Slitherine

A couple of points arose from last night's game (NKE v Komnenan Busies):-
1. If troops are moving in a single base wide column, can the column kink? The column in question was of light chariots moving across open ground (no roads, coast etc to follow). If the column can't kink does the 'tail' of the column just flip around to follow straight behind the leader?
2. If a column can kink what happens if you then make a 90 degree turn with the column? Does each base just turn on the spot or do they line up on the leader? If the latter a 90 degree turn could involve quite a lot of movement by 'following' bases.
3. At one point two groups of LH rather rashly charged into light chariots. They soon got a bit duffed up. The LH owning player wanted to disengage from the combat, but we couldn't find the mechanism for this. Is it allowed and if so where is the rule nestling?
4. Meanwhile on another part of the board a group of Knights were heading towards a quaking group of Impact foot. The owner of the foot brought up an infantry group at right angles to his main body, positioned to hit the knights in the flank if they charged into the Impact foot. The knights went in, fought in the impact and melee phases and then withdrew in the Joint Action Phase as the Impact foot remained steady. This left the flanking group of foot with no one to charge in their impact phase! This seemed a bit odd; surely if the Kn go in, the flanking group should be able to hit them whilst they are engaged?

The only other point to mention was the wording of the second POA in the Impact table. We read it to mean that the Impact foot got a POA unless they were charging into shock mounted. However, it could be read as meaning that the foot get the POA unless they are being charged by shock mounted.

Assuming the first meaning is intended a better wording might be 'against any mounted, unless the foot charge shock mounted'.

Regards
Chris

CYRANOINLONDON wrote:A couple of points arose from last night's game (NKE v Komnenan Busies):-
1. If troops are moving in a single base wide column, can the column kink? The column in question was of light chariots moving across open ground (no roads, coast etc to follow). If the column can't kink does the 'tail' of the column just flip around to follow straight behind the leader?

It can kink, see P7, Battle group formations

2. If a column can kink what happens if you then make a 90 degree turn with the column? Does each base just turn on the spot or do they line up on the leader? If the latter a 90 degree turn could involve quite a lot of movement by 'following' bases.

In the current wording:

"The old side edge becomes the new front edge". It could be argued that if the side edge of the column had a kink, then the front edge of the turned group must have a kink too.
"The new front edge must consist of the minimum number of bases so that the width of the turned group is at least as wide as it was deep before turning."
"Other bases are repositioned behind to make the new formation legal"
The word "other" implies that you cannot reposition the new front rank bases to make the formation legal. If the front rank has a kink, it is not legal. This means that repositioning the other bases would still not make the formation legal, so, presumably they cannot be repositioned. This may make the turn impossble for foot as the non-repositioned bases would obstruct the placement of the new front rank.

Given the above reduction to the absurd, the intention must be that the bases line up on the leader. But the rules don't exactly say that, so it looks as though they need to be reworded.

Following bases may have to move a long way, but this can happen under various circumstances in the game and the authors regard it as acceptable.

3. At one point two groups of LH rather rashly charged into light chariots. They soon got a bit duffed up. The LH owning player wanted to disengage from the combat, but we couldn't find the mechanism for this. Is it allowed and if so where is the rule nestling?

There is no mechanism allowing you to disengage. The only possible disengagement is mounted breaking off from steady foot. Apart from that, you are stuck there until one side breaks.

4. Meanwhile on another part of the board a group of Knights were heading towards a quaking group of Impact foot. The owner of the foot brought up an infantry group at right angles to his main body, positioned to hit the knights in the flank if they charged into the Impact foot. The knights went in, fought in the impact and melee phases and then withdrew in the Joint Action Phase as the Impact foot remained steady. This left the flanking group of foot with no one to charge in their impact phase! This seemed a bit odd; surely if the Kn go in, the flanking group should be able to hit them whilst they are engaged?

What you need to do is get your flanking BG into a position where it can do an intercept flank charge. Or hope that your first BG goes disrupted so the knights stay in contact. It does seem a bit odd, but could be rationalised as the knights, realising the flank threat, cancelling the charge and pulling back before any meaningful combat has taken place (as your BG is undamaged) and before your flank charge could be executed.

The only other point to mention was the wording of the second POA in the Impact table. We read it to mean that the Impact foot got a POA unless they were charging into shock mounted. However, it could be read as meaning that the foot get the POA unless they are being charged by shock mounted.

Assuming the first meaning is intended a better wording might be 'against any mounted, unless the foot charge shock mounted'.

Regards
Chris

This has been mentioned before. The authors confirmed that the first meaning is intended. If it was the second meaning, the natural English usage would have been "except" not "unless".

Thanks for those responses.
1. If you have a kinked column and make a 90 degree turn and the 'following' bases try to line up so that their front edges are now in line with the 'leader''s front edge, it is possible that they may either contact another battle group (which could be enemy) or be blocked by other battle groups or terrain from making the move. Is the move then illegal and can't be completed or do you shuffle bases around until you get a legal formation based around the leader base? I think you are saying it is illegal. However that creates the odd possibility of troops moving up close to the side of a kinked column and the column not being able to turn to face the threat. I would have thought that the answer might be to allow the owning player to choose which base (bases) to line up on so that the lead element can be pulled back into line.
2. I would have thought the repeated charges tactic was as viable for LH facing enemy cavalry as for cavalry faced with heavy foot. Seems odd they can't pull off.
Regards
Chris

CYRANOINLONDON wrote:Thanks for those responses.
1. If you have a kinked column and make a 90 degree turn and the 'following' bases try to line up so that their front edges are now in line with the 'leader''s front edge, it is possible that they may either contact another battle group (which could be enemy) or be blocked by other battle groups or terrain from making the move. Is the move then illegal and can't be completed or do you shuffle bases around until you get a legal formation based around the leader base? I think you are saying it is illegal. However that creates the odd possibility of troops moving up close to the side of a kinked column and the column not being able to turn to face the threat. I would have thought that the answer might be to allow the owning player to choose which base (bases) to line up on so that the lead element can be pulled back into line.

It says in the relevant section of the rules that if you are obstructed by other troops or impassable terrain then you can't turn.

I suppose the moral is: deploy out of a kinked column now if the enemy could get close enough to prevent you from doing so later.

However, in many cases you would be able to wheel the head of the column enough to prevent the anticipated enemy charge counting as a flank charge.

2. I would have thought the repeated charges tactic was as viable for LH facing enemy cavalry as for cavalry faced with heavy foot. Seems odd they can't pull off.
Regards
Chris

I think the underlying logic is foot would be concentrating on keeping you out of their formation, hence not attacking aggressively, giving you the chance to get away. Heavier cavalry would be doing their best from the outset to mix it, so will be in a position to stab you if you turn your back.

The most viable tactic for light cavalry against heavy is not to charge into close combat and break off if it doesn't work, but to ride up to effective range to shoot/throw missiles and evade if charged.

What you need to do is get your flanking BG into a position where it can do an intercept flank charge. Or hope that your first BG goes disrupted so the knights stay in contact. It does seem a bit odd, but could be rationalised as the knights, realising the flank threat, cancelling the charge and pulling back before any meaningful combat has taken place (as your BG is undamaged) and before your flank charge could be executed.

Not sure how you will manage this, as unless the intercepting BG starts behind the knights flank, it will not count as a flank charge and may possibly end up as the only unit in contact with the knights.

Don M