Overlaps and flanks

[mikekh]

Apologies if this is in the rules but I'm at work and don't have them here.

Last night we had BG Xs fighting A, B and Cs. C is counting as an overlap.

AAAABBCCC
XXXXXX

The B group routs but the X group can't pursue as it's still fighting the A group.
When it's the C units turn IIRC it can slide along to line up with the rightmost X - this isn't a charge.
It could also advance down and move past the X group.

Is the C group allowed to wheel just short of the flank of X and then in its next turn charge into the flank of X?
Actually, thinking it through I'm sure it can. But I'll post anyway...

[hammy]

It is in the rules under "Battle groups already in combat...." on page 76.

BG C is free to move away but then it was free to move away from the overlap even when it was fighting anyway.

BG C can slide one base sideways and continue the melee. It can also wheel to a possition where it could flank charge next turn but if it does so it will not fight this turn.

[jlopez]

Here's another one:

Two HF units (X and Y) are in close combat. A skirmish unit moves up to overlap X and participates in the melee. All three BGs survive into the next round. In X's manoeuvre phase it can use elements not in combat or providing a POA to counter the skirmisher's overlap. Since this isn't a charge, the skirmishers are unable to evade and are thus "trapped".

Is that right?

Regards,

Julian

[lawrenceg]

Here's another one:

Two HF units (X and Y) are in close combat. A skirmish unit moves up to overlap X and participates in the melee. All three BGs survive into the next round. In X's manoeuvre phase it can use elements not in combat or providing a POA to counter the skirmisher's overlap. Since this isn't a charge, the skirmishers are unable to evade and are thus "trapped".

Is that right?

Regards,

Julian

According to the letter of the rules, they can't evade.
According to the spirit of the section "MOVING INTO CONTAACT WITH ENEMY BATTLEGROUPS" they ought to be able to evade.

[nikgaukroger]

I have a recollection that if you match an overlap provided by skirmishers they have the option to evade - I have vague memories of it happening at Usk, but could be wrong

[Duke68]

If I remember correctly evasion only takes place in reaction of a charge or in reaction of a pursuit move so in this case there's no charge and no evasion.

IMHO a method for solving such problem could be to force the skirmish to do a CMT before allowing them to support as an overlap, but the same situation could arise in other ways i.e. if the skirmisher are aligned with another BG and the enemy only declare a charge on the other BG.

So the morale is: do not deploy your skirmisher in line with other BG and do not commit them to overlap if you want to keep them out of unwanted close combat.

[nikgaukroger]

I have a recollection that if you match an overlap provided by skirmishers they have the option to evade - I have vague memories of it happening at Usk, but could be wrong

Belay that; I've remembered that it was a case of "troops uncommitted to melee" in which case skirmishers can sometimes evade even though they are not contacted by a charge. IIRC that situation is covered right at the end of the Manoeuvre Phase section of the rule book.

[pbrandon]

The bit at the end of the manouvre phase section is about troops in contact at corner or side only moving and what the enemy BG can do (evade if of a type that can and not in melee).

There's nothing in the "feeding more bases into melee" section about it.

Personally I don't think evading is an option. There's also a rationale that of you are that close to the action you should take your lumps. Impact POAs don't apply so why should impact responses? If you don't want the enemy fighting your skirmishers in melee don't put/leave them there.

Paul

[hammy]

I agree, if a BG of skirmishers decides to join a melee as an overlap and then gets sucked into the combat as a result of more bases being fed in then tough. Nobody is forcing the skirmishers to provide the overlap after all.

Where it can get a bit difficult is if a BG of skirmishers is extending a BL that receives a charge and ends up as an overlap then the charging BG pops out another base to draw them in. Even with this the skirmisher player really has had to be willing for it to happen.

[philqw78]

The sensible thing would be to put your skirmishers in side edge contact. This should stop any expansion. Which is a greater bonus I think than getting an extra dice at probable minus or double minus.

[jlopez]

The sensible thing would be to put your skirmishers in side edge contact. This should stop any expansion. Which is a greater bonus I think than getting an extra dice at probable minus or double minus.

Cunning!

Julian

[Duke68]

The sensible thing would be to put your skirmishers in side edge contact. This should stop any expansion. Which is a greater bonus I think than getting an extra dice at probable minus or double minus.

I'm sorry but I don't think that works, if the enemy has some spare stand he can match your overlap even if you are not aligned with his front (at least I don't remember a rule saying you can't).

We have already asked if a BG near the BG in melee but not in contact could be "forced" by an expansion an the answer is yes.

AAAA-BBBB
..........CC
..........CC

- is a gap between A and B smaller than a base width, if C chose to expand like this

AAAA-BBBB
.......CCCC

A is sucked in combat (and it fight with 2 stands vs 1 stand of C)

[jlopez]

The sensible thing would be to put your skirmishers in side edge contact. This should stop any expansion. Which is a greater bonus I think than getting an extra dice at probable minus or double minus.

I'm sorry but I don't think that works, if the enemy has some spare stand he can match your overlap even if you are not aligned with his front (at least I don't remember a rule saying you can't).

We have already asked if a BG near the BG in melee but not in contact could be "forced" by an expansion an the answer is yes.

AAAA-BBBB
..........CC
..........CC

- is a gap between A and B smaller than a base width, if C chose to expand like this

AAAA-BBBB
.......CCCC

A is sucked in combat (and it fight with 2 stands vs 1 stand of C)

Interesting. Page 72 specifies the non-active player can only match an overlap if there is room to do so but imposes no restrictions of the active player. I suspect he would only be able to overlap the skirmishers if the element could maintain physical contact with the rest of the group (page 23).

Julian

[hammy]

In general adding a BG of skirmishers to a melee to get one dice needing a 5 at the risk of any chance whatosever of getting the skirmishers sucked in to the melee is for me not a good plan.