Slitherine

This is a variation on the BGs in column theme. I know that there is one historic sort of precident but I see it as being too gamey for the benefit. If a BG knows that it will be down in impact, it contracts so as to fight the minimum number of bases the bound before impact, knowing that it can expand again after the impact. For example a BG of 4 armoured, average, drilled, defensive spear is about to be charged by a BG of 8 protected, superior, drilled, pikemen. The spearmen contract to 1 file wide so offering the minimum number of bases to be attacked in impact, knowing that they are likely to be evens in melee. Allowing overlap bases at impact would solve this problem.

Any gain in impact from this exposes the BG to shooting problems (if there are shooters nearby).

Also, don't the current feeding in bases rules penalize this as well?

The authors have hinted (well stated really) that there is going to be a penalty for fighting in column.

spikemesq wrote:Any gain in impact from this exposes the BG to shooting problems (if there are shooters nearby).

As you say, only applies if you are about to be shot. Often when you are about to make contact you cannot be shot.

spikemesq wrote:Also, don't the current feeding in bases rules penalize this as well?

Not in the example given. And not for, say, a BG of elephants contracting before impact against legionaries.

Polkovnik wrote:The authors have hinted (well stated really) that there is going to be a penalty for fighting in column.

I think the change in PoA for columns will fix a big part of this. I have also read that there is this possibility of getting one die per every overlap.

If an enemy BG of 4 armoured defensive spear tried to contract before it was in a restricted area:-

1) Shoot it with skirmishers, I only need 1 hit to force a CT. As if its going to charge my LF sitting in front of a pikeblock.
2) If I absolutely had to charge it - then step into the trailing elements of the column. Still 4 dice at impact for us both.
3) Move something either side so it cannot expand - I get a double overlap..... and you can keep your column and chew on it.

The current rules as they stand - which disallow contraction in restricted areas and provide penalties against shooting, only counting the front three bases, making yourself a larger flank charge target etc etc - is effective and does not require revision. Overlaps providing impact dice could become the new 'gamey' move by units that get free hits in impact at poor factors for zero risk.

Lycanthropic wrote:If an enemy BG of 4 armoured defensive spear tried to contract before it was in a restricted area:-

1) Shoot it with skirmishers, I only need 1 hit to force a CT. As if its going to charge my LF sitting in front of a pikeblock.
2) If I absolutely had to charge it - then step into the trailing elements of the column. Still 4 dice at impact for us both.
3) Move something either side so it cannot expand - I get a double overlap..... and you can keep your column and chew on it.

The current rules as they stand - which disallow contraction in restricted areas and provide penalties against shooting, only counting the front three bases, making yourself a larger flank charge target etc etc - is effective and does not require revision. Overlaps providing impact dice could become the new 'gamey' move by units that get free hits in impact at poor factors for zero risk.

I've already voiced my objection to the ability of chargers to force non front rank bases to fight in impact. Unless contacted by a legal flank charge, non front rank bases should not be included in the impact match-ups. It is a cheap way to get extra bases into contact and goes against the stated object to eliminate gamey charges, as well as the Impact combat dice allocation table. (Front rank bases get 2 dice, support shooters get 1 die).
I hope the authors consider this when revising the Impact combat mechanisms.

Lycanthropic wrote:If an enemy BG of 4 armoured defensive spear tried to contract before it was in a restricted area:-

1) Shoot it with skirmishers, I only need 1 hit to force a CT. As if its going to charge my LF sitting in front of a pikeblock.
2) If I absolutely had to charge it - then step into the trailing elements of the column. Still 4 dice at impact for us both.
3) Move something either side so it cannot expand - I get a double overlap..... and you can keep your column and chew on it.

BG of def sp do not contract before impact. Things like lancers do before they hit the def spear. Or cav before they hit camels. Or anything that is good at manouver and will be at a disadvantage at impact. Its very easy to do and hard to regulate against.

gozerius wrote:I've already voiced my objection to the ability of chargers to force non front rank bases to fight in impact. Unless contacted by a legal flank charge, non front rank bases should not be included in the impact match-ups. It is a cheap way to get extra bases into contact and goes against the stated object to eliminate gamey charges

The reason they are allowed to contact bases further back as if contacting front rank was to stop other gamey moves. The major problem as you say though is impact shooting in these situations

gozerius, am sorry, I have to disagree. Unless there is a penalty for fighting in column (there ain't at the moment) Lycanthropic's idea has to be allowed as the best solution.

Lycanthropic, 1 would be good but he also had 4 BG of offensive spearmen doing the same along the line (tougher for those as he had to CMT not to charge) and with a line of battle less than 3MU apart there was no room for Skirmishers, though I will try it on a smaller scale.

2 I will try next time.

3 did not work as it was a battleline.

Phil, as always your thoughts are interesting - same process, different units.

philqw78 wrote:

gozerius wrote:I've already voiced my objection to the ability of chargers to force non front rank bases to fight in impact. Unless contacted by a legal flank charge, non front rank bases should not be included in the impact match-ups. It is a cheap way to get extra bases into contact and goes against the stated object to eliminate gamey charges

The reason they are allowed to contact bases further back as if contacting front rank was to stop other gamey moves. The major problem as you say though is impact shooting in these situations

In my umpiring experience there have been very few people who have had issues with the impact shooting once you have gone through the mechanism. Whilst it maybe falls under the "slightly odd" category, it certainly isn't a major problem in my experience. Certainly not anything like a priority for v2 - personally I wouldn't bother even looking at it.

nikgaukroger wrote:In my umpiring experience there have been very few people who have had issues with the impact shooting once you have gone through the mechanism. Whilst it maybe falls under the "slightly odd" category, it certainly isn't a major problem in my experience. Certainly not anything like a priority for v2 - personally I wouldn't bother even looking at it.

Its not as simple as the rest of the rules. A rear rank shooting base gets to shoot to support itself in impact if contacted on a side edge as though contacted to front

Once you have got the idea that any side edge contact is frontal contact unles it qualified as a flank or rear charge it is pretty simple. In reality its the charged unit reacting to the charge.

On the column issue we are pretty settled on the diea of an over-riding - POA for fighting in column. Should make columns a formation for being well away from enemy.

Si

shall wrote:Once you have got the idea that any side edge contact is frontal contact unles it qualified as a flank or rear charge it is pretty simple. In reality its the charged unit reacting to the charge.

On the column issue we are pretty settled on the diea of an over-riding - POA for fighting in column. Should make columns a formation for being well away from enemy.

Si

And for 2 base BG that have no choice?? Byzantine kataphraktoi?

Si, thank you.

Phil, I agree with your point. It should only apply to BG one base wide and deeper than they can count a dice and/or PoA.

timmy1 wrote:Si, thank you.

Phil, I agree with your point. It should only apply to BG one base wide and deeper than they can count a dice and/or PoA.

Yes, there are 4's of pike. The rule then becomes complex to write. Well, more complex.

Mere child's play for the combined intellects of RBS, Si, and the the good Dr S.

timmy1 wrote:Mere child's play for the combined intellects of RBS, Si, and the the good Dr S.

Catflap, Rich and Filthy?

And if you read the stream where this idea was raised all the above already dealt with.

Basically a column is a non-fighting formation. Any formation where all ranks could contribute to combat then isn't a column in vs2.0 by definition.

Si