Internal overlaps

[Aetius]

This one has come up a couple of times - once last night & once previously at Wallenstein last year.

It's not an easy one to describe but here goes.

2 BGs (A & B) from the same side are positioned at right angles to each other - sort of 'L' shaped - both facing into the internal corner of the L.
An enemy BG (X) charges both units simultaneously, hitting them both so that each unit impacted only has 2 base/stand of their BG unengaged on the inward corner of the L.
NB: It cannot step forward it's middle base to contact both A & B (or A or B) as this would break it's formation as the angle of the L means a large forward movement to engage.

In the subsequent melee - the attacker (X) cannot aligned to either A or B - so all remain in the initial Impact position. (Likewise in the next bound the BG's A&B cannot align because they will also get into each others way - both the outer ends of the L were also blocked by other troops - so no room to move).

However - (X) is now left with a strange situation in that it now has 0 overlaps on the outside of the L but has 4 unengaged overlaps on the 2 internal bases at the inward corner of the L (2 from each enemy BG)

The 'ruling' we had at Wallenstein was that "internal overlaps" cannot fight or add to the melee.

Personally I found this odd & couldn't find anywhere in the rules to back that up - but wasn't really in a position to challenge the person making the ruling:
FYI - you know who you are Richard

Having not come across this situation again in the last 8 months I had put it down to an oddity e.g. my own fault for deploying dismounted Tudor M@A & Longbowmen in what I thought was a nice trap for impetuous Warriors (Samurai).

Last night it was a New Model Army P&S BG impacting two BGs of Later Austrian foot - where the centre of the P&S BG managed to miss hitting one of the Austrian musketeer bases in the middle of the 'L'

Anyway - I was just wondering if anybody else could find the page in the rules that clarified this for me (& Mike) my opponent last night?
So in short - do internal overlaps count in melees - obviously we are only talking about the 1 'unengaged' base on either side of the bases already in contact.

Thanks

Mark

[kevinj]

This one's on page 113, " Only the ends of a line of bases counting in front edge contact can be overlapped".

In this instance, based on your description and assuming X is 3 bases wide, fighting as if they had conformed would mean each of the 2 ends would fight the bases they had contacted and the middle base would fight the nearest of those in the innner part of the L. During the next player's turn, assuming nothing prevents it, BGs A nd B should conform to X which will probably result in an overlap at each end of the line.

[Aetius]

Ah yes - but the problem with the Samurai v Tudor game was that the Samurai (Armoured Warriors) were actually 4 bases wide, with the Tudor DMA & Longbow both 3 bases wide.
The Samurai charged & hit the outer edge base of the Tudor DMA (at one end of the L) and the outer edge base of MF Longbow (at the other end of the L).
As there were two other BGs (both Tudor) & both in combat (with more Samurai) at both the ends of the L (if that makes any sense) - there was nowhere for the DMA or Longbow to either move to or expand into.

So the Samurai ended up with 1 base of Warriors fighting the DMA (with the DMA unable to use it's 'internal' overlap base to it's advantage) and likewise the other far flank Samurai fighting the end base of the Longbow (which likewise couldn't use it's own internal overlap bases either).
In fact - neither the DMA or LB or the Samurai could use their internal overlaps, but as the 8 base BG of Samurai was chewing up the MF LB (a cunning & dastardly Japanese plan) it had also 'locked' the DMA in a melee where it couldn't really support the LB. Needless to say the MF Longbow routed, the Tudor DMA dropped in the test, the Samurai then moved in on the DMA & slaughtered them as well ... I draw a sorry veil over the whole scene!

An unusual situation - other than it occurred again last night

But in essence - what we are saying is that is that bases forming an internal overlap cannot contribute to the melee ...

[Aetius]

Actually - re-reading your reply Kevin ... what you say was in direct contradiction to the ruling we had in the game.
As in the example above - the 4 base Samurai fought with it's 2 outer bases - one against the DMA & the other against the MF LB; and both of these fought back with only their bases (1 x DMA & 1 x MF LB).
In your example the Samurai would fight with 4 bases - 2 against each of the DMA & LB and they would also fight back - both with 1 internal overlap.
Or am I getting very confused!

[kevinj]

OK, lets see if we can fix the confusion. Hopefully the picture is near enough to the situation that we've been considering. In the examples I'm not going to include any reductions for base losses or cohesion drops, just the raw number of bases and dice.

Impact is straightforward, the Red BG (A) has charged and hit X and Y. A1 fights X1, A4 fights Y3, one base from each side in contact in all cases. Obviously if A2 and A3 could step forward into X2 and Y2 respectively each would get 2 bases per impact but you said that wasn't the case here.

Now we come to conforming. Clearly A cannot conform to both X and Y so nobody moves.

In melee, both sides fight as if they had conformed.A1/X1 and A4/Y3 continue to fight each other. A2 would have conformed to X2 and A3 would have conformed to Y2 had conforming been possible so these fight each other. Note that these are actually fighting as part of the melee (so can claim dice from A6/X5 and A7/Y5 where appropriate, or 2 dice for the base in contact if one of the types that gets that) they are not overlaps.

X3 and Y1 are not able to participate because no enemy base would have conformed to them and they would not be providing an overlap at either end of A. They are what are referred to as Internal Overlaps.

In the Blue turn X and Y will conform to A, if they are still fighting and there's no other reason not to. At that point one base from each will be overlapping A1 and A4 respectively and would be entitled to fight as overlaps.

I can't comment on whatever interpretation you were given in a game, unless of course it was me that gave it in which case I can only apologise!

[Aetius]

Outstanding - many thanks - the diagram captures the situation (almost*) exactly, and makes it all so much very clearer

For clarity/posterity - it was not you who came up with the 'ruling' during the competition - & I feel that the 'ruling' was given in the "heat of battle" in what was an exceptionally busy/frantic phase of a very complicated battle! It is also not an easy situation for any of us to get your heads around.

Why I am querying it was not to question the integrity of the person making the ruling, but because it seemed to me that the ruling (as interpreted at the time) offered an opportunity for potential abuse in that it allowed a smaller (overall) BG to take on a larger number of troops and play them at their disadvantage.

The thing that I find most interesting is the whole bit around the fact that if bases would be have been fighting - had they been able to conform - then they will be considered to fight as normal, even if they cannot conform. That is a big learning for me.

*on the (almost*) exactly bit - in our game the two Blue BGs could not conform to the Red BG in their turn, for 2 reasons:
1). as they had two friendly BGs, also locked in combat on their outer flanks, so the only way they could have conformed to Red was to have reduced frontage down to 2 bases wide each as there was no room for them to fit in a 3rd frontal base each.
2). to have conformed would have dragged Blue (A) into terrain that would have disordered it (placing it at a disadvantage).

This last point then leads on to a different associated question - which is whether I could have chosen to conform fully (so 3 bases wide) with Blue (B) - the MF LB - which would have fought at less of a disadvantage in the terrain, whilst electing to only conform as a 1 base wide column with the DMA (HF, Heavily Armoured) - which would have been disadvantaged in the terrain? (in fact - as the DMA were already in combat with 1 base & this combat was occurring already outside the terrain - whether the DMA needed to confirm at all?) ... I did say it was complicated

But again - many thanks for the diagram - one I will print off & add to my 'clarification' folder.
Thanks
Aetius

[Aetius]

Sorry - I meant Blue X & Blue Y - not A&B - but you get the Idea I am sure!
Blue Y had a deep Pike Keil fighting along side its Y6/Y3 flank & Blue X had another DMA BG fighting alongside it's X1/X4 flank - but neither of these units could form an overlap as there were gaps along the flanks.
Cheers

[kevinj]

Yes, I'm sure the ruling was given with the best intentions. It wasn't until I sat down with the rules and a few bases that what should happen in these circumstances became clear.