Slitherine

I've just been reading p94, 'ovrlaps', and it brought to mind a situation from a couple weeks ago.

I had a bg fighting only as an overlap in corner-to-corner contact. This bg then decided to charge another bg to its front, charging entirely straight ahead.

The enemy bg evaded, and my bg rolled a 1 for the vmd, and being heavy foot, only moved forward 1 MU. This left them in side-edge-to-side-edge contact wih the bg it had originally been overlaping.

From reading p94 it seems like they would then have been elligible to fight as an overlap in the melee phase. However, I'm not sure this feels quite right. In 4.04 there was a paragraph that stated something about walking inti an overlap position in the movement phase, and this could have been iterpreted to counter this situation- as they didn't walk into position but failed a charge-but I can't find this para in the ne version.

What would be the correct thing to do in this circumstance?

You can only fight as an overlp to an exsiting melee so as the frontal melee stopped the overlap stopped.

Si

In this situation
BG A is fighting frontally BG 2.
BG B is fighting frontally BG 1.

Can the left base from AAAA fighting frontally 2222 also fight BG 1111 as a overlap?


Francisco.

jfnavarro wrote:In this situation

Code: Select all

....2222
1111AAAA
BBBB

BG A is fighting frontally BG 2.
BG B is fighting frontally BG 1.

Can the left base from AAAA fighting frontally 2222 also fight BG 1111 as a overlap?


Francisco.

No. You only get 1 dice per base in melee. (Apart from knights etc).

Sorry, I must have been unclear, The frontal combat was still ongoing between to othe bgs.

to clarify:

Then A charge X who evade leaving:
Now are A stll overlapping Y even though A just charged?

EDITED
Oops
Fell foul of space stripping there...I've put dots in now to line thigs up.

Edited by Hammy.

If you do an ASCII diagram use dots for spaces then highlight the whole diagram and click on the code button at the top of the edit window.

Edited by Phil
That still didn't give what I intended... I'll try with uderscores.

plewis66 wrote:Then A charge X who evade leaving:

XXX

___YYY
AAAYYY
AAAYYY
___BBB
___BBB

Now are A stll overlapping Y even though A just charged?

According to the present wording of the rules I think they are, and I don't see that any apparent "anomaly" is worth the trouble of re-writing the rules to exclude it. After all, if they were in that position for any other reason they would count as an overlap. As a general principle we are trying to avoid having to remember events from previous phases, so I think we have to allow this as an overlap.

Thanks Richard.