Restricted area issues

[rogerg]

In the rules as written, the restricted area is not blocked by friendly troops. This is unlikely to be a common problem because no one usually wants to get up into the 'test for rout' distance. However, it can happen and might be an issue with regard to moving troops immediately behind friends in combat.

I had a problem in my game this week with restricted area and non-conforming enemy. I had a BG in melee with an enemy, and a friendly BG that was adjacent to the melee, but a little behind and at an angle. The BG's in melee could not conform. This left an enemy base in partial front edge contact ahead of my uncommitted BG. The position was such that I could not charge it, it was already in melee, could not move into overlap, because the shift would be over half a base width and could not contract out of the way because this is forbidden in the restricted zone. The only possible move was to turn to the rear, walk away, then turn round again. This would be three moves, not really practical.

I will be very careful in future about checking how bases will conform before committing to charges. I suspect that the above may not have been the intention of the rules. A useful amendment might be to state that troops fighting in melee, other than as an overlap, exert no restricted area.

[petedalby]

Hi Roger - an unusual situation as you say.

The position was such that I could not charge it, it was already in melee,

Why not? I can't find this in the rules?

Pete

[hammy]

Hi Roger - an unusual situation as you say.

The position was such that I could not charge it, it was already in melee,

Why not? I can't find this in the rules?

Pete

I think the key was that the base presenting the restricted area was in frontal combat in a non conformed melee and you can't charge a base that is already in frontal combat.

It is a fairly odd situation.

[rogerg]

Yes, a very odd situation. Couldn't charge the base in contact, couldn't contract because the base exerts a restriited area and couldn't move to contact because the shift would be too far. Just waited until the melee ended.

[shall]

Yes and in such odd situations reflecting being a bit too close to the chaos for their liking. Much simpler than many alternatives tried and in pracitce perhaps more realistic too.

Si

[petedalby]

Okay - but one of the original design philosphies IIRC was that a BG shouldn't just be stuck twiddling its thumbs?

If the melee could've conformed, the BG wouldn't be in a restricted area and it could join the combat as an overlap.

As it is a non-conformed melee, why not allow it to go into combat, not at impact but in the manouvre phase, and allow it to fight as an overlap? The conforming vs non-conforming issue is interfering here.

Alternatively, agree that a BG in melee no longer exerts a restricted area

Pete

[nikgaukroger]

One of the original philosophies was also that every unlikey situation wasn't going to be legislated for to avoid unweildy rules.

[rogerg]

I am definitely in agreemeent with not adding rules to try and deal with all the odd situations. I would have preferred the rules to have had 'not in melee' as a line in the restricted area section generally. At this stage in the game I am really hoping to share knowledge of a problem situation that can arise, not from poor game play, but from an unusual positioning (in my opinion of course).

The advice is very much to be careful when committing to a charge. Have a look and see where the conforming bases will end up.

I had another interesting issue this week. I had a two wide, four deep, MF battle group that I opted not to charge with. The friendly BG on its flank was closer than 40mm to the enemy. Had my BG charged, it would have been unable to feed more troops in. Expanding would have formed a 3,2,2,1 illegal formation, no space to get 3,3,2.

[SirGarnet]

I had a BG in melee with an enemy, and a friendly BG that was adjacent to the melee, but a little behind and at an angle. The BG's in melee could not conform. This left an enemy base in partial front edge contact ahead of my uncommitted BG. The position was such that I could not charge it, it was already in melee, could not move into overlap, because the shift would be over half a base width . . . .

I'm really quite impressed with the smoothness of the rules mechanisms and the thoroughness of the rules book, and believe this situation is already covered. Let me know any holes in the following logic.

SOLUTION?
P74 - Restricted Area applies to "normal movement only." I think you can charge it.

p53 says: "A charge cannot be declared if it would contact only the flank or rear edge of an enemy base which is already in melee to its front, except by a 'legal' flank or rear charge." Why not charge the front edge you can see? In the Impact phase it would be 1 element vs. 1 element. Don't chargers need to conform only in the manoeuvre phase?

On p70, under Conforming to the Enemy in Close Combat, it says "conforming usually means lining up each base in full front edge to front edge contat with an enemy base, or conforming to an overlap position . . . ."(emphasis added) and on p71 "Troops that cannot conform by any of the above methods do not move but continue to fight in an offset formation."

Note that an "overlap position" includes (p76) troops already in melee side edge and front corner contact with a friendly "counting as fighting as if in front edge contact with enemy." "Melees that Cannot Line Up" on p86-87 explains this idea further and allows BGs in contact to stay offset but count as in front edge or overlap contact. It does clearly say the base facing more of the enemy front edge is the one that fights, but I don't see where that precludes your base from counting "as in front edge contact" and its comrade next over from therefore counting as overlap. You basically waste an element of frontage for combat purposes but that seems a reasonable consequence under the rules for not getting everything all lined up beforehand.

SUMMARY CONCLUSION: Say you have a 2x2 BG angled as you said on the right side of your BG fighting the enemy. So you charge in, the left front base fighting in impact. You then conform to an offset overlap position as described above, so in the melee phase your left front base does not fight since its neighbor on its left is entitled to do so frontally, BUT your right front base counts as overlap in the ensuing .

NOTE ON RESTRICTED AREAS:
P74 Restricted Area says one of the things you can do is "Conform to an overlap position against another enemy battle group." If it also allowed you to conform to overlap against any enemy BG, not just "another" one, you could do as described above to get into an overlap position. However, lacking another conveniently posted enemy BG, the rules want you to wait for the Impact Phase to charge.

Aloha

Mike

[rogerg]

The p.53 one I had not thought of. I was thinking you cannot charge a base in combat. As you point out, this is not what the rules say. Charging the front edge of a base already in combat is OK. So obvious now. I suspect that the rule writers had not envisaged charging an unconformed base. However, the result is exactly right. The base that contacts would end up as an overlap to the ongoing melee following the one to one impact, just what would have happened if the melee was conformed.