wheeling through friends

[kadeshuk]

One that came up during the Schiltron Competition last weekend:
A Battlegroup matches base to base in an ongoing melee against an enemy of the same frontage and depth. To one flank are 3 friendly battlegroups forming a battle line. If I am correct, the friendly unit adjacent to the engaged unit cannot wheel onto the flank of the engaged enemy battlegroup because it is too close. The unengaged friendly battle group next to it wishes to wheel. I can see nothing in the rules which would permit it to wheel in place, as such a wheel would interpenetrate the friendly battlegroup at the end of the line as it wheels. My intepretation would be that it must advance clear of the battleline before it can wheel. Is this correct, or does one "fudge" the issue to allow the wheel in place?

[hammy]

I am not qute sure exactly what you are describing but remember that it is allowed to shift upto 1/2 a base width to avoid clipping friends P45.

If you could do a diagram or post a photo that would help a lot.

[kadeshuk]

AAABBBCCCDDD
AAABBBCCCDDD
444
444
Battlegroups A,B,C and D are hard up against each other.There is no room for battlegroup C to shuffle 1/2 an MU without pushing B and D out of place. My opinion is that battle group B must therefore clear the front line of groups B and D before commencing the wheel.
Neil.g

[kadeshuk]

OOPS. As the letters get pushed out of place, I should have said that Battle Group C has to clear the fronts of B & D before wheeling.

[domblas]

it cannot wheel as its rear corner would interpenetrate friends, but it can move forward and turn 90 °

[hammy]

Right so what you wanted to do was to wheel a BG out of the middle of a line where the line could not be moved. This is one where in DBM the answer was in the design philosophy part of the rules right at the beginning.

I have always played that such a wheel is fine on the basis that formations are actually not as deep as the bases and are slighlty flexible in reality. There should be nothing preventing part of a line pushing forwards at a bit of an angle and restricting wheels from lines will do this.

Having read through the rules just now I can't find a rule that does infact allow such a wheel so I suspect we are going to need an design team comment and possibly an FAQ item.

Good spot.

[babyshark]

Having read through the rules just now I can't find a rule that does infact allow such a wheel so I suspect we are going to need an design team comment and possibly an FAQ item.

Good point, Hammy. I had just been making wheels like that without thinking about it, but--as you point out--this is just leftover DBM-think. A FAQ entry will be needed, especially if the design team's ruling is that such wheels are NOT allowed.

Marc

[hammy]

Having read through the rules just now I can't find a rule that does infact allow such a wheel so I suspect we are going to need an design team comment and possibly an FAQ item.

Good point, Hammy. I had just been making wheels like that without thinking about it, but--as you point out--this is just leftover DBM-think. A FAQ entry will be needed, especially if the design team's ruling is that such wheels are NOT allowed.

Marc

To be honest I think we need an FAQ entry either way. Someone not comming from a DBM background could well take a default possition of it is not allowed which is the opposite of the DBM way.

[Ghaznavid]

To be honest I think we need an FAQ entry either way. Someone not comming from a DBM background could well take a default possition of it is not allowed which is the opposite of the DBM way.

Quite right, comming from 6th Ed. here, where such a wheel would not be possible, I would have assumed it's not allowed.

[SirGarnet]

Ouch, DBwheel lawyer flashbacks!

Speaking of design philosophy, if BGs wiggling their rear ends about in a wheel was an issue the rules would not be so flexible about depths from other systems while stressing that width is critical (p127). Bases overrepresent actual depths anyway.

In FoG I think the definition of a wheel is careful and precise. It involves rotation of a BG by rotating one front corner of a BG around the other, stationary, front corner. It is measured straight-line from start to finish. It is clear where the BG front edge starts, moves and ends, and the bases are moved from starting to final position. It carefully avoids language like "the BG rotates" that would suggest it is like a puzzle piece caught in place against rotation.

Shifting half a base width to avoid friends is allowed in wheels (though not in double wheels), which should provide enough justification for the internal movement of bases to get to their final position.

Or, if nothing else helps, let's imagine that in reality the men in the rear ranks of the last file or two of the outer end of the formation are sheared off by the side edge of the neighboring BG and are left behind in pieces (or maybe some kind of reddish sticky goo), but the number of men lost is so small as to not change base effectiveness.

As for interpenetration, since non-Commander bases and BGs in FoG only move forward, not omnidirectionally, it is not stated but could helpfully be clarified by FAQ that interpenetration occurs when the moving edge (the front edge) of a base or BG crosses the base of another BG and is not over until the full base passes through. Maybe this is so obvious as to not require stating, but maybe not, and it would also sort out the wheeling issue.

[kadeshuk]

Agreed that the style of Fog is to allow a degree of free flexibility in manouvering (the opposite now being the trend when manouvering under MM). On the other hand, when space to manouver is at a premium, the last point of view pre-supposes a memory-foam type abilty to reform formations without penalty. I find the mental image of shallow , drilled linear battlegroups wheeling from this position acceptable, but less so , say, deep pike blocks or undrilled troops.
Neil.g

[SirGarnet]

I find the mental image of shallow , drilled linear battlegroups wheeling from this position acceptable, but less so , say, deep pike blocks or undrilled troops.
Neil.g

The pike blocks are not actually blocks. I admit that if the troops had to carry an enormous metal rectangular box that was snugly fitted around the unit and against a similar box carried by each adjoining unit when in line, then pivoting it out of there would produce some grinding of metal and shoving against each other if not actual crumpling of metal and tempers, and the box would need to slide out forward for its depth before going on its way.

But we are talking about troops in the field with no fixed relationship with each other and for which any movement immediately creates incremental changes in position (i.e., minor disorder) that the troops are trained to correct by dressing ranks and files, if drllled, and by following the people they are supposed to follow, if lacking drill. It's hard for me to see how our species would have any problem with formed neighboring units in the battle line, even in a formation 16 or 30 ranks deep, that is not dwarfed by the challenge of just managing to wheel in the first place.

NOTICE FOR POTENTIAL NEW PLAYERS:

I WANT TO ASSURE YOU THAT WE ARE SIMPLY DISCUSSING THIS IN GOOD FUN AS PRACTICE FOR A CAREER IN LAW, THEOLOGY, BLOGGING OR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND NO ONE IS GOING TO MAKE YOU ACTUALLY MOVE YOUR TROOPS OUT OF LINE AND THEN WHEEL IF YOU CHOOSE TO TAKE UP THIS GAME.

[MarkSieber]

My experience in wargaming actually did allow me to move to a career assisting community volunteers to engage with our local municipal administration!