Slitherine

How much flexibility is allowed to position bases in the rear rank when there are less than the front rank?

Specific example question:

A BG of 4 Lh is reduced to 3 and end up like so:

LhLh
Lh

It then moves into overlap with friends like so:

____EnEn
____EnEn
LhLhFrFr
Lh FrFr

What options does it have to get the other base involved?

Doe it in fact have to wait for its next move after the move it went into overlap and apply the feed in rule? I'm assuming it can't just shift over there in the turn it moves into overlap, and it can't feed in in that turn as that happens before moves, and it can't feed in in the opponents turn because it is not matching an existing overlap...


Cheers,

Steve

stevoid wrote:How much flexibility is allowed to position bases in the rear rank when there are less than the front rank?

Not a lot. You can choose which rear rank base fills the hole but once you are in a given formation you can't just move rear rank bases because you feel like it.

Specific example question:

Code: Select all

____EnEn
____EnEn
LhLhFrFr
Lh   FrFr

What options does it have to get the other base involved?

Does it in fact have to wait for its next move after the move it went into overlap and apply the feed in rule? I'm assuming it can't just shift over there in the turn it moves into overlap, and it can't feed in in that turn as that happens before moves, and it can't feed in in the opponents turn because it is not matching an existing overlap...

It would have to use the feeding in more bases mechanism although in this situation it might be able to turn 90 to the right then wheel into the overlap and get 2 bases fighting that way.

Nice idea Hammy.

Pretty much confirms what we thought.

Cheers,

Steve

hammy wrote:

stevoid wrote:How much flexibility is allowed to position bases in the rear rank when there are less than the front rank?

Not a lot. You can choose which rear rank base fills the hole but once you are in a given formation you can't just move rear rank bases because you feel like it.

Specific example question:

Code: Select all

____EnEn
____EnEn
LhLhFrFr
Lh   FrFr

What options does it have to get the other base involved?

Does it in fact have to wait for its next move after the move it went into overlap and apply the feed in rule? I'm assuming it can't just shift over there in the turn it moves into overlap, and it can't feed in in that turn as that happens before moves, and it can't feed in in the opponents turn because it is not matching an existing overlap...

It would have to use the feeding in more bases mechanism although in this situation it might be able to turn 90 to the right then wheel into the overlap and get 2 bases fighting that way.

why not just an advance after feeding more base on turn 1
then a 90 ° turn to the left to have the 3 bLH bases fighting to their front the side of ennemi BG on turn 2

why not just an advance after feeding more base on turn 1
then a 90 ° turn to the left

Because this is not allowed. If you are adding dice into an existing melee you cannot turn. The only way you can get your front into contact with an enemy side edge is by legal flank charge. OR. If the enemy is not in combat, turn 90 if already in side edge contact in the manouver phase. In these circumstances no impact is fought.

domblas wrote:why not just an advance after feeding more base on turn 1
then a 90 ° turn to the left to have the 3 bLH bases fighting to their front the side of ennemi BG on turn 2

Because you can't move into flank contact, only into overlap.

You could move to a possition to flank charge but then you wouldn't be an overlap.

hammy wrote:

stevoid wrote:How much flexibility is allowed to position bases in the rear rank when there are less than the front rank?

Not a lot. You can choose which rear rank base fills the hole but once you are in a given formation you can't just move rear rank bases because you feel like it.

Specific example question:

Code: Select all

____EnEn
____EnEn
LhLhFrFr
Lh   FrFr

What options does it have to get the other base involved?

Does it in fact have to wait for its next move after the move it went into overlap and apply the feed in rule? I'm assuming it can't just shift over there in the turn it moves into overlap, and it can't feed in in that turn as that happens before moves, and it can't feed in in the opponents turn because it is not matching an existing overlap...

It would have to use the feeding in more bases mechanism although in this situation it might be able to turn 90 to the right then wheel into the overlap and get 2 bases fighting that way.

It can't feed more bases in - the only options for feeding in bases are to expand into front contaqct or as an overlap - which the rear base can't do, or to contract a column such that all the contracted bases contribute to the combat - which only one of the bases can do as there is only space for 1 more base to contribute.

sagji wrote:It can't feed more bases in - the only options for feeding in bases are to expand into front contaqct or as an overlap - which the rear base can't do, or to contract a column such that all the contracted bases contribute to the combat - which only one of the bases can do as there is only space for 1 more base to contribute.

I am not sure how you come to that conclusion Alan.

There is as I read it no requirement to feed a whole file in.

hammy wrote:

sagji wrote:It can't feed more bases in - the only options for feeding in bases are to expand into front contaqct or as an overlap - which the rear base can't do, or to contract a column such that all the contracted bases contribute to the combat - which only one of the bases can do as there is only space for 1 more base to contribute.

I am not sure how you come to that conclusion Alan.

There is as I read it no requirement to feed a whole file in.

The rule on p 73 is:

"Alternatively, instead of expanding, either player can contract his battle group by one file to move bases fulfilling the above criteria into a rear rank, provided that they could then contribute to the melee..."

If you just shift the rear base across, you are neither contracting, nor expanding.

If you contract, then the third base is not contributing to the melee, which appears to be not allowed.

Perhaps we should regard it as significant that it does not say:

"Alternatively, instead of expanding, either player can contract his battle group by one file to move bases fulfilling the above criteria into a rear rank, provided that they could all then contribute to the melee..."

Then it would be legal to do a contraction as long as at least one base ends up contributing, other bases swept up in the contraction process being "collateral movement". I think this would be stretching the actual wording though, it is not the natural way to understand what is written. IMO it probably is what the authors meant, so official clarification would be nice.

What about the bit:

Troops can thus be moved out from rear ranks that are not fighting, or from an unengaged end of a line to the other end. This represents a gradual spreading of the melee

My emphasis.

That rather seems to imply that rear rank bases only can shift across.

hammy wrote:What about the bit:

Troops can thus be moved out from rear ranks that are not fighting, or from an unengaged end of a line to the other end. This represents a gradual spreading of the melee

That rather seems to imply that rear rank bases only can shift across.

My emphasis. "Thus" implies that it is talking about the manoeuver described above, i.e. an expansion.

IMO the authors intention was that rear rank bases could be moved across without expanding or contracting, and the first paragraph on page 72 supports this view. However, the wording describing the mechanism by which you achieve this only mentions expanding and contracting.

Better wording would be something like:

Bases can only be moved if they are not contributing to the melee.
Bases must be moved to positions where they are contributing to the melee.
The BG can expand by no more than one file on one side: to create a new overlap if you are the active player, otherwise to match an existing overlap.
The BG can contract by no more than one file on one side.

hammy wrote:What about the bit:

Troops can thus be moved out from rear ranks that are not fighting, or from an unengaged end of a line to the other end. This represents a gradual spreading of the melee

That rather seems to imply that rear rank bases only can shift across.

My emphasis this time. 'Moved out' is not 'moved across' : it implies expansion.

It seems to me that Lawrence is right: shifting rear ranks with no expansion or contraction is not allowed as part of 'feeding in' by the letter of the rules, though it probably should be.

Best wishes,
Matthew

FAQable?

hammy wrote:

sagji wrote:It can't feed more bases in - the only options for feeding in bases are to expand into front contaqct or as an overlap - which the rear base can't do, or to contract a column such that all the contracted bases contribute to the combat - which only one of the bases can do as there is only space for 1 more base to contribute.

I am not sure how you come to that conclusion Alan.

There is as I read it no requirement to feed a whole file in.

Because you either expand or contract - here expansion isn't usefull - and if you contract all bases in the contracted file must contribute to the fighting (stated by the writers elsewhere in this forum)

Because this is not allowed. If you are adding dice into an existing melee you cannot turn. The only way you can get your front into contact with an enemy side edge is by legal flank charge. OR. If the enemy is not in combat, turn 90 if already in side edge contact in the manouver phase. In these circumstances no impact is fought.

Check this, and its a detail that rarely matters, but I don't think its whether the enemy is not in combat, but rather whether the BG wanting to turn is committed to close combat already. If it has already fought it can't turn as it is then considerd committed to close combat.

But there are some circumstances where they can. Not common but possible. e,g, enemy pursue into you and fight Impact in your phase. Uncommitted BG on flank with nothing stopping it could turn and fight in the melee unless I am mistaken. So if someone runs into your long line you may get to envelope.

Feel free to correct me if wrong of course.

Si

It seems to me that Lawrence is right: shifting rear ranks with no expansion or contraction is not allowed as part of 'feeding in' by the letter of the rules, though it probably should be.

Best wishes,
Matthew

When we thought about the wording there were issues with things like Pikes. We didn't really want a rear base moving across to recover one that has lost a base, as the drop to 3 ranks is part of the process by which they deteriorate. To a lesser degree the same of other troops.

So its set up that an entire file of Pikes can move from being a spare to an overlap. Course if both front ranks had only 2 ranks left technically you could do it too but by then the damage is largely done.

The current wording does mean that BGs losing bases have to fight that way for a little longer than simply filling them up with spares.

Hope that helps.

Si

So Simon, to confirm the 3 LH example - the LH can't contract to one wide since only one of the 2 contracting LH would be able to contribute to combat, and the only way to get 2 or more of the 3 LH into combat is to advance into side-side edge overlap contact in one turn and then turn to face in another turn?

"Contributing" means counting towards dice, so although the contraction would enable one of the LH to count the second one would be in a third rank and therefore the contraction is not allowed. So I take it that bad terrain that eliminates the 3rd or 4th rank POAs of Pikes could have similar effects, and an expansion on an open flank could be limited to the 2 (or 3) ranks that could fight. After the fight, one could have quite irregular depths and the formation would probably need a turn or contraction in movement to get things organized again.

Certainly I have misunderstood this in the past based on the "until they are all fighting," "contraction and expansions mentioned are merely rules mechanisms", "moved out from rear ranks" language and the two diagrams focusing on contribution to melee and nary a reference to contraction or expansion.

Without knowing the design intention it seemed evident the rule was to address situations such as the plight of the 3 LH by moving rear rank bases. Once I'm clear on this I'll add a note on the design philosophy in the design thread (lost in the crash but I reposted).

Don't sure I understood well all this process, so if my post was off topic please accept my apologizes. Do you mean that if LH BG start to contribute to melee as overlap in such formation, that is:
LHLH
LH_
it never will can use its rear rank base?
But if so, I ask: how can this fit with the concept of feeding more bases in a protracted melee? If so, this means bases not fighting of a BG in melee can enter in melee because you can move a full file, but that a base near to combat remains sit to look the fight because you cannot move a full file. It doesn't sound good. I suppose that author intention was to make a mechanism to let unengaged troops to give a contribution if melee lasts enough. In this optic, I can't see how you can forbid to LH rear base to shift back to overlap position.
More, the rear LH base fulfil all 3 criteria of p. 73. And the point immediately below: "Troops can thus be moved out from rear ranks that are not fighting, ..." this is a complete sentence, in fact it is separated by following with a comma, so for me this means that you can take a base that are not fighting and you place in a position where it can contribute.

Mario.

marioslaz wrote:Don't sure I understood well all this process, so if my post was off topic please accept my apologizes. Do you mean that if LH BG start to contribute to melee as overlap in such formation, that is:
LHLH
LH_
it never will can use its rear rank base?
But if so, I ask: how can this fit with the concept of feeding more bases in a protracted melee? If so, this means bases not fighting of a BG in melee can enter in melee because you can move a full file, but that a base near to combat remains sit to look the fight because you cannot move a full file. It doesn't sound good. I suppose that author intention was to make a mechanism to let unengaged troops to give a contribution if melee lasts enough. In this optic, I can't see how you can forbid to LH rear base to shift back to overlap position.
More, the rear LH base fulfil all 3 criteria of p. 73. And the point immediately below: "Troops can thus be moved out from rear ranks that are not fighting, ..." this is a complete sentence, in fact it is separated by following with a comma, so for me this means that you can take a base that are not fighting and you place in a position where it can contribute.

Mario.

The problem is that there are two parts. The 3 criteria you refer to are the part that covers which bases can be moved, or more precisely that those bases that don't meet the criteria can't be moved. There is a second part that defines how the bases can be moved, and this has 2 variants - either by expanding one base on one side, or by contracting a single file such that all of the bases moved contribute.
The problem is that while the 2 LH on the left are eligbible to move, they can't move by expansion as there is nowhere to expand to, and they can't move by contraction as there is only space for one base to contribute.

Another point. If the only way a BG can feed bases into melee is with an expansion, or a contraction, the diagram on page 73 "Feeding more bases into melee 1" is in violation of the rule. It shows a file "Moving to a position where it can contribute to the combat" by shifting across the entire battlegroup. This is neither a contraction nor an expansion as the frontage remains the same. If the only ways that a base can be moved to contribute to combat is with an expansion or contraction, BGs which count only the front rank for melee and which are in a single line could never shift troops from one end to the other.