Slitherine

Hi

If you have a BG with for example 6 MF Auxilia Palatina with 3 LF with bow in support into a 3rd rank, is the following is correct ?

- They can support in the impact phase (against mounted only) with 3/2 = 2 dices
- In melee they can provide overlap by extending the front line if possible and count as 1/2 dice each rounded up
In this case the POA of the LF is different than the POA of MF, so we must use different color of dice
- In the melee, if a MF is lost, the LF can now fight as a 2nd rank base and count as 1/2 dice rounded up. In this case the POA are the same as the POA of the MF in front rank
- It is also possible that the LF fightin the front rank with their own POA and count as 1/2 dice each rounded up

Thanks
Hervé

I agree with all your points except that the dice are calculated rounding down. Please see page 83 of version 6.0. So in your examples it would be 1 dice for shooting and 1.5 dice rounding down for other situations.

The shooting at impact for the LF rounds up the number half bases so two dice for the three LF. In all other circumsatnces they round down.

I have never thought of feeding them in to an overlap. One dice at potentially rather poor factors and a sitting target for a new enemy charge, a bit desperate.

hcaille wrote:If you have a BG with for example 6 MF Auxilia Palatina with 3 LF with bow in support into a 3rd rank, is the following is correct ?

- They can support in the impact phase (against mounted only) with 3/2 = 2 dices

Correct. Support shooting is calculated as part of close combat so uses the close combat rounding rules.

- In melee they can provide overlap by extending the front line if possible and count as 1/2 dice each rounded up
In this case the POA of the LF is different than the POA of MF, so we must use different color of dice

Correct

- In the melee, if a MF is lost, the LF can now fight as a 2nd rank base and count as 1/2 dice rounded up. In this case the POA are the same as the POA of the MF in front rank

Correct

- It is also possible that the LF fightin the front rank with their own POA and count as 1/2 dice each rounded up

Correct

Thanks !

May i suggest that a little paragraphe about this subject could be usefull to clarify all this points.


Hervé

rbodleyscott wrote:

hcaille wrote:If you have a BG with for example 6 MF Auxilia Palatina with 3 LF with bow in support into a 3rd rank, is the following is correct ?

- They can support in the impact phase (against mounted only) with 3/2 = 2 dices

Correct. Support shooting is calculated as part of close combat so uses the close combat rounding rules.

Interesting. I have been misreading to rounding rules. That certainly makes LF much mroe useful as part of a mixed battlegroup.

- In melee they can provide overlap by extending the front line if possible and count as 1/2 dice each rounded up
In this case the POA of the LF is different than the POA of MF, so we must use different color of dice

Correct

How does this interact with the rules governing legal formations? If the LF in the example above extend the line the formation would end up being three lines of 4, 4, and 1 bases. Not a rectangle. Is this allowed? I know the last rank can have less than the front ranks, but thought that the rectangle still needed to be maintained.

Marc

babyshark wrote:How does this interact with the rules governing legal formations? If the LF in the example above extend the line the formation would end up being three lines of 4, 4, and 1 bases. Not a rectangle. Is this allowed? I know the last rank can have less than the front ranks, but thought that the rectangle still needed to be maintained.

There is no rule that says the formation has to be as rectangular as possible. The only rule is that only the last rank can have a different number of bases from the front rank. But there is no rule as to how much it can differ by. So 4:4:1 is perfectly legal.

rbodleyscott wrote:There is no rule that says the formation has to be as rectangular as possible. The only rule is that only the last rank can have a different number of bases from the front rank. But there is no rule as to how much it can differ by. So 4:4:1 is perfectly legal.

Ahhh. And yet, on p7 of my beta copy of the rules (v6.0) it says "In general, troops must be in a rectangular formation . . . ." The rules go on to say "There are four exceptions to this general case: . . ." The exceptions are for columns, fighting enemy in two directions, as a result of compulsory moves, or to form orb. There is no exception for feeding extra bases into a melee.

Am I missing something?

Marc

babyshark wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote:There is no rule that says the formation has to be as rectangular as possible. The only rule is that only the last rank can have a different number of bases from the front rank. But there is no rule as to how much it can differ by. So 4:4:1 is perfectly legal.

Ahhh. And yet, on p7 of my beta copy of the rules (v6.0) it says "In general, troops must be in a rectangular formation . . . ." The rules go on to say "There are four exceptions to this general case: . . ." The exceptions are for columns, fighting enemy in two directions, as a result of compulsory moves, or to form orb. There is no exception for feeding extra bases into a melee.

Am I missing something?

Yes. The diagram which makes all clear (hopefully) by showing a 4 2 formation as a permitted formation.

I agree that without this diagram the wording could be understood as you did, particularly if you assume that the (unquoted) words between the two bits you quote are not part of the rule to which the exceptions apply. However, a 4 4 3 formation is not rectangular either. The rules do not specify that the formation has to be "as rectangular as possible". If they did, it is certainly arguable whether 4 4 3 is in fact more rectangular than 4 4 1. (Is a banana more spherical than than a cigarette packet?).

Clearly 4 4 is more rectangular than 3 3 2, yet 3 3 2 is specified as an example of how a BG of 8 can be deployed. "Must be as rectangular as possible" is therefore not a tenable interpretation of the rules even without the diagram.

If people still have problems with this after seeing the diagram we can always put a clarification on the web page.

rbodleyscott wrote:

babyshark wrote:Am I missing something?

Yes. The diagram which makes all clear (hopefully) by showing a 4 2 formation as a permitted formation.

Diagrams: dammit! I hate having to wait until February for all to be made clear. Still, it does give me something to look forward to in an otherwise drab time of year.

Thanks for the reply.

Marc