Slitherine

2 scenarios occured last night where the results didn't 'feel right'. Its on the same theme as Lances' flank contact.

scenario 1

Roman LH (4 Bases in 2x2) charge the flank of Sassanid Clib (4 in single rank). Sass not disrupted due to skirmishers charging flank.

Impact
Roman 1 base in contact (2 dice 1/2 for Skim) @ 3 (++)
Sass 1 in contact (2 dice) @ 5 (--) re-roll ones

Melee
Roman 4 base in contact (4 dice 1/2 for Skim) @ 5 (--)
Sass 1 in contact (1 dice) @ 3(++) re-roll ones

Basically neither side gained an advantage. The LH couldn't break off due to fighting non-foot. Sass where 1 rank deep contacted in flank so couldn't expand in combat ?? Basically as this was on a wing with no other units to intervene, it turned into 'handbags at dawn'. Not enough dice were being thrown to get sufficient modifiers to adjust any COH tests

Scenario 2
Hun LH (4 Bases in 2x2) charge some Skyth LH (5 in line). The Skyths evade going through a gap 80mm wide ending up in formation (2,2,1). They therefore had a 'tail'. The Huns threw up on VMD and caught the Skyths (distrupting)

Impact
Hun 1 base in contact (2 dice) @ 3 (++)
Skyth 1 in contact (2 dice) @ 5 (--) re-roll ones (not getting to 3 to knock off 1p3 for disr)

Melee
Hun 4 base in contact or support (4 dice) @ 4 (+) for Swords
Skyth 1 in contact (1 one in support**) (2 dice) @ 5 (-) (not getting to 3 to knock off 1p3 for disr)

** even though they were facing away we couldn't work out whether the 2nd rank counted.

Again - 4@4 vs 2 @5 should have won - but it never inflicted enought to do 1p3 (or any other COH mods) So, again this bogged.

Both of the above combats went on fo 3+ turns while the rest of the battle resolved quite nicely. It worries slightly that there may be a tendancy for folks to tie up key(expensive) units with cheap troops by only contacting a small portion of the BG (and therefore cutting down on the no of dice thrown).

Thoughts?

Simon

In both these cases the unit contacted can (in the opponent's movement phase) turn to face (See "Reforming") and expand 1 base width to match opponent's existing overlap. (Maybe the wording here is confusing - we don't mean an overlap that fought in the last close combat phase, we mean an element that is in a position to fight as an overlap in the forthcoming melee. This ambiguity is a result of moving the "in melee expansion" to the movement phase).

Thus in both cases, the contacted BG can get 4 bases fighting in the melee phase.

We obviously need to clarify the wording (although it would also be made clear in our proposed diagram). The intended rules I think cure your "strangeness".

The wording on reforming does not suggest that to me at all!!

Well - it all depends.. If a flank base does turn. Then I can see how in 'reforming' the flanked BG could turn - and then expand - fine.

However, if you are contacted solely in the flank - does the end base turn - as in 'the rules who shall not be named'? I can't find any reference (albeit in my 2 minute review)

Simon

However, if you are contacted solely in the flank - does the end base turn - as in 'the rules who shall not be named'? I can't find any reference (albeit in my 2 minute review)

Ok found it... page 12, 2nd para -5th bullet...

Makes sense now ...
[/muppet alert]