I was reading in detail the definitions of what constitutes an overlap position on page 75-76 and by looking at each of the bullet points I have a couple of questions that though against my common sense might be allowed under the rules ( which might mean my common sense is wrong )
1. The first bullet point doesn't specify anything about the facing of the troops unlike the other two points, should we assume that friends joining a mele in an overlap position in line with bullet point one in the rules can do it even if their facing is opposite to that of the friends already in combat, or was it just omitted based on that because it made common sense that they have to be facing the same direction ?
2. The second bullet dose not require that the troops joining to ONLY contact the enemy corner to corner, this could mean that a unit could join a mele in a way that "cancels" enemy overlaps under bullet point two. example
XXXX
ZZZ
Y
X and Z are figthing, can Y join according to bullet point two or does it require a charge. My common sense is that though all conditions on bullet two apply, overlap means as having a longer battle line than the enemy but since the rules don't say ONLY corner to corner contact with the enemy I could loose the argument.
3. Finally if there are already bases in an overlap position as defined on pages 75-76, can I assume that no units can join on that side unless it is a new charge.. ie.. you cannot replace an existing overlap or can you?
I've read a couple of notes complaining about the language used in the rules, I must say I actually like the language, though it might seem strange at times it does seem to me that words are selected very carefully to allow the minimum number of alternative interpretations and that though it might need some extra attention when reading the end result is very good, and I appreciate that.
seldon
Question on adding toops to an overalp position (page 75-76)
Moderators: philqw78, terrys, hammy, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Moderators, Field of Glory Design
If side edge they could be facing the wrong way - it rarely happens but I have seen it with say cavalry turning to come back into a battle.1. The first bullet point doesn't specify anything about the facing of the troops unlike the other two points, should we assume that friends joining a mele in an overlap position in line with bullet point one in the rules can do it even if their facing is opposite to that of the friends already in combat, or was it just omitted based on that because it made common sense that they have to be facing the same direction ?
Not sure I understand this one. Y cannot add any dice where it is because any 2nd rank have to be part of the same BG. So no use to you where he is. So yes and overlap is an extension of line. If Y started there is couldn't get into overlap either as it more than a half base width shift to do so.2. The second bullet dose not require that the troops joining to ONLY contact the enemy corner to corner, this could mean that a unit could join a mele in a way that "cancels" enemy overlaps under bullet point two. example
XXXX
ZZZ
Y
X and Z are figthing, can Y join according to bullet point two or does it require a charge. My common sense is that though all conditions on bullet two apply, overlap means as having a longer battle line than the enemy but since the rules don't say ONLY corner to corner contact with the enemy I could loose the argument.
?3. Finally if there are already bases in an overlap position as defined on pages 75-76, can I assume that no units can join on that side unless it is a new charge.. ie.. you cannot replace an existing overlap or can you
Well no body can take up the same physical spot but if you could engineer a legal move you could add more bases on the same side. I could imagine this might happen is say you had LF as an overlap and wanted better dice so you intepenetrate them with some elephants so that they are in overlpa posiiton as well. You can only have 2 overlaps a side so they won't all fight but you would rather have the El fighting for better dice. Also note you can move away if only engaged as an overlap so you could "upgrade" your overlap that way too.
Hope I interpreted the questions correctly and glad you like the writing
Si
In this case you have to charge in the IMPACT phase to get rid of the overlap.
This is an important desing distinction that makes sure troops with frontal enemy have to take a round at IMPACT factors as they are taking the brunt of the threat rather than just "helping out while others do the hard work". Criticl in practice or the "pros" will start charging lancers 1 wide and then walking into the melle with the rest to avoid facing the lancers impact clout.
Si
This is an important desing distinction that makes sure troops with frontal enemy have to take a round at IMPACT factors as they are taking the brunt of the threat rather than just "helping out while others do the hard work". Criticl in practice or the "pros" will start charging lancers 1 wide and then walking into the melle with the rest to avoid facing the lancers impact clout.
Si
-
Seldon
- Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
- Posts: 145
- Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 11:25 pm
- Location: Austin, TX
Thanks, my understanding was then correct, except on bullet 1. I think the delicate way in whcih the system distinguishes between when troops that have to charge in Impact and when they can just join is actually a very interesting aspect of the simulation.
To me these kind of elements add a lot of tactics to the game.
Thanks rulemaster !
cheers,
seldon
To me these kind of elements add a lot of tactics to the game.
Thanks rulemaster !
cheers,
seldon