely in terrain impassable to it, even as an overlap. It could be in contact with a base partially in the terrain and then, as agreed with Graham earlier in the thread, could also count "as if in frontal contact" with the part of the base not in the terrain. So, as agreed earlier in the thread, the overlap counts POA's for the terrain it is in.

Do try and stop making up ridiculous situations like the one above!

That's my job.

philqw78 wrote:

gozerius wrote:Excellent! So by this definition we now know that a base that is overlapping a base whose front edge opponent is in terrain which is impassible to the overlapping base is immediately destroyed for being in impassible terrain. Or do you mean something else?

It could not be in contact with a base entirely in terrain impassable to it, even as an overlap. It could be in contact with a base partially in the terrain and then, as agreed with Graham earlier in the thread, could also count "as if in frontal contact" with the part of the base not in the terrain. So, as agreed earlier in the thread, the overlap counts POA's for the terrain it is in.

Do try and stop making up ridiculous situations like the one above!

That's my job.

I surrender to your superior sophistry.

But the question on MR Bbotus' mind still persists. Do they count a CT minus for fighting HF or Mounted who are in the open. I believe both you and I contend they do, he believes they do not.

PS no deceit was ever intended, just putting forward a way it could be read after I actually read it.

The correct question is: "Do they suffer the penalty for losing to HF in the open?". The pertinent rule is on page 113. Medium foot testing for losing close combat even partly against mounted troops or heavy foot in open terrain. This is further clarified in the glossary under "open terrain", which states that the base causing the cohesion test modifier is evaluated for meeting the requisites of being in open terrain. Since the objective test is whether they were in combat with HF in the open, I would say yes. The overlapping base is fully in the open and in close combat with the testing BG.

A RAW interpretation would have to conclude that the rear rank bases in open terrain would also trigger this penalty even if all front rank bases were not in open terrain. Doctor?

But the question on MR Bbotus' mind still persists. Do they count a CT minus for fighting HF or Mounted who are in the open. I believe both you and I contend they do, he believes they do not.

On further consideration, I've changed my mind. If MF loses a melee against an overlapping Cav or HF base and the overlap base is in the open, then it does count a -1 on the CT for losing to mtd/HF in open terrain.

philqw78 wrote: Try reading the rules! They have been quoted enough times in this thread.

A base fights exactly as if in frontal contact. It says so. Where does your wording come from. I can't remember seeing it in the rules.

(and earlier) 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.

It's not "fights exactly as if" but "uses the same POA and number of ranks".

So if it is, say, HF spearmen, in the open, but the terrain in front of the opponent is difficult, then:

It uses POA for severely disordered spearmen and only 1 rank fights.

Its state of disorder is not done "as if in frontal contact with the enemy element", so it gets full dice (steady)

Its opponent uses normal POA, not "the same POA as if the overlapper is in frontal contact with it". If it is swordsmen then it won't get the POA as it is fighting steady spearmen.

The overlapper causes cohesion test modifiers according to its actual position, not "as if in frontal contact with the opponent", so it would cause a -1 for fighting HF in the open. Looks as though everyone agrees with this, at least.

While it says in front edge contact lawrence, it doesn't say lined up. So it's not necessarily in the bad going

grahambriggs wrote:While it says in front edge contact lawrence, it doesn't say lined up. So it's not necessarily in the bad going

Aha, so it counts as in the terrain only if it would not be possible to be in even partial front edge contact without being in the terrain (e.g. the side edges are coincident with the edge of the terrain)?


FWIW I think the intention is the overlap uses the same POA and ranks as if it and the ground it is standing on were in frontal contact with the overlapped file.

Or put another way, it fights as if it is where it is and it uses the ranks and (net) POA appropriate to melee combat with the base it is overlapping. Which is the most "natural" way to play it and how everyone plays it (except, now, Phil).

Hopefully the RAW will be fixed in FOG2.

lawrenceg wrote:

grahambriggs wrote:While it says in front edge contact lawrence, it doesn't say lined up. So it's not necessarily in the bad going

Aha, so it counts as in the terrain only if it would not be possible to be in even partial front edge contact without being in the terrain (e.g. the side edges are coincident with the edge of the terrain)?


FWIW I think the intention is the overlap uses the same POA and ranks as if it and the ground it is standing on were in frontal contact with the overlapped file.

Or put another way, it fights as if it is where it is and it uses the ranks and (net) POA appropriate to melee combat with the base it is overlapping. Which is the most "natural" way to play it and how everyone plays it (except, now, Phil).

Hopefully the RAW will be fixed in FOG2.

Ah! The joys of debating the meaning of "as if". Hopefully it will be fixed in FoG2.....as if!

Thank goodness I've mostly - but not entirely - taken gozerius' advice to shut up when debating how many dice for an overlap for another one of Phil's implausible situations.

FWIW I think the intention is the overlap uses the same POA and ranks as if it and the ground it is standing on were in frontal contact with the overlapped file.

That would be how I read it. The enemy could be standing in terrain but its front edge is in open. The definition (page 135) says the base claiming the POA has to be in open ground. Unless they are trying to negate your sword POA with steady Pike/Spear, it doesn't matter what ground the enemy base is standing on.

lawrenceg wrote:

grahambriggs wrote:While it says in front edge contact lawrence, it doesn't say lined up. So it's not necessarily in the bad going

Aha, so it counts as in the terrain only if it would not be possible to be in even partial front edge contact without being in the terrain (e.g. the side edges are coincident with the edge of the terrain)?


FWIW I think the intention is the overlap uses the same POA and ranks as if it and the ground it is standing on were in frontal contact with the overlapped file.

Have you got the authors intention in writing Lawrence?

bbotus wrote:

FWIW I think the intention is the overlap uses the same POA and ranks as if it and the ground it is standing on were in frontal contact with the overlapped file.

That would be how I read it. The enemy could be standing in terrain but its front edge is in open. The definition (page 135) says the base claiming the POA has to be in open ground. Unless they are trying to negate your sword POA with steady Pike/Spear, it doesn't matter what ground the enemy base is standing on.

It would make a difference for pike. But since it is only partial frontal contact that is necessary for frontal contact the point is moot.