Expanding into an existing melee

ravenflight · Post by **ravenflight** » Wed May 18, 2011 5:31 am

Can a bg expand into a new BG who is lending overlap support to his friends?

zeitoun · Post by **zeitoun** » Wed May 18, 2011 7:37 am

yes , see FAQ

kal5056 · Post by **kal5056** » Wed May 18, 2011 9:46 pm

Furthermore if the BG in over lap is one that can evade it CANNOT do so to avoid this combat.

Gino
SMAC

grahambriggs · Post by **grahambriggs** » Thu May 19, 2011 8:22 am

So be careful if you overlap with light foot!

LeslieMitchell · Post by **LeslieMitchell** » Thu May 19, 2011 9:03 am

grahambriggs wrote:So be careful if you overlap with light foot!

Good advice, can this over lap be stop by having the unit which is in overlap make contact part of the way down the side edge, e.g.,

or does this happen

when you create the over lap

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Thu May 19, 2011 10:04 am

Good advice, can this over lap be stop by having the unit which is in overlap make contact part of the way down the side edge, e.g.,

Sadly the BG in melee cannot expand to contact the overlapping LF. Something that V2 might address - or not?

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Thu May 19, 2011 10:08 am

Why not. Those BG not conformed fight as if conformed and may feed in bases.

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Thu May 19, 2011 1:31 pm

I don't think there is any requirement for the BGs as depicted to conform - thus they cannot be in a situation where thye were unable to conform and thus fight as if they had

kal5056 · Post by **kal5056** » Thu May 19, 2011 1:44 pm

The way we have always played is that the light foot are contacted where they stand and are then trapped in this melle.

Can someone point out chapter and verse where this is incorrect?
Gino
SMAC

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Thu May 19, 2011 1:46 pm

The only possible reason here that they cannot expand is they would have an odd back rank. I would need the rules for exact wording

AAAA
AAAABB
__CCBB
__CC

A facing down, B&C enemy facing up

In this case they could certainly expand the left hand column, as we view it, of A to the front of B......IMO

elysiumsolutions@fsmail.n · Thu May 19, 2011 5:08 pm

There is no requirement for the LF to drop back to parallel with the friendly fighting unit as the enemy wishes to expand so I do not believe this is the case.
To me it would seem sensible that the spears can expand to meet an overlap i.e. in front of the LF despite the offset. However, an argument against it is that it is not a legal formation as specified on page 23. "In general troops must be in a rectangular formation with all bases facing in the same direction, in edge and corner contact with each other". This not being one of the 4 listed exceptions.
It would therefore seem IMO that this unfortunately does stop the expansion.
Its not a manoeuvre that I have ever seen done deliberately but if it does stop expansion I can imagine it becoming very prevelant and as such I hope someone can justify why it doesn't stop expansion as its cheesy.

Paul

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Thu May 19, 2011 5:51 pm

There are more than 4 exceptions to this, they are not all listed. Partial Interpenetrations, BG that cannot conform, BG that have stepped forwards.

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Thu May 19, 2011 6:21 pm

philqw78 wrote:There are more than 4 exceptions to this, they are not all listed. Partial Interpenetrations, BG that cannot conform, BG that have stepped forwards.

Don't all of these essentially come under the compulsory move exception on page 23?

Regardless, none allow the expansion in question - mind you I know I have allowed it in games as it is only a geometry thing which is to be avoided if possible.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Thu May 19, 2011 7:34 pm

nikgaukroger wrote:
philqw78 wrote:There are more than 4 exceptions to this, they are not all listed. Partial Interpenetrations, BG that cannot conform, BG that have stepped forwards.

Don't all of these essentially come under the compulsory move exception on page 23?

Erm, No, just because I'm in a contrary mood today. Partial interpenetration can be voluntary. Not conforming is not moving, and the only reason a step forward would be compulsory is if the charge was compulsory, if the charge is not done they don't have to step forward. If they volunteer to charge they volunteer to be made to step forward.

ravenflight · Post by **ravenflight** » Thu May 19, 2011 8:54 pm

elysiumsolutions@fsmail.n wrote:However, an argument against it is that it is not a legal formation as specified on page 23. "In general troops must be in a rectangular formation with all bases facing in the same direction, in edge and corner contact with each other".

Hi Paul,

I wouldn't think it's necessarily an 'illegal' formation. For example IF the spear were in a formation such as they could charge both the lights and the other enemy and IF the Lights 'stood' to receive the charge, then the formation would appear as such after contact. I agree that it didn't occur like that, but the formation would still be the same 'illegal' formation until such time as the combat was resolved.

Correct?

gozerius · Post by **gozerius** » Fri May 20, 2011 1:24 am

There is nothing in the "Feeding More bases into an Existing Melee" section that would prohibit expanding into front edge contact with the LF. Feeding more bases into melee is not a move and so does not count as voluntary movement. This sounds like the geometry fiends trying to DBXXXXXX up the game.

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Fri May 20, 2011 5:58 am

It is probably worth pointing out that if this expansion is not allowed then any BG that has stepped forwards in a charge can also not expand.

IMO this is fine and the light foot cannot evade.

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Fri May 20, 2011 6:30 am

gozerius wrote:There is nothing in the "Feeding More bases into an Existing Melee" section that would prohibit expanding into front edge contact with the LF. Feeding more bases into melee is not a move and so does not count as voluntary movement.

Whether it is movement or not is not relevant to the section on page 23 IIRC.

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Fri May 20, 2011 6:41 am

Page 23 is why I responded as I did. But if all umpires agree that this overlap is cheese and the BG in melee can still expand then I'm all for it.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Fri May 20, 2011 6:53 am

petedalby wrote:Page 23 is why I responded as I did. But if all umpires agree that this overlap is cheese and the BG in melee can still expand then I'm all for it.

The "General" rule on page 23 is very badly worded as we know there are exception as well as those shown, so when, generally, does it or does it not apply.