Cohesion Test from shooting for those fighting as overlap

[fgilson]

I had a unit fighting enemy only as an overlap, no frontal contact. My opponent caused them a cohesion test from shooting.

Can they benefit from bonuses to test due to a general nearby? (the pluses state that if the unit is in close combat, the general must be with the unit...just seemed a little strange, taking a cohesion test outside impact/melee, not to be able to use a general)

[petedalby]

Great question - and one that might generate different answers.

Quite unusual for this to happen. Did you remember to give the shooters -1 on their POA?

For me the answer is on Page 90 in the definition of Close Combat. This paragraph makes it clear that a BG fighting only as an overlap until it moves away is in Close Combat. Therefore I believe they can only be influenced by a Commander that is with them - Page 113.

[david53]

I had a unit fighting enemy only as an overlap, no frontal contact. My opponent caused them a cohesion test from shooting.

Can they benefit from bonuses to test due to a general nearby? (the pluses state that if the unit is in close combat, the general must be with the unit...just seemed a little strange, taking a cohesion test outside impact/melee, not to be able to use a general)

As you are adding dice to combat your classed as in combat but with the ability to move away charge ect. So you'll only get the general if he is with BG.

[marioslaz]

I don't agree. Shooting can be done only against bases which are not in melee. So IMO is in the spirit of game that a general can add his bonus to a BG which test cohesion for shooting, because he gives bonus to bases not involved into a melee. Anyway, rules writing seem to give reason to your sentence.

[philqw78]

I don't agree. Shooting can be done only against bases which are not in melee. So IMO is in the spirit of game that a general can add his bonus to a BG which test cohesion for shooting, because he gives bonus to bases not involved into a melee. Anyway, rules writing seem to give reason to your sentence.

FAQ obviously missing something here since my interpretation of the rules would depend on how many BG I had in melee and how many shooty troops the enemy had at the time.

[david53]

I don't agree. Shooting can be done only against bases which are not in melee. So IMO is in the spirit of game that a general can add his bonus to a BG which test cohesion for shooting, because he gives bonus to bases not involved into a melee. Anyway, rules writing seem to give reason to your sentence.

FAQ obviously missing something here since my interpretation of the rules would depend on how many BG I had in melee and how many shooty troops the enemy had at the time.

I thought he said one BG in Melee and one in overlap.

IIRC you can shoot at the overlap BG at a minus.

The standard hits to test is the same for the overlap.

Have I missed something

[rogerg]

A BG fighting only as an overlap is an exception in the rules to the -1 for shooting and being shot at..
The rules mention being "in close combat, except as an overlap". This clearly implies that if a BG is fighting as an overlap, it is in close combat. (As someone put it to me, if you're rolling dice to hit the enemy, you are in combat) This being the case it cannot count a commander who is not with it.

[deadtorius]

A commander who is with a BG in melee can only affect that BG. Now if there was another general in range he could have used his modifier to help with the cohesion test. I have not been able to find any -1 for shooting at a BG as an overlap but one would have to assume that the target stands of that BG would have to have been the stands that were not adding dice to the melee so that might have caused the shooters to lose a die or 2 depending on how the LOS worked out.

[petedalby]

I have not been able to find any -1 for shooting at a BG as an overlap

My apologies - quite right. Page 95 makes it clear that if the BG is only in close combat as an overlap it does not attract the -1 POA.

Still comfortable it is in close combat - it is adding dice to a melee - and therefore a Commander must be with it to influience its CT.

I expected this to be contentious - glad I wasn't disappointed.

[fgilson]

BGs in combat only as an overlap do have certain 'exemptions' from particular rules on troops in close combat...but they are not listed as an exemption from requiring a general with them for bonuses to cohesion tests even if it might seem they should...which is why I asked the question.

We decided I could not benefit from my IC and I rolled a 5...which would have passed had I gotten the +2...which motivated me to remember it and ask here.

To clarify, I had one four stand battle group of unprotected average undrilled medium foot with heavy weapon in combat only as an overlap, two stands wide, two stands deep. My unit in face-to-face contact with enemy, adjacent to this small foot unit, was a unit of Elephants (bonus points to someone naming my army, even if now rather obvious).

Enemy shooting at my MF BG was a four stand BG of light horse bow, shooting both its dice at the frontage of my MF BG hanging off to the side (not contributing dice to the combat).

[deadtorius]

Sounds a lot like selucids, one of my own armies.

[aventine]

Na, Classical Indian, the Thracians are protected.

Keith

[batesmotel]

Na, Classical Indian, the Thracians are protected.

Keith

But I don't remember their being any heavy weapon troops on the FoG Classical Indian list. I thought they all count as swordsmen now.

Chris

[aventine]

Chris

Just checked the Errata and the Immortal Fire P34. clubmen can be either protected average or unprotected average/ heavy weapon.

Keith

[deadtorius]

Ah yes the heavy weapons threw me off I was thinking Thracians alright. An army I am working on, I only recently noticed you can have up to 12 elephants, almost seems worth it just to see such a sight on the table top.

[SirGarnet]

I couldn't find a way to take 12 Elephants without skimping too much on other things I wanted. 10, or maybe even 8, is enough to ensure Elephants will be pain for somewhere.

[hammy]

The biggest problem with the Classical Indian army is the limit of 12 elephants. OK, I have mainly looked at using them at 900 and 1000 points but every one of my Indian armies starts with "take 12 elephants"

[deadtorius]

So I am not the only one falling under the lure of the glass main battle line of 12 elephants. Actually I think I would rather max out the chariots, or go for jungle terrain and try my luck with ambushes and archers galore hiding amongst the trees. I would definitely take Blatherguts larger terrain pieces in that case.

[fgilson]

Yes...it was Classical Indian...the little HW unit was originally an elephant support that wheeled and slid a little to become an overlap. I have chariots and elephants...and wanted to use both .

The plan was to have 12 elephants all supported with an IC nearby to convey +3 to shooting related cohesion tests...with chariots on one side, and a large line of poor, unprotected bow MF snaking out the other side...hoping to kill more of the opponent before too many archer BGs died.

I had two elephant units auto-break against enemy cataphracts ;(...and one poor, unprotected MF archer unit bounce some cataphracts...but came out ahead in the end. IC bonus to cohesion tests was very important. Needed to keep him more centrally located instead of having him mess around with redirecting archers.