Slitherine

Hi all.


First round in Granada (past weekend) Julian Lopez vs Juanmi Morillas:




You can see in the picture, 2 Bg of Cv (Juanmi), fighting frontaly wih 1 Knights Bg of Julian.



CvCvCvCvCv
CvCvCvCvCv
.........KnKn
.............Kn
.............Kn

Red Cv loose a base:


CvCvCv....Cv
CvCvCvCvCv
.........KnKn
.............Kn
.............Kn

Red Cv loose a second base, a base from the first rank must be removed, and Juanmi chose to do this (Kn bases were added):


CvCvCv.....Cv
CvCvCv.....Cv
.........KnKnKnKn


In this way, there is a gap, that can be filled by Cv bases of Black Cv that are not in combat.

CvCvCvCv
CvCvCvCv
....KnKnKnKn

The rules says, that gaps, must be filled by available bases. Available means not in combat?, becuse the second Cv is now in close combat in 2nd rank, it´s this base available?.


Cheers

David

No,

The base removal rules on P116 say that "Other bases of the battle group" not "other bases". In this case the gap is trying to be filled by bases from another battle group.

Red Cv loose a second base, a base from the first rank must be removed, and Juanmi chose to do this (Kn bases were added):


CvCvCv.....Cv
CvCvCv.....Cv
.........KnKnKnKn

Correct Hammy.

In any case this potentially gives the Kn a choice of where to put the middle overlap and therefore is a disdantage to Juanmi. A bad thing. It would be worth the Kn putting extra onto the left hand cav now. Taking one from each file instead takes away that option. Cv on right hold out longer protecting cav on left.

In movement the Cv from the left can be moved to fill an existing overlap if unengaged - which is a completely different mechanic to the one mentioned here which is about immdiately filling holes when they occur. I would need my book to check the definition of an existing overlap though ... and I am not in the right place. Will take a look later an edit f necessary.

Si

My understanding is that a rear rank base can replace a lost front rank base even if it is able to fight from its rear rank position. Also a lost front rank base must be replaced if possible, so it would not be allowed to leave that file vacant.

THe restriction on moving bases that are fighting is in the section FEEDING MORE BASES INTO AN EXISTING MELEE in the manouevre phase.

THe section BASE REMOVAL specifically excludes using front rank bases that are in combat. Non front rank bases are not restricted in this way. They must be used if available. Available in this context means they exist .

Thank you guys, sounds right to me but, there is other question.


When the Cv loose the second base:

CvCvCv....Cv
CvCvCvCvCv
.........KnKn
.............Kn
.............Kn


Juanmi must remove one of the first rank bases. if Juanmi remove this base:


CvCvCv....Cv
CvCvCvCvCv
.........KnKn
.............Kn
.............Kn

Must the second rank base fill the gap?, rules says that available bases of this BG must fill the gap, but, Is the 2nd rank base available?, It´s compulsory to fill this gap with the 2nd rank base? (This base is in combat yet).

If Juanmi don´t fill the gap with this base, in his next bound, he can move to contact the bases of the left BG that are not fighting, it´s correct?.


Cheers

David

Page 116..

Other bases of the battle gorup immediately shuffle up to retian contiguity and fill vacated front rank positions....non front rank bases must be used if any are avaialble....

I believe in tha earlier example the Cv on left can "move more bases into combat" by matching the existing overlap but to get to that position the Cv on the right would need to be down to 1 base due to the above REQUIREMENT (as against option).

Si

Thanks Simon, it´s absolutly clear.


Cheers

David

Does anyone want to comment on the knights having expanded into an illegal formation?

Does anyone want to comment on the knights having expanded into an illegal formation?

Knights charged in column formation and added bases later.


David

That is what I think is wrong. You may not voluntarily form an illegal formation. The expansion must allow the bases to be 2 by 2. The 2,1,1 is not allowed I believe.

I think that the rules is clear.

The last paragraph of "removing bases" on page 116 is only to prevent that a removed base break fighting combat between fighting BGs, so this not aplies in our situation.

The disrupted Knigths carge in their turn in column on waiting the Royal Mamluks (Elite). In the impact is a draw and neither remove bases.

In the maneoubre phase, Knigths conforms and expand to the left to match an existing overlaps and to pin the other cavalry (Superior Lancers).

In the melee phase th Royal Mamluks was disrupted and loose a base, so I remove the left rear rank base. (This is the pic, with General in combat to help them).

In the next turn Knigths expand again to the rigth to match the overlaps from Royal Mamluks.

Combat end in a draw without looses in this turn.

In the next Julian turn, Royal Mamluks loose another base and I remove the left rear rank base. As the Royal Mamluks still in fighting combat after remove this base, the last paragraph do not applies and this movement is legal.

I was created a gap to fill with fresh Lancers in the left extreme that is boring and receiving "free" arrows.

Finally, the two Royal Mamluks hold the Knigts all the game without conceding any VPs, ¡Brave! and the Superior Lancers break, run over all the table and leave it without ralling, ¡Coward!

About the game, a very interesting and funny game with Julian leaving me a defeat but with enough VPs to win the Tournament.

¡The Sultan is Very Happpy!

Simon,

The ruling was quite important to me as if Juanmi had to fill the gap with the second rank, it meant the other Mameluk unit couldn't shuffle up and which left him exposed to the fire of the MF, bow group in front of him. As it was I just had to kill them off the old fashioned way with the knights.

Julian

FoG battles are not generally won or lost on rulings

Si

Quite right but I do get a sadistic pleasure from shooting at defenceless troops...