Page 1 of 2
Feeding in bases (from the mailing list)
Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 9:19 am
by hammy
Consider:
Where p are pike facing down and e the enemy facing up.
The pike are quite entiled to shift a full file to face the enemy so:
But this would mean that the end two filed of the enemy BG get to fight against only three ranks of pike.
The question is can a single base from the lef hand file of pike be added to the rear of the middle file of pike so:
Or is this prohibited under allowed formations?
The remaing pair of pike seem to be stuck where they are as they cannot contract into two five deep files because the fifth base is not contributing and contaction is only allowed if the contracting bases start not contributing to the melee and are contributing after the contraction.
Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 9:39 am
by sagji
It isn't a permitted move under feeding in more bases. The wording is "... contract his battle group by one file to move ..." which means if you can't move the whole file you can't move part of it.
The restriction of moving to provide dice or POA could be read to require all moved bases to do so, or that at least one base does.
Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 9:43 am
by rogerg
I do not have the rules with me. Isn't there something about feeding troops into melee that is an exception to uneven ranks? If there is not such a rule then voluntarily creating uneven ranks would seem to be illegal.
Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 9:52 am
by rbodleyscott
rogerg wrote:I do not have the rules with me. Isn't there something about feeding troops into melee that is an exception to uneven ranks? If there is not such a rule then voluntarily creating uneven ranks would seem to be illegal.
I don't have the rules with me either, but I think it is illegal.
Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 11:59 am
by pbrandon
I do have the rules with me and I can't find any exception to the requirement to have an even number of bases in the third rank either in the "Battle Group Formations" section or the "Feeding more bases into an existing melee" section.
Paul
Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 1:13 pm
by hammy
pbrandon wrote:I do have the rules with me and I can't find any exception to the requirement to have an even number of bases in the third rank either in the "Battle Group Formations" section or the "Feeding more bases into an existing melee" section.
Paul
I think you are right Paul, I was just wondering if the pike could contract into two files of five bases which would have the same effect.
Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 2:09 pm
by terrys
I think you are right Paul, I was just wondering if the pike could contract into two files of five bases which would have the same effect.
The rule states that:
Alternatively, instead of expanding, either player can contract his battle group by one
file to move bases fulfilling the above criteria into a rear rank provided that they
could then contribute to the melee
Therefore you can't move to a fifth rank with pikes (or anyone else). - since they can't contribute to the melee
Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 2:40 pm
by sagji
As I said above the part about contracting having to provide a benefit could be read two ways - either all bases contracted must provide a benefit, or at least one base contracted must provide a benefit.
Given that you must contract an entire file - otherwise it isn't contracting a file - then it is hard to do so and meet the every moved base must provide a benefit.
As it stands at the moment there appears to be no way to replace a previous loss with unengaged bases.
Example:
A Bg of 12 pikemen charges so its left file hits some legionaries and it center and right files hits some cavalry. In the impact phase the legionaries inflict 2 hits and the cavalry 1, the death roll is a 1 so the pikemen loose the front base facing the legionaries and replace with one from behind. In the JAP the cavalry breaks off. In the legionaries movement phase there is no way for the pikemen to replace that loss from the now unengaged pikemen.
Infact even if the BG was 8 pikemen surely they should be permitted to move the 4th rank overlap base to the 4th rank frontal combat - especially as in this case the 4th rank overlap gives a POA but no benefit as it changes the overlap from "=" to "+" whereas in the frontal case the "+" gives the legionaries a reduced chance to hit.
Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 2:54 pm
by hammy
terrys wrote:I think you are right Paul, I was just wondering if the pike could contract into two files of five bases which would have the same effect.
The rule states that:
Alternatively, instead of expanding, either player can contract his battle group by one
file to move bases fulfilling the above criteria into a rear rank provided that they
could then contribute to the melee
Therefore you can't move to a fifth rank with pikes (or anyone else). - since they can't contribute to the melee
I agree now that that is what the rules say but the real question is can the pike do anything other than shuffle three bases across and lose out as a result?
Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:04 pm
by rbodleyscott
hammy wrote:I agree now that that is what the rules say but the real question is can the pike do anything other than shuffle three bases across and lose out as a result?
I don't see how they can. Even if they were allowed to form the formation
they couldn't, because the 4th base doesn't come from single file they are allowed to contract by.
Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 9:32 am
by lawrenceg
I think this may have been the game I was in recently (under topic FoG in Melbourne).
I don't have the rules with me now, but I read them at the time and IIRC you are allowed to EXPAND by one file on the engaged side, or as an alternative to expanding, contract by one file and add bases to rear ranks.
If expanding, I believe the only constraint is that the bases must come from positions where they are not contributing to combat. I don't think you are limited to taking from a single file.
Now, the three pike on the far left were unengaged so could move into the new expanded file.
THe third rank of pike in the original middle file, overlapping the enemy, is contributing to the POA of the front two ranks fighting as overlaps, so it can't move.
If it was not contributing to the POA for some reason, it may be able to move into the expanded file to contribute POA. I wasn't sure if the rules on normal formations prevented this.
The wording on contraction to fill rear ranks (as an alternative to expanding) would appear not to allow idle rear rankers to move into a useful position if the whole file is not moved into such positions.
Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 9:59 am
by rbodleyscott
lawrenceg wrote:The wording on contraction to fill rear ranks (as an alternative to expanding) would appear not to allow idle rear rankers to move into a useful position if the whole file is not moved into such positions.
While this is a literal interpretation of the wording, I doubt if it is what we intended. I cannot see any problem from a historical point of view with contracting part of a file to occupy such positions.
We will have to give this some thought and see if it is worth "clarifying".
Can anyone give any examples when it would have an undesirable effect?
In this case it does not seem to have any effect because
is not a legal formation anyway, so cannot be voluntarily adopted.
As an aside, I suspect that this formation can be adopted as a result of replacing base losses, as this is a compulsory move. (Albeit it might be possible to do it differently to produce a legal formation, I don't see that it is obligatory to do so).
I will be interested to see what my colleagues think, as this seems rather a grey area.
Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 9:05 pm
by shall
I have played this that you CANNOT move a partial file.
All the bases moved must contribute to the melee in some way. I think this is what the rules currently say. Not sure I understand the interpretation that only 1 may need to. It say " move bases if they will contirbute". If you interpret this as only 1 then there is no "they".
The spirit of the rule is to allow more troops to get in if you have some. But by the same measure I always felt this mechanism created one of the inflexibilities of Pikes that cuts in when they have lost a few bases. After all if the pikes were a full 12 this wouldn't be an issue.
Pikes are very strong so the idea that they get less flexible when dented doesn't bother me much. I can well imagine also that pikes - liking to be 4 deep would hesitate to get more involved if only 3 deep.
So on balance I am happy for it to stay this way. I don't in all honesty feel massively strongly either way. I would stick with it as written as I don't feel its worth what would be an amendment as far as I can see.
Next time don't get in melee with 2 bases missing
and the problem won't exist (i know you didn't set out to do that of course
)
Si
Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 9:09 am
by rbodleyscott
shall wrote:So on balance I am happy for it to stay this way. I don't in all honesty feel massively strongly either way. I would stick with it as written as I don't feel its worth what would be an amendment as far as I can see.
Fair enough.
Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 10:55 am
by sagji
The only problem I see it that it also causes problems for large BGs that fight 2 deep, espcially spear.
If it takes a close combat loss, it must loose a front rank base that was fighting, it must then immediately replace this and must use a rear rank base if available. There is no way for it to move this single base depth base to a less exposed position.
It it takes another loss it again looses a rear rank base. It now has two single depth files, and no way to consolidate them into a single double depth file.
It say "move bases if they will contirbute".
I think this can be read two ways
" move bases if they will
all contirbute".
" move bases if they will
collectively contirbute".
Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 11:41 am
by rbodleyscott
sagji wrote:The only problem I see it that it also causes problems for large BGs that fight 2 deep, espcially spear.
If it takes a close combat loss, it must loose a front rank base that was fighting, it must then immediately replace this and must use a rear rank base if available. There is no way for it to move this single base depth base to a less exposed position.
The rule is "Non front-rank bases must be used if any are available,
and can be from any part of the battle group."
It doesn't have to be the rear rank base behind the lost base. There is nothing to stop you replacing it with the rear rank base from a file that isn't currently fighting.
Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 11:50 am
by hammy
Another but related question from a game at the weekend
1 & 2 are columns of knights, s are sper advancing at an angle.
The knights charge an intervening BG of skirmishers (not depicted) who evade clear. Knight 1 rolls a low VMD, knight 2 roll up and hit the spear
In melee the knights have to conform and can do so by displacing knights 1. Another enemy BG to the right of the spear has made it impossible for the knights to expand on that side but there is space for a single base to expand to fight the lefthand spear. Such an expansion will leave the knights with ranks of 2, 1 and 1 bases or an illegal formation. Does the presence of the other knights mean that knights 2 cannot expand even though there is space for a base because to do so will result in an illegal formation?
This is very similar to the shifting a pike base question in some ways.
Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 12:18 pm
by sagji
rbodleyscott wrote:sagji wrote:The only problem I see it that it also causes problems for large BGs that fight 2 deep, espcially spear.
If it takes a close combat loss, it must loose a front rank base that was fighting, it must then immediately replace this and must use a rear rank base if available. There is no way for it to move this single base depth base to a less exposed position.
The rule is "Non front-rank bases must be used if any are available,
and can be from any part of the battle group."
It doesn't have to be the rear rank base behind the lost base. There is nothing to stop you replacing it with the rear rank base from a file that isn't currently fighting.
Which then leaves the base that was in front of it vunerable as it has no second rank, and if you have already taken a loss so you have a single rank on the unengaded end of the BG you have to loose another rear base - potentially leaving you with 2 single ranked bases on the unengaged end with no way to contract to a more appropriate formation.
Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 1:17 pm
by rbodleyscott
sagji wrote:rbodleyscott wrote:sagji wrote:The only problem I see it that it also causes problems for large BGs that fight 2 deep, espcially spear.
If it takes a close combat loss, it must loose a front rank base that was fighting, it must then immediately replace this and must use a rear rank base if available. There is no way for it to move this single base depth base to a less exposed position.
The rule is "Non front-rank bases must be used if any are available,
and can be from any part of the battle group."
It doesn't have to be the rear rank base behind the lost base. There is nothing to stop you replacing it with the rear rank base from a file that isn't currently fighting.
Which then leaves the base that was in front of it vunerable as it has no second rank, and if you have already taken a loss so you have a single rank on the unengaded end of the BG you have to loose another rear base - potentially leaving you with 2 single ranked bases on the unengaged end with no way to contract to a more appropriate formation.
If you already have 1 single ranked base at the unengaged end, you can replace the lost front ranker with the rear ranker behind it. Then, in the next manoeuvre phase you can contract the single ranked file from the unengaged end and put the base behind the single ranked spear in the middle. Hey Presto.
Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 1:22 pm
by rbodleyscott
hammy wrote:Another but related question from a game at the weekend
1 & 2 are columns of knights, s are sper advancing at an angle.
The knights charge an intervening BG of skirmishers (not depicted) who evade clear. Knight 1 rolls a low VMD, knight 2 roll up and hit the spear
In melee the knights have to conform and can do so by displacing knights 1. Another enemy BG to the right of the spear has made it impossible for the knights to expand on that side but there is space for a single base to expand to fight the lefthand spear. Such an expansion will leave the knights with ranks of 2, 1 and 1 bases or an illegal formation. Does the presence of the other knights mean that knights 2 cannot expand even though there is space for a base because to do so will result in an illegal formation?
It would appear so.
Moral: Don't move close to the enemy in daft formations.