Slitherine

Essentially the HF at the front of the file fights twice. The LF never fights as the front of the file. If the charge contacted the rear of the unit so the LF was in front once it faced the charge, then it would fight as the front rank with normal LF POA and loss of 1 die per 2.

Chris

This has always been problematic for me. The rules clearly state that each front rank base fights only one other base. Having the file fight twice means that the front rank base fights twice, once for itself and then again for the non-front rank base. Ditto if support shooting is involved.

The front rank base fights once. The non front rank base fights *as if it were a front rank base*. That's not the same as one base fighting twice.

Maybe this will make more sense. In this special case the entire file fights twice. While this contradicts the normal rule that each file only fights once, it does give a reasonable result from a top down point of view.

Chris

No it doesn't. Since base depth is arbitrary, a charger hitting a formation on its front and side should not get extra files into combat just for missing the front rank base . Why should a BG hitting a BG of MF or cav get fewer bases into combat than one hitting a BG of HF with shallower bases? Creating an imaginary file to deal with it is not top down, unless you are saying this is what the rules authors want, and they have the final say.

gozerius wrote:No it doesn't. Since base depth is arbitrary, a charger hitting a formation on its front and side should not get extra files into combat just for missing the front rank base . Why should a BG hitting a BG of MF or cav get fewer bases into combat than one hitting a BG of HF with shallower bases? Creating an imaginary file to deal with it is not top down, unless you are saying this is what the rules authors want, and they have the final say.

Base depth isn't arbritrary - otherwise all bases would be the same depth wouldn't they? It's just a game mechanism to prevent cheesy charges.

Base depth is arbitrary. The depth is just a visual aid to make it easier to tell HF from MF on the table, and is based more on figure size than actual formation depth. It says so right in the rules. And the rule as interpreted actually provokes cheesy charges. If I wheel just so, I can catch the rear base of the file and get to fight with an extra file. Naturally, the charger benefits more than the defender because the charger has the option to wheel or not to get more bases in contact. A good choice if I out POA him, a choice to pass on if he out POAs me.

pyruse wrote:The front rank base fights once. The non front rank base fights *as if it were a front rank base*. That's not the same as one base fighting twice.

The rule covering non front rank bases fighting is actually in the melee section and applies to sharing POAs. The Impact section specifies front rank bases fight with 2 dice (generally), support shooters shoot with one die (subject to the usual reductions). The rule covering side edge contact not qualifying as a flank charge says treat such contacts as contacting the "enemy front" It does not say treat such a base as a front rank base. The enemy front consists of the front rank bases of the BG. A front rank base does not fight twice when contacted on its front and side. Two bases in contact with a front rank base choose which fights. The authors have chosen to create a complicated interpretation which is not supported by their own rules, but tries to cover for the statement "all bases in contact are eligible to fight". The authors are insistant that they mean what they say, but the rules contradict themselves, or at least do not convey a consistent logical picture.

gozerius wrote:Base depth is arbitrary. The depth is just a visual aid to make it easier to tell HF from MF on the table, and is based more on figure size than actual formation depth. It says so right in the rules. And the rule as interpreted actually provokes cheesy charges. If I wheel just so, I can catch the rear base of the file and get to fight with an extra file. Naturally, the charger benefits more than the defender because the charger has the option to wheel or not to get more bases in contact. A good choice if I out POA him, a choice to pass on if he out POAs me.

The bit in the rules that states base sizes for mounted, HF anf MF shows it isnt arbitrary. Although it normally isnt particularly important _most_ of the time.

Whats the quote in the rules that you refer to?

the rule as interpreted actually provokes cheesy charges

I disagree. The rule allows charges of this nature and treats them as if they were frontal charges. The alternatives are all worse:

If the step forward counted as a flank charge, clearly this would make these much easier to achieve than the current rules, which have been designed to make flank charges difficult but potentially highly effective. Nobody wants this.

If the step forward required that each base fought as if it were a front rank base, but individually, there would be far greater cheese potential for the charger as they could reduce the Charged BGs POAs or support shooting.

So, the alternative would be to disallow stepping forward in these circumstances, so only the first base that contacts fights. This would open up the cheesey option to mitigate the effect of an unfavourable impact by wheeling or contracting so that the chargers would only count one base fighting.

Isn't that covered by the rule that you cannot wheel in such a way as to have fewer dice in impact than if you charged straight ahead?

If not, then presumably a wording change in that part of the rules would fix it quite easily?

I'm with gozerius, although I'm not particularly bothered about the "impossibility" of one base "fighting twice" - it's only a rule mechanism, after all, not a precise simulation of reality.

If you were positioned slightly more fronatally, you would end up with bases in overlap during the imapct who don't get to fight until melee. So why not have it work the same way when bases can step forward and contact a flank without being in position to count it as a flank charge? Seems both fairer and simpler to me - less need for special rules and wording that can be argued over.

Update: ah! I guess you mean the defender wheeling/contracting in such a way as to limit the number of bases the charger gets in impact?
OK, slightly more cheese potential there, but still not fatal I think.

Contracting to limit the number of bases fighting in impact is something you can do even when directly facing the enemy, always seems cheesy, and I don't think is particularly relevant to this particular discussion.

I'm wondering how common it will be to have a situation where you can wheel to not quite expose yourself to a flank charge, and reduce the number of bases that the charger will be able to bring to bear in impact. If you stay outside of pinning range, the charger will likely to be able to wheel across your front to get more bases in. so the concern would be advancing into pinning ragne and wheeling slightly away from the enemy.

Feels to me like the solution to that should be to limit what can be done when you move into a threat zone. Can't remember what the rules say ATM, but I thought there were already restrictions on wheeling in a threat zone.

No, I was referring to the target contracting/wheeling to minimise the bases that a charger could contact with.

ShrubMiK wrote:Feels to me like the solution to that should be to limit what can be done when you move into a threat zone. Can't remember what the rules say ATM, but I thought there were already restrictions on wheeling in a threat zone.

Restricted Area is the 'threat zone' mechanism which only permits wheeling that attempts to reach a position that is parallel with the enemy's front face. In addition, there is a restriction on wheeling within 1 MU of the enemy if you want your eligible flank charge to actually count as a flank charge. You can wheel within 1 MU but then your charge counts as a frontal charge and would work the same way as discussed above (second file hitting side edge etc).