Charges Not Qualifying as a Flank Charge & FAQ 4iii.

[bbotus]

FAQv5.01 paragraph 4iii and page 53 #2 seem to be in conflict. The FAQ says you can't contact the first 2 ranks of a file already in contact to the front by a charge not qualifying as a flank charge. Page 53 says a charge cannot be declared if it would contact only the flank or rear edge of an enemy base which is already in melee to its front , except by a 'legal' flank or rear charge. The FAQ seems to indicate it would be okay to contact the 3rd base in the file with a frontal charge. Can someone explain this apparent inconsistency?

Also, if unit A and B are in melee and C contacts the 3rd base in file of B with a frontal charge (as per the FAQ), how would you resolve this? And then, how would you conform in the maneuver phase?

[fatismo]

Easiest way to work out is, only ranks that are already contributing dice to combat can't be charged.

3-4th rank of any BG don't contribute dice therefore they can be charged.

Also 2nd rank of knights of chariots don't contribute dice therefore can be charged (though why you would have a second rank i dont know)

[hammy]

The FAQ says that the second rank cannot be charged even if it is knights or some other type that does not contribute.

Charges like this are relatively rare and are treated as frontal charges on the front rank base for all purposes so there is no advantage to charging the edge of a deep pike formation.

[gozerius]

The FAQ says that the second rank cannot be charged even if it is knights or some other type that does not contribute.

Charges like this are relatively rare and are treated as frontal charges on the front rank base for all purposes so there is no advantage to charging the edge of a deep pike formation.

I have never liked the way the FAQ handles this situation. Primarily because, as RBS has stated on another thread, rear rank bases are representative only and all ranks would fit in the space of the front rank. For this reason I continue to campaign for a revision to the rule to recognize that all bases in a file should be treated as a single combat unit when contacted by chargers. This eliminates the cheesiness of angling a charge to contact non-front rank bases to add dice to the impact combat. It also eliminates the question of support shooting when more than one base in the file has been contacted. Thus regardless of the number of bases contacting a file by a charge that does not qualify as a flank charge, and regardless of the number of bases in the file contacted, only the front rank base counts its dice and one base capable of support shooting shoots against the base chosen to be fighting that file. It would make things so much simpler. It would require an acknowledgement that BGs in column need a special penalty if caught by chargers. Perhaps make such BGs vulnerable to multiple contacts even when not flank charged.

[bbotus]

gozerius wrote:
For this reason I continue to campaign for a revision to the rule to recognize that all bases in a file should be treated as a single combat unit when contacted by chargers.

I'm with you. This is really confusing.

So two 2x4 pike units A and B are engaged head to head with 4 dice each in melee. Then another unit C attacks pike B and hits it with a frontal attack on the 3rd base in the right file. Both fight impact with 2 dice and the pike gets their pluses for the 3 ranks and the 4th rank. OK so far. Then what? Unit C cannot conform to the front of B since it is already head to head with A. Does unit C just stay in position and not conform at all? Does unit B now get 6 dice in the next melee phase?

[zoltan]

This is how I read last bullet point on page 56/57
1.


2.


3.


4.

Base marked X no longer fights.

[fatismo]

After impact unit C moves into a overlap position beside unit A, and in corner to corner contact with B. A gets 4 dice, B gets 4 dice and C gets 2 dice in overlap.

Why not wait until the manouver phase and just move and slide C into overlap I hear you say, well yes that makes sense but what if C is say, Galatian foot, undrilled and not in a position to join as an overlap, but can reach with a charge, that and they are impact foot and want a chance at disrupting the pike.

[gozerius]

gozerius wrote:
For this reason I continue to campaign for a revision to the rule to recognize that all bases in a file should be treated as a single combat unit when contacted by chargers.

I'm with you. This is really confusing.

So two 2x4 pike units A and B are engaged head to head with 4 dice each in melee. Then another unit C attacks pike B and hits it with a frontal attack on the 3rd base in the right file. Both fight impact with 2 dice and the pike gets their pluses for the 3 ranks and the 4th rank. OK so far. Then what? Unit C cannot conform to the front of B since it is already head to head with A. Does unit C just stay in position and not conform at all? Does unit B now get 6 dice in the next melee phase?

As the rules currently stand, and I hate saying it, the impact is as you describe it. Then you would conform by the minimum necessary to an overlap position, pivoting into side edge to side edge contact, and if necessary sliding backward until you were in contact with the BG in front rank contact.

[gozerius]

This is how I read last bullet point on page 56/57
1.


2.


3.


4.

Base marked X no longer fights.

This is a flank charge though, so not germane to the topic.

[zoltan]

Like this then:

1.


2.


3.

[bbotus]

OK, guys, thanks. Now page 71, 1st bullet makes sense. And the pics helped.

P.S. to Zoltan (Off topic): On your 1st set of pics, Base X gets to fight. Check page 86, Overlaps, 2nd bullet and the example. X isn't in the same position as A in the picture.

[zoltan]

P.S. to Zoltan (Off topic): On your 1st set of pics, Base X gets to fight. Check page 86, Overlaps, 2nd bullet and the example. X isn't in the same position as A in the picture.

Mmmm, I'm not convinced. Your suggestion doesn't seem right to me as it results in 6 bases fighting 4 bases where the 4 bases are only overlapped at one end. If the second cav BG had simply moved into contact to the front (overlapping the foot at one end without turning them), it would be 4 bases versus 5 bases. Your suggestions seems to give the flank charge a tripple whammy. Not only does the foot drop a cohesion level, and the flanking cav fight impact at 2 POA up, but the cav adds a bonus base in for good measure. In melee, the cav effectively have 2 overlapping bases when they have only overlapped one end of the foot.

[nikgaukroger]

Re: picture 3 - I believe you have conformed the right-hand unit slightly wrong, it will conform to an overlap position but that does not mean it moves back in line with the friendly unit as it can be in overlap in side edge to side edge contact with the enemy.

[zoltan]

Re: picture 3 - I believe you have conformed the right-hand unit slightly wrong, it will conform to an overlap position but that does not mean it moves back in line with the friendly unit as it can be in overlap in side edge to side edge contact with the enemy.

OK, I think I understand. It should simply conform alongside the foot at the point where it first touched. Interesting, I think our general practice has been to move the unit back into line with its buddy. Largely academic in terms of effect but visually different.

[imanfasil]

Zoltan - thanks for posting the pics! It makes things very easy to see, even more so than diagrams.

[gozerius]

Re: picture 3 - I believe you have conformed the right-hand unit slightly wrong, it will conform to an overlap position but that does not mean it moves back in line with the friendly unit as it can be in overlap in side edge to side edge contact with the enemy.

OK, I think I understand. It should simply conform alongside the foot at the point where it first touched. Interesting, I think our general practice has been to move the unit back into line with its buddy. Largely academic in terms of effect but visually different.

Depends on what is happening off frame. Could be the difference between being in charge range or not. Also has repurcussions when the foot break.

[TERRYFROMSPOKANE]

I would agree with the picture/diagram except for the picture on page 72 of the rule book. Doesn't this picture indicate the cavalry that contacted the flank of the pike unit would move to overlap position by lining up with their left flank edge in contact with the left flank edge of the first two pike bases (those already in contact to their front)?

I think this is the proper "overlap" position rather than having the cavalry pull back until they line up with their friends who are in contact with the pike front.

Thanks, Terry G.

[zoltan]

I would agree with the picture/diagram except for the picture on page 72 of the rule book. Doesn't this picture indicate the cavalry that contacted the flank of the pike unit would move to overlap position by lining up with their left flank edge in contact with the left flank edge of the first two pike bases (those already in contact to their front)?

I think this is the proper "overlap" position rather than having the cavalry pull back until they line up with their friends who are in contact with the pike front.

Thanks, Terry G.

Yep, that was Nik's comment too.