Page 1 of 1
Feeding bases
Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 3:04 am
by hazelbark
A different table at the club tonight had a question they couldn't find an answer. I think I am paraphrasing them correctly.
In the feeding bases into combat it appears that you can only take bases by contracting or expanding. Can you shift an uninvolved 2nd rank base to fill an open 2nd rank position assuming it adds dice or POA?
I was distracted so couldn't quickly find rule. I don't think it was the intent of the authors but it may be what is literally there.
Re: Feeding bases
Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 7:56 am
by marioslaz
hazelbark wrote:A different table at the club tonight had a question they couldn't find an answer. I think I am paraphrasing them correctly.
In the feeding bases into combat it appears that you can only take bases by contracting or expanding. Can you shift an uninvolved 2nd rank base to fill an open 2nd rank position assuming it adds dice or POA?
I was distracted so couldn't quickly find rule. I don't think it was the intent of the authors but it may be what is literally there.
I think this shouldn't happen. When you remove bases, you remove front rank and replace them with non-front rank taken by any part of the battle group. Rules state also: "Other bases of the battle group immediately shuffle up to retain contiguity and fill vacated front rank positions." So when you remove a base you can arrange other ones so there is not needing of shifting them when in manoeuvre phase you should feed bases.
Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 8:09 am
by gibby
I think you can as long as you meet the requirements on page 73 re not already adding to combat.
"Troops can thus be moved out from rear ranks that are not fighting" snipped rest.
cheers
Jim
Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 8:37 am
by SirGarnet
gibby wrote:I think you can as long as you meet the requirements on page 73 re not already adding to combat.
"Troops can thus be moved out from rear ranks that are not fighting" snipped rest.
cheers
Jim
Yes I was thinking so as well but what Hazelbark was referring to is a forum thread I can't spot right now to the effect that the "thus" means by the mechanism of a legal contraction or expansion rather than just picking up and moving a base over.
So you can fill in lost bases as above, but if you started the fight too shallow you are at risk of being stuck that way for a while.
Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 9:12 am
by hammy
There seem to be answers to two different questions here.
The initial question was can you move rer rank bases under the feeding in more bases mechanism. IMO you can't, you have to move a whole file and all the bases moved must contribute. I am fairly sure that this has been confirmed by one or more of the authors somewhere in this forum and when I stopped Simon from doing it when we played yesterday he didn't complain.
The second is about replacing bases that have been killed which can be done from any rear rank , or unengaged front rank or overlap in that order.
Re: Feeding bases
Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 10:42 am
by lawrenceg
hazelbark wrote:A different table at the club tonight had a question they couldn't find an answer. I think I am paraphrasing them correctly.
In the feeding bases into combat it appears that you can only take bases by contracting or expanding. Can you shift an uninvolved 2nd rank base to fill an open 2nd rank position assuming it adds dice or POA?
I was distracted so couldn't quickly find rule. I don't think it was the intent of the authors but it may be what is literally there.
This did come up in a previous thread and IIRC the conclusion was the rules literally mean you MUST contract or expand and can't just shift a rear rank base across. It is probable that the authors did not intend to prohibit the option of just shifting a base across.
Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 10:56 am
by philqw78
Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 11:10 am
by lawrenceg
This one is not 100% clear.
You are allowed to contract "to move bases....provided they could contribute to the melee..."
It does not say whether or not you can incidentally move bases that won't contribute to the melee. IMO the intention is not.
Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 12:20 pm
by SirGarnet
I copied this statement by Simon on the intention behind it from the Collected Design notes sticky which includes link to the thread.
"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."
Simon Hall 2009.0204
viewtopic.php?p=7742
Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 4:44 pm
by hazelbark
hammy wrote:There seem to be answers to two different questions here.
The initial question was can you move rer rank bases under the feeding in more bases mechanism. IMO you can't, you have to move a whole file and all the bases moved must contribute. I am fairly sure that this has been confirmed by one or more of the authors somewhere in this forum and when I stopped Simon from doing it when we played yesterday he didn't complain.
Yes that was the inquiry. Sorry it was late last night.
Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 6:14 pm
by ethan
The question involved a 10 element formation of spears that had a couple of third ranks that was hit in the front and flank.
The flank attack hit the third rank spear on one of the BG and the front was fully engaged by another battlegroup. This left a single third rank at the other end of the line not contributing. Could this single element do anything but fill in for a loss?
Could it fill in to cover the overlap at the end of the line where the formation had been flanked? Could it form a second rank behind the element that turned to face the flank attack?
I think the answer is, nope. It can only fill in to replace a casaulty.
Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 7:14 pm
by lawrenceg
ethan wrote:The question involved a 10 element formation of spears that had a couple of third ranks that was hit in the front and flank.
The flank attack hit the third rank spear on one of the BG and the front was fully engaged by another battlegroup. This left a single third rank at the other end of the line not contributing. Could this single element do anything but fill in for a loss?
Could it fill in to cover the overlap at the end of the line where the formation had been flanked? Could it form a second rank behind the element that turned to face the flank attack?
I think the answer is, nope. It can only fill in to replace a casaulty.
Could it fill in to cover the overlap at the end of the line where the formation had been flanked? Yes it could, as this would be an expansion.
Posted: Fri Mar 13, 2009 2:16 am
by hazelbark
Lawrence is correct, i suspect that at the time it was the wrong playerr turn so the expansion would have created an overlap and therefore not allowed. As opposed to matching one.
Posted: Fri Mar 13, 2009 2:51 am
by rich0101
You can only fill in with a base that isn't already adding dice to the combat. This really effects spear and pike, because you have to remove all rear rank bases before you can remove overlap bases so it could take away there SP POA.
Posted: Fri Mar 13, 2009 2:44 pm
by petedalby
I may have misunderstood this thread, but I can see nothing that stops Ethan's 3rd rank spear base from being added to an existing melee, provided tat it then adds to a POA.
Hammy is correct, only a file can expand or contract.
But page 73, 2nd bullet point:
'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.'
Or have I missed something?
Pete
Posted: Fri Mar 13, 2009 3:48 pm
by TERRYFROMSPOKANE
My understanding from other posts in this thread is the "thus" in the second bullet is limited by the restrictions in the first bullet.
Terry
Posted: Fri Mar 13, 2009 4:42 pm
by petedalby
Agreed - but none of those restrictions apply in this example.
Pete
Posted: Fri Mar 13, 2009 5:38 pm
by sagji
petedalby wrote:I may have misunderstood this thread, but I can see nothing that stops Ethan's 3rd rank spear base from being added to an existing melee, provided tat it then adds to a POA.
Hammy is correct, only a file can expand or contract.
But page 73, 2nd bullet point:
'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.'
Or have I missed something?
Pete
A rule saying you can put them there - the rule you quote only covers where you can take the bases from.
1st bullet says you can expand and put bases on the end of the line
2nd bullet puts limits on expansion
3rd bullet says where bases can come from
4th bullet restates some of 3rd bullet, but adds no new rules.
5th bullet says that
instead of expanding you can contract provided
all contracted bases contribute (clarified as all not any)
6th & 7th bullets provide additional restrictions.
Only 1 & 5 say where you can move bases to.
Posted: Fri Mar 13, 2009 5:50 pm
by petedalby
No problem with any of that - but not permitting that base to be fed in contradicts one of the key principles of the rules - that troops that could fight shold fight?
Pete
Posted: Fri Mar 13, 2009 6:15 pm
by SirGarnet
petedalby wrote:No problem with any of that - but not permitting that base to be fed in contradicts one of the key principles of the rules - that troops that could fight shold fight?
Pete
FYI, quoted Simon on the design intent above.
