Slitherine

I had a 4x2 BG that had been fighting and had lost two bases. As luck would have it, I moved rear bases forward to replace lost front bases in such a way that I had the two remaining rear bases behind the central two front bases with no bases to the rear of the front bases on either flank. The enemy BG broke and I purused to a position to become an overlap to another of my BG's in combat.

It is now my turn. I know I can contract one file and move the far flank base into the open spot behind the overlapping base on the near flank. This would, however, leave an undesirable gap in my line of battle. As far as I can see, the rules do not allow me to simply shift one of the rear rank bases over to fill that empty spot. Am I reading that correctly?

Thanks. Terry G.

If i understand it you had a 4 base BG lost two bases won combat routed enemy in your move moved up to overlap position with two base battle group and wanting to get the base not getting a dice behind the front base.

Before your movement you could do a CMT to contract if required and move up as overlap.

I see your situation as this:

A B C D
X E F X

Where A-F represent remaining bases and X is where a lost base has been removed. A (or D) has moved to an overlap position as a result of a pursuit, so you could not change formation as part of that move. As I read pages 72/73 there is no reason why E for F cannot move to a position behind A (or D) if that would allow them to contribute to the melee as:

They are not able to currently contribute.

They have no enemy in front edge contact.

Moving them does not cause contraction by more than 1 file.

kevinj wrote:I see your situation as this:

A B C D
X E F X

Where A-F represent remaining bases and X is where a lost base has been removed. A (or D) has moved to an overlap position as a result of a pursuit, so you could not change formation as part of that move. As I read pages 72/73 there is no reason why E for F cannot move to a position behind A (or D) if that would allow them to contribute to the melee as:

They are not able to currently contribute.

They have no enemy in front edge contact.

Moving them does not cause contraction by more than 1 file.

But does that type move maintain the "rectangular" requirement?

I can't say, never had this situation.

John

But does that type move maintain the "rectangular" requirement?

P23 covers this. The rear rank is allowed to have fewer bases than any other. There is no requirement for the positioning of these bases.

Doesn't feeding in more bases require that you move a whole file?

In which case you would have to reduce your frontage and not slide a rear rank base across.

According to P72 the expansions/contractions menationed are rule mechanisms to allow feeding in and are not compulsory. As far as I can see, the rule relates to moving bases, not files.

kevinj wrote:According to P72 the expansions/contractions menationed are rule mechanisms to allow feeding in and are not compulsory. As far as I can see, the rule relates to moving bases, not files.

Having checked my rule book I agree with Kevin.

You could it seems just shift an unengaged base from the rear.

Here is a related question: does a BG feeding more bass into a melee need to maintain a legal formation?

Marc

No. Once in melee a BG does not have to maintain a legal formation, but it may not be split apart, nor can it leave a gap in its front rank. It may not voluntarily move (use a maneuver on the "simple and complex move chart") until it reforms into a legal formation.

I do not think that is correct. I haven't got the book with me, however, I believe it says that you may not voluntarily form an illegal formation. This would include the feeding in of bases, which is not a compulsory action.

rogerg wrote:I do not think that is correct. I haven't got the book with me, however, I believe it says that you may not voluntarily form an illegal formation. This would include the feeding in of bases, which is not a compulsory action.

That was my concern. Page something or another lists the four (?) occasions when a BG may not be in a legal formation and "feeding in" is not one of them. I am not sure this was intended, as it could severely limit a BG's ability to feed bases in. Take, for example, an 8 base BG that is (for whatever reason) in a 2-wide x 4-deep formation when it enters hand-to-hand combat.

Marc

I do not see a problem with two wide and four deep. Just take the back base of each file and get to 3-3-2.
If it were a column of eight, I do not think there is a problem expanding to two wide and four deep, even though two of the bases moved do not contribute to the fighting.

The problem I have had is when there was a lack of space due to intervening friends. A column of four knights could not get to two by two because a friendly BG blocked the placing of the rear rank base. Interestingly, had the knights lost a base in combat, they could have legally fed in, having only a single rear rank base remaining.

The above is a rather rare anomaly. It has happened about twice in a couple of hundred games. The positive side is that it encourages players to line up 'nicely' and not try to be clever when getting into contact.

Don't have my rule book with me, and thus cannot post page numbers. But doesn't the feeding in rule say that bases can be fed in "from one file"? If so, that would prevent the 2x4 BG from feeding in.

Marc

Again from memory, the width of the BG cannot reduce by more than one file.
Perhaps it's time I actually read it

You're right Roger, but if you want to read it then it's on P73! The one file restriction relates to the maximum contraction, not to where bases may be moved from.

Right. After further reading during a game last night I see that kevinj is correct. Which is a relief.

Marc