Slitherine

Hey Guys,

From reading other threads on here I wanted to throw out a situation and get feedback to see if I am on the right track with rule interpretations.

We have a Roman HF BG in close combat with a Carthaginian HF BG. A Roman cavalry BG can charge in the impact phase the rear left Carthaginian base, but its not a legal flank charge.

Here is the initial situation:




Now after the impact it’s the Roman maneuver phase. The cavalry have to align itself to the front as it is not in a flank melee. But since there is a BG to the front already there can be no conform to the front. Now because there is no conform to the front does the cavalry BG still conform to the flank





or remain in its initial contact position?





In this next part the situation is changed in that the Roman HF is moved 1 base to its left. The charge goes in as above:




Now the cavalry BG can align to the front and takes up an overlap position.


There was talk about the cavalry forcing the HF to move out of the way to allow it to conform. I would not play it that way as it seems too much to ask a BG in combat to shift over to new opponents. I don’t think its in the spirit of the rules. I think it makes more sense to me to allow the cavalry to conform to the flank but fight to the front.

Can some more knowledgeable players comment as to if I am right and if not where I went wrong.

Submitted humbly

Brian

OK, firstly the situation you have photographed is a legal flank charge. There is nothing that says that base that hits has to be behind a line extending the front of the target, just that one base in the charging BG has to be so.

If you look at P57 you will find that if this is not a flank charge then it can't actually contact the second base anyway as you can't charge a base that is engaged in melee to the front. See FAQ

Which enemy ranks cannot be so contacted if the front base in the file is already in melee to its front?
The first two ranks.

If the Carthaginians were 3 ranks deep then you could charge the third rank but would not conform as it would not be possible withour moving the BG already in combat. Again see the last bullet on P57.

hammy wrote:OK, firstly the situation you have photographed is a legal flank charge. There is nothing that says that base that hits has to be behind a line extending the front of the target, just that one base in the charging BG has to be so.

If you look at P57 you will find that if this is not a flank charge then it can't actually contact the second base anyway as you can't charge a base that is engaged in melee to the front. See FAQ

Which enemy ranks cannot be so contacted if the front base in the file is already in melee to its front?
The first two ranks.

If the Carthaginians were 3 ranks deep then you could charge the third rank but would not conform as it would not be possible withour moving the BG already in combat. Again see the last bullet on P57.

Good points Hammy,

I should have been more careful with the initial setup. I was more focused on the end result and how to handle it. So in the above first pic, move it back an MU .

Regarding what you can contact I must admit I was just going off of the rulebook and used page 56 last point as the guide. I'll check the faq on this.

And the last bullet on page 57 was part of my question. You answer answered that. Its a situation that will more than likely never come up but I just like to try to ask what if questions.

Thanks Hammy

Brian

And in my initial theory I did not show the rear base turning to meet the charge : )

BrianC wrote:And in my initial theory I did not show the rear base turning to meet the charge : )

The rear base only turns to meet the charge if it is a real flank charge.

hammy wrote:

BrianC wrote:And in my initial theory I did not show the rear base turning to meet the charge : )

The rear base only turns to meet the charge if it is a real flank charge.

Good point. I would not have applied the fighting in 2 direciton modifier, and I guess by not turning a base it is a good visual reminder that the BG is only in combat to the front.

Brian

Assuming the charge were possible (e.g. it hit a third rank):

You are compelled by the rules to conform to the front of an enemy base if possible.

Therefore the cavalry are placed in contact with the front of the enemy bases to the (friendly) left of the friendly infantry.

Looks wacky, but it's what the rules say and they also tell you not to worry about it looking "odd".

If it was not possible to contact a front, you would conform to overlap with the side of the cavalry in contact with the side of the enemy, in front of the friendly infantry.

lawrenceg wrote:Assuming the charge were possible (e.g. it hit a third rank):

You are compelled by the rules to conform to the front of an enemy base if possible.

Therefore the cavalry are placed in contact with the front of the enemy bases to the (friendly) left of the friendly infantry.

Looks wacky, but it's what the rules say and they also tell you not to worry about it looking "odd".

I thought the wacky part was to move a BG contacting the flank in a frontal charge and moving it to align with the front. I don't think you can do as you suggest. Take the cavalry and move it all the way to the left side of the Roman HF, they couldn't even move there in their maneuver phase. I think Hammy has it right that if the above could be done, that they would not conform. I can't realistically justify a black hole move that would see it move to a place it cannot even reach if it had a free move.

Brian

lawrenceg wrote:Assuming the charge were possible (e.g. it hit a third rank):

You are compelled by the rules to conform to the front of an enemy base if possible.

Therefore the cavalry are placed in contact with the front of the enemy bases to the (friendly) left of the friendly infantry.

Looks wacky, but it's what the rules say and they also tell you not to worry about it looking "odd".

If it was not possible to contact a front, you would conform to overlap with the side of the cavalry in contact with the side of the enemy, in front of the friendly infantry.

I think hopping over both bodies of troops to the other side is what is meant by the "not possible" - so the cavalry conforms by pivoting into side and corner-corner overlap with the enemy's side and presumably its rear up against the rightward Roman foot, who would no longer count overlap if they remained in that position so can go across and feed into combat to the left.

In my book, "not possible" simply means it is not possible.

Normally the rules mean exactly what they say, not what you think they should say.

MikeK wrote:

lawrenceg wrote:Assuming the charge were possible (e.g. it hit a third rank):

You are compelled by the rules to conform to the front of an enemy base if possible.

Therefore the cavalry are placed in contact with the front of the enemy bases to the (friendly) left of the friendly infantry.

Looks wacky, but it's what the rules say and they also tell you not to worry about it looking "odd".

If it was not possible to contact a front, you would conform to overlap with the side of the cavalry in contact with the side of the enemy, in front of the friendly infantry.

I think hopping over both bodies of troops to the other side is what is meant by the "not possible" - so the cavalry conforms by pivoting into side and corner-corner overlap with the enemy's side and presumably its rear up against the rightward Roman foot, who would no longer count overlap if they remained in that position so can go across and feed into combat to the left.

Is this what you mean?


Then


Brian

lawrenceg wrote:In my book, "not possible" simply means it is not possible.

Normally the rules mean exactly what they say, not what you think they should say.

They say "pivot to conform with the front edge of the enemy battle group, sliding the minimum necessary to contact the front edge of at least one enemy base, or to an overlap position if this is not possible."

Pivot and slide. This seems to exclude the possibility of hopping or circumnavigating the troops already in combat and any other nearby troops that are in the way to get round to any open front edge of the target BG.

In interpreting the rules, its helpful to see how the authors would have most clearly written each possible interpretation. I believe that if the authors wanted to have the troops simply placed in frontal contact they would have written "the troops are picked up and placed, not moved on the table, in frontal edge contact with the front edge of the enemy BG contacted, or to an overlap position if this is not possible."

P.S.
Thinking about this, I think this however this would be the correct dynamic dynamic for flyers against ground troops in fantasy FoG.

Brian,

That looks to me to be a reasonable pivot and slide to an overlap possition. It would also allow the righthand file of legionaries to feed in to melee against the spears.

MikeK wrote:

lawrenceg wrote:In my book, "not possible" simply means it is not possible.

Normally the rules mean exactly what they say, not what you think they should say.

They say "pivot to conform with the front edge of the enemy battle group, sliding the minimum necessary to contact the front edge of at least one enemy base, or to an overlap position if this is not possible."

Pivot and slide. This seems to exclude the possibility of hopping or circumnavigating the troops already in combat and any other nearby troops that are in the way to get round to any open front edge of the target BG.

In interpreting the rules, its helpful to see how the authors would have most clearly written each possible interpretation. I believe that if the authors wanted to have the troops simply placed in frontal contact they would have written "the troops are picked up and placed, not moved on the table, in frontal edge contact with the front edge of the enemy BG contacted, or to an overlap position if this is not possible."

P.S.
Thinking about this, I think this however this would be the correct dynamic dynamic for flyers against ground troops in fantasy FoG.

There is no limit specified to the distance or direction(s) of the slide. IMO if there is a path you could slide along, then the rules as written mandate you to take it.

Whether this is what the authors intended remains to be seen. However, they explicitly state in the rules that conforming can sometimes lead to odd results, so they clearly anticipated this kind of thing, if not this specific example.

Personally, I think that these odd situations would be solved if you got rid of the need to conform, but the authors during play testing consistently insisted on conforming staying in.

The rules states "minimum distance". Moving them to the opposite side of the infantry would not be the minimum distance as it would exceed their normal move distance due to having to ride around the infantry to get there.

hammy wrote:Brian,

That looks to me to be a reasonable pivot and slide to an overlap possition. It would also allow the righthand file of legionaries to feed in to melee against the spears.

Thanks Hammy,

Two additional questions if I could.

The Roman HF would get 2 dice and the cavalry would get 4 dice in the melee. And the Carthaginian would have 4 dice against the Roman HF and would they also get 2 dice against the Cavalry from the 2 left rear bases? I guess too that the 2 dice from the front left 2 Carthaginian bases could go against either the HF or cavalry?

And if the carthaginian HF stayed steady the Roman cavalry would need to do a breakoff move correct? And this would be to its right (right side of the pictures)? Or since it was in combat to its front even though it appears not would it break off to its rear instead? If it can't do a full move it moves what it can, and if it can't move at least 1 mu I believe it stays where it is and drops a cohesion level? I take it this would happen the following turn as well if it could not move, so in 3 turns it will rout if it can't break off to a steady enemy?

Thanks

Brian

PS: Its always interesting to hear others comments and interpretations to see what others are doing and thinking.

willb wrote:The rules states "minimum distance". Moving them to the opposite side of the infantry would not be the minimum distance as it would exceed their normal move distance due to having to ride around the infantry to get there.

If there is no shorter distance that allows them to contact the enemy front, then it is the minimum distance. (by definition)

There is no requirement for it not to exceed the normal move distance. Even if that was required, it would still be the minimum distance.

BrianC wrote: The Roman HF would get 2 dice and the cavalry would get 4 dice in the melee. And the Carthaginian would have 4 dice against the Roman HF and would they also get 2 dice against the Cavalry from the 2 left rear bases? I guess too that the 2 dice from the front left 2 Carthaginian bases could go against either the HF or cavalry?

In the position in the last photo, 2 Roman HF fight in melee (2 dice) and 2 cavalry fight as an overlap (2 dice) each on their respective POAs. The righthand files of the HF and Cavalry don't fight. The Carthaginians fight with 4 bases, 2 of them from the overlap they enjoy, all of those hits being against the HF. The cavalry won't take any hits.

This could make moving into overlap a bad idea. For simplicity I assume any reroll abiltiies and the POAs are even on both sides, the Spears cancelling Swordsmen and their Spear POA offset by better Roman armour.

With the HF rolling 2 dice and their opponents throwing 4 dice back at them, it's quite likely the Roman HF would lose their fight and take a cohesion test. The Carthaginians could lose as well, throwing 4 dice and having 4 dice thrown against them, but much less likely than the HF losing.

If the Cav instead did not contact but manoeuvred to prepare for a flank charge next turn (and inflict the needed cohesion loss on the spears), but close enough to the Carthaginians to prevent them feeding a file against the right Roman HF to get 6 bases in combat, then the fight would be 4 Carthaginian spear dice vs. 4 Roman HF dice. Same number of dice and POA as before, with the same chance of the Carthaginians losing the melee. However the Roman HF chance of losing with 4 dice vs. 4 dice is much less than if they were throwing 2 dice.

BrianC wrote: And if the carthaginian HF stayed steady the Roman cavalry would need to do a breakoff move correct?

Break off occurs if at least half its close combat opponents are Steady foot, "counting only front rank bases in contact other than only as an overlap." All the enemy bases are overlap, so it's 0/2 = 0 which is less than half so no break off.

PS: Its always interesting to hear others comments and interpretations to see what others are doing and thinking.

Indeed, it makes it much easier to find my mistakes.

Aloha,

Mike

MikeK wrote:Break off occurs if at least half its close combat opponents are Steady foot, "counting only front rank bases in contact other than only as an overlap." All the enemy bases are overlap, so it's 0/2 = 0 which is less than half so no break off.

I make that 0/0 (no steady foot out of no non-overlap bases in contact).

Best wishes,
Matthew

MCollett wrote:

MikeK wrote:Break off occurs if at least half its close combat opponents are Steady foot, "counting only front rank bases in contact other than only as an overlap." All the enemy bases are overlap, so it's 0/2 = 0 which is less than half so no break off.

I make that 0/0 (no steady foot out of no non-overlap bases in contact).

Best wishes,
Matthew

I make it:
Number of non-overlap opponents = 0
Threshold for breaking off is 0 x 1/2 = 0
Number of steady foot opponents = 0
Number of steady foot opponents is at least the threshold,
therefore they break off.