Slitherine

Let's say two 2x2 BGs are involved in melee, and each fights the other with 4 dice. In the next maneuver phase, one side moves another 4x4 BG into contact as an overlap. My understanding is the outnumbered side will have to devote one die to fighting against two dice from the overlapping file of the new BG, leaving three dice to go against the 4 dice from the enemy BG in frontal contact. Is that correct? Since he has 4 dice and is fighting against three enemy files, could he choose to use two dice against each enemy BG instead of the 3/1 split?

The rule on page 94 says in part "....leaving at least one dice (if possible) against each enemy battle group." The rule does NOT say "including an enemy battle group fighting only as an overlap" but I assume that is the meaning. Is that correct?

Thanks. Terry

TERRYFROMSPOKANE wrote:Let's say two 2x2 BGs are involved in melee, and each fights the other with 4 dice. In the next maneuver phase, one side moves another 4x4 BG into contact as an overlap. My understanding is the outnumbered side will have to devote one die to fighting against two dice from the overlapping file of the new BG, leaving three dice to go against the 4 dice from the enemy BG in frontal contact. Is that correct? Since he has 4 dice and is fighting against three enemy files, could he choose to use two dice against each enemy BG instead of the 3/1 split?

The rule on page 94 says in part "....leaving at least one dice (if possible) against each enemy battle group." The rule does NOT say "including an enemy battle group fighting only as an overlap" but I assume that is the meaning. Is that correct?

Thanks. Terry

In melee you only ever have dice against the base that is in contact with the front of your base. It's definitely in the rules somewhere.

If enemy is in overlap, then it is not in contact with the front of any of your bases. Therefore you get no dice against it.

THe thing about "....leaving at least one dice (if possible) against each enemy battle group." is only for when you lose dice due to disorder or cohesion state. It means that when you decide which dice to lose, you have to keep one against each enemy battle group (that you would normally have dice against). So if you had 2 dice at ++ and 2 at -- against two battle groups but have to lose 2 dice, you can't choose to lose both the -- dice.

TERRYFROMSPOKANE wrote:Let's say two 2x2 BGs are involved in melee, and each fights the other with 4 dice. In the next maneuver phase, one side moves another 4x4 BG into contact as an overlap. My understanding is the outnumbered side will have to devote one die to fighting against two dice from the overlapping file of the new BG, leaving three dice to go against the 4 dice from the enemy BG in frontal contact. Is that correct? Since he has 4 dice and is fighting against three enemy files, could he choose to use two dice against each enemy BG instead of the 3/1 split?

The rule on page 94 says in part "....leaving at least one dice (if possible) against each enemy battle group." The rule does NOT say "including an enemy battle group fighting only as an overlap" but I assume that is the meaning. Is that correct?

Thanks. Terry

As far as I have played it in the past the overlap has'nt been classed as fighting, ie in the rules they can retire from overlap therefore all enemy dice are used against the enemy BG in close combat.
Dave

Dice are only ever allocated to BGs that are fighting, not ones in overlap.

There is an 'interesting situation that can occur when there is a combat where both BGs are overlapped at opposite ends like:
All of the dice from BG A are against BG 2 and vice versa. 1 and B both get to add 2 dice to the combat without reply. As a result both A and 2 could end up losing the combat due to hits from the overlaps.

hammy wrote:Dice are only ever allocated to BGs that are fighting, not ones in overlap.

There is an 'interesting situation that can occur when there is a combat where both BGs are overlapped at opposite ends like:

Code: Select all

__AABB
1122

All of the dice from BG A are against BG 2 and vice versa. 1 and B both get to add 2 dice to the combat without reply. As a result both A and 2 could end up losing the combat due to hits from the overlaps.

OK, it is an extreme example, but it's ridiculous. What if were both at least DISR and failing CT they rout at the same time? BGs 1 and B stand to compliment each other?

marioslaz wrote:

hammy wrote:Dice are only ever allocated to BGs that are fighting, not ones in overlap.

There is an 'interesting situation that can occur when there is a combat where both BGs are overlapped at opposite ends like:

Code: Select all

__AABB
1122

All of the dice from BG A are against BG 2 and vice versa. 1 and B both get to add 2 dice to the combat without reply. As a result both A and 2 could end up losing the combat due to hits from the overlaps.

OK, it is an extreme example, but it's ridiculous. What if were both at least DISR and failing CT they rout at the same time? BGs 1 and B stand to compliment each other?

Actually 1 pursues A and B pursues 2. Troops fighting as an overlap pursue routing enemy.

And has that ever happened to anyone?

Pete

petedalby wrote:And has that ever happened to anyone?

Pete

Not me and I have played about 150 games.

hammy wrote:Actually 1 pursues A and B pursues 2. Troops fighting as an overlap pursue routing enemy.

Yes, whatever you want, but when they cross pursuing they give each other an high five!

marioslaz wrote:

hammy wrote:Actually 1 pursues A and B pursues 2. Troops fighting as an overlap pursue routing enemy.

Yes, whatever you want, but when they cross pursuing they give each other an high five!

I think that is a good idea

Seriously while it is in theory possible it is going to be a very rare situation on the tabletop.

hammy wrote:Seriously while it is in theory possible it is going to be a very rare situation on the tabletop.

I agree that is a very unlikely situation, still I got a doubt. At p 101 under "Initial pursuit" we find this sentence:

Au unbroken battle group, all of whose close combat opponent (except those only fighting it as an overlap) have broken and routed this phase, always pursues unless [...]

I put in evidence close combat opponent because it's a little ambiguous for me in this case. My doubt is if the opponent who breaks while a BG is fighting against it only as overlap can be considered a "close combat opponent" for that BG. I don't want to say you are wrong, but just it is doubtful for me. When a BG fights only as overlap can leave the melee in manoeuvre phase. If BGs A e B fight against BG 1, B just as overlap, A breaks 1 must pursue, so B doesn't count as opponent since doesn't block 1 pursuing; if 1 doesn't pursue, 1 and B are not considered in close combat. If we consider a more likely situation where 2 BGs are fighting against one, one BG is just overlapping, if the lonely BG breaks I would have said only one BG pursue, that in contact, while the other which was just an overlap shouldn't pursue because, for all reasons above, I would have said it isn't a close combat opponent of broken BG.

marioslaz wrote:

hammy wrote:Seriously while it is in theory possible it is going to be a very rare situation on the tabletop.

I agree that is a very unlikely situation, still I got a doubt. At p 101 under "Initial pursuit" we find this sentence:

Au unbroken battle group, all of whose close combat opponent (except those only fighting it as an overlap) have broken and routed this phase, always pursues unless [...]

I put in evidence close combat opponent because it's a little ambiguous for me in this case. My doubt is if the opponent who breaks while a BG is fighting against it only as overlap can be considered a "close combat opponent" for that BG. I don't want to say you are wrong, but just it is doubtful for me. When a BG fights only as overlap can leave the melee in manoeuvre phase. If BGs A e B fight against BG 1, B just as overlap, A breaks 1 must pursue, so B doesn't count as opponent since doesn't block 1 pursuing; if 1 doesn't pursue, 1 and B are not considered in close combat. If we consider a more likely situation where 2 BGs are fighting against one, one BG is just overlapping, if the lonely BG breaks I would have said only one BG pursue, that in contact, while the other which was just an overlap shouldn't pursue because, for all reasons above, I would have said it isn't a close combat opponent of broken BG.

I really wish that the "(except those only fighting it as an overlap)" was not in the rules. The key is the it If an enemy BG is fighting only as an overlap against your BG then you don't pursue. I spent a long time trying to think of a situation where this exception might apply. The point is that if an opponent is only fighting you as an overlap then you have to be fighting something else. If you are fighting something else then you can't pursue. Eventually it dawned on me that if the something else you were fighting breaks then you may not have to pursue, say you are infantry and were fighting mounted. In this case if a BG of infantry fighting you as overlap broke simultaneously then you would pursue. This is another very obscure situation.

The key to pursuit is that if you are fighting as an overlap you are in close combat. If your close combat opponents break you have to pursue. If an enemy fighting you only as an overlap breaks then you don't have to pursue but I am pretty sure that this would only happen once in a pink moon with blue spots.

hammy wrote:

marioslaz wrote:

hammy wrote:Seriously while it is in theory possible it is going to be a very rare situation on the tabletop.

I agree that is a very unlikely situation, still I got a doubt. At p 101 under "Initial pursuit" we find this sentence:

Au unbroken battle group, all of whose close combat opponent (except those only fighting it as an overlap) have broken and routed this phase, always pursues unless [...]

I put in evidence close combat opponent because it's a little ambiguous for me in this case. My doubt is if the opponent who breaks while a BG is fighting against it only as overlap can be considered a "close combat opponent" for that BG. I don't want to say you are wrong, but just it is doubtful for me. When a BG fights only as overlap can leave the melee in manoeuvre phase. If BGs A e B fight against BG 1, B just as overlap, A breaks 1 must pursue, so B doesn't count as opponent since doesn't block 1 pursuing; if 1 doesn't pursue, 1 and B are not considered in close combat. If we consider a more likely situation where 2 BGs are fighting against one, one BG is just overlapping, if the lonely BG breaks I would have said only one BG pursue, that in contact, while the other which was just an overlap shouldn't pursue because, for all reasons above, I would have said it isn't a close combat opponent of broken BG.

I really wish that the "(except those only fighting it as an overlap)" was not in the rules. The key is the it If an enemy BG is fighting only as an overlap against your BG then you don't pursue. I spent a long time trying to think of a situation where this exception might apply. The point is that if an opponent is only fighting you as an overlap then you have to be fighting something else. If you are fighting something else then you can't pursue. Eventually it dawned on me that if the something else you were fighting breaks then you may not have to pursue, say you are infantry and were fighting mounted. In this case if a BG of infantry fighting you as overlap broke simultaneously then you would pursue. This is another very obscure situation.

The key to pursuit is that if you are fighting as an overlap you are in close combat. If your close combat opponents break you have to pursue. If an enemy fighting you only as an overlap breaks then you don't have to pursue but I am pretty sure that this would only happen once in a pink moon with blue spots.

Hammy, I think you probably still misunderstand the effect of the wording. All it means is that you pursue your routing frontal opponents even if other unbroken enemy were fighting you as an overlap. You don't stand there like lemons in corner to corner contact with the enemy overlappers.

rbodleyscott wrote:Hammy, I think you probably still misunderstand the effect of the wording. All it means is that you pursue your routing frontal opponents even if other unbroken enemy were fighting you as an overlap. You don't stand there like lemons in corner to corner contact with the enemy overlappers.

Aha, now that makes sense. I have to admit that not pursuing because you are overlapped is so silly that I didn't even consider that option so have spend ages trying to work out a 'strange' meaning. Why couldn't Terry have remembered the reason for that brackedted bit when I asked him about it in Helsinki??

Ho hum, filed away for reference.

Ok after reading this I'm a bit confused, and don't have my rules handy. What happens in the following situation.

AA
BBCC

AA is fighting BB, and CC is fighting AA as an overlap.

AA breaks/routs, BB pursues routers (AA). Does CC follow routers (AA) as it was only fighting in overlap??

B & C both roll a vmd, and the one that moves the farthest pursues first.
B & C then gain "Missionary" status - where they try to convert into the nearest enemy. If they both catch A, A gets reemed.

Does CC follow routers (AA) as it was only fighting in overlap??

Yes. The only as an overlap bit would be if there was an enemy, say D, fighting C but only as an overlap. However in your layout it could not happen as C would have to have a frontal contact to have someone fighting it in overlap.



AAA_DEE
BB_CC

If D broke C would pursue as A and E are only overlap of it. If A broke C would not as it is fighting frontally. If A and D broke it would pursue. E is only overlap

AA__EE
BBCC

Here E cannot fight C (if only corner to corner) as it is not an overlap, so will make no difference to the pursuit.

B & C then gain "Missionary" status - where they try to convert into the nearest enemy

????

Say FF was in support of BB and an overlap on AA, but angled at 45 degrees, and AA routs, will it followup into the flank of EE?
Actually, if B, then A, then D all rout, would that be bad?

OK, I understand well what the rules say, but I'm a little confused about result from an historical point of view. Let's examine a situation not so rare: If C routs, A and B pursue. If A routs C pursues and B count nothing.
First case it seems OK to me, because B was contributing to melee. It's the second I'm not sure about. When there was a fighting unit still able to fight, can a BG ignore it to pursue routs? I'm thinking to historical events and I cannot remember a situation which can help in one sense or in the other.