The last rules question from the Kubla Con tournament involves the mechanics of how a TuG pushes back a SuG. Below is my analysis - let me know if it's correct or not.

In  the game, a SuG of mounted skirmishers (UG B) advanced to shoot at Rich Gagliasso's perfidious Romans (I know, an oxymoron. Oh, and they were UG A.) A TuG friendly to the SuG was close by like so:



I realized (so I thought) that if UG A advanced, it would push UG B into UG C, causing a KaB test on UG C as the mounted SuG burst through it, so I retreated UG B out of the way in the game. Later I brought up the point that Rich could have done terrible things to me, but was  told, on no, nothing bad would have happened to me. I still don't quite believe it.

After the game I realized that if UG A advanced and contacted B, B could have done a runaway response (but without rolling for shooting) and all would have been fine - no burst throughs. Assuming, however that I let UG B get pushed back, I think that I have two choices how B is moved. The first is that it pivots to face off against UG A, ending up something like this:



This causes it to burst through UG C.

The other possibility is that it retains its orientation relative to the board, ending up 1 BW aways measured from the TuG to the point on the SuG that was first contacted it like so:



Again, UG B will burst through C.

However, what I was  told was that UG B could simply be pushed back to its own rear like this:



But I don't think this last position is a legal pushback position as it doesn't conform to the two choices given on p. 111. The only choice that avoids a burst-through would be the run away response.

Another gem that came up from Kubla Con.

In the fight below, UG B (red) hits UG A (blue) at an angle, but does not qualify for a flank attack, so all attacks are frontal. UG A are devastating chargers. Base A1b (rear base) elects to fight file B2 and not support the base ahead of it.



The first question that arose (and I promised to ask on the forums): do either bases in file A1 get the +1 DC bonus?

I think this is a pretty easy "no". They are fighting different fights and simply being 2 ranks deep isn't enough to get the bonus - you need both ranks fighting the same opponent - and this is how we played it.

(Now watch me be completely wrong on the 'easy' question.)

The second question was: if base A1a (or A1b) fights first and gets a skull/S, does base A1b (or A1a) get the +2 shatter bonus? You don't need 2 ranks for the shatter bonus, but you do need to be a "neighboring file". Is base A1a a neighboring file to A1b and vice-versa in this situation? We played that they were, and indeed the rear base was awarded a +2 bonus when A1a rolled a skull, but now I really wonder if that was correct. It's pretty clear from the rules as written that A1a/A1b belong to the same file, and it seems a bit of a stretch of the English language to say that they are neighboring files for this combat - but the consensus at the time was that it was in the spirit of the rules that the second base could benefit from a shatter/shove generated by the base ahead of it.

The third question was: could either UG align to the other? We played that they could not, mostly because we were fixated on the inability of base A1b (rear base) to align with the center file of UG B, but I think we got this wrong as well. You can't align out of flank/rear combat, but all fighting files are in frontal combat. You also can't align out of fighting a UG (with an obscure exception that doesn't apply here) but the UGs would still be fighting after alignment, although instead of two frontal combats there would only be one - but that doesn't seem to matter. So at this point I don't see why UG A couldn't align to B:



I also think that it might be legal for UG B to align to A:



(or is this how you would align? Maybe you would align such that the center file remains stepped forward as it does in the previous diagram?? The rules do say, "no rearrangement of positions within a formation is allowed".)

Note that if UG B aligns to A, the front base of the center file moves more than 1 BW (but not more than 2), but I think that's allowed since it doesn't end up in combat - only front bases of files that end up in combat are restricted to 1 BW of movement. (This was discussed on the forums awhile back.)

If either can align - note that you could align before charge combat - turning what initially looks like 2 files worth of combat into only 1 combat - so it's likely that one or the other UG would elect to do this based on who has the advantage, and it might well be to UG A's advantage to do so simply to get the DC bonus in their combat.

But likely I've hashed something up somewhere - be gentle in you admonishments. 

One of the interesting situations that came up at Kubla Con was a case where a routing unit (turned 90 deg to the line of battle) ran into the fight behind it, simultaneously making front edge to side edge contact with both a friendly and enemy unit. The rule is that a routing unit is immediately picked up when it contacts an enemy unit. The question was: does it also cause a KaB test on the friendly unit it contacted? I had my strongly held opinion, having nothing to do with who owned that friendly unit   but agreed to pose the question on the forums. Does a routing unit that contacts the edge of a friendly unit but otherwise does not interpenetrate it cause a KaB test on it?

Quote from: nikgaukroger on May 31, 2022, 07:14:55 AM
In respect of whether you can break off what prevents a break off is whether the UG is fighting in two or more of "front, flank or rear" per 150 K 1.5, and a base can fight in a direction other than the one it is facing. However, a break off move is "Directly backwards" per the QRS and if bases are facing in different directions I do not believe you can define a single "directly backwards" and so cannot break off even if bases are all fighting to their front - from discussion I understand this to be the author's intention in such cases (but could be corrected) and the UG hoping to break off does not have a choice of which rear to break off to. A short clarry may be useful on this.

My thought was that the unit breaking off must immediately reform into legal formation, and after reforming it will be clear in which direction the breakoff must go.

In the case where all files of a unit a facing in the same direction, it sounds like you can break off even if there is fighting on your flank - as long the unit breaking off only rolled combat dice for fights to its front.

Quote from: nikgaukroger on May 31, 2022, 07:21:59 AM

Quote from: Francis Small on May 20, 2022, 08:42:51 PM
Nik and I seem to be on the side of thinking that's a bit over the top, and would allow the knights to align into flank contact.

I am not in agreement with that.

Ooops. I meant Richard.

Just came back from Kubla Con. I had great fun, and ended up with a string of dice rolls that was so hot it started a minor brush fire.

As always, it generated a string of rules questions, one which is: what constitutes fighting in multiple directions? This affects if you can break off or not, and if when you rout you are simply picked up, granting the opponent the choice of pursuing or not. The relevant rules look to be on p. 150 (K 1.5) and p. 167 (C 4), and both refer to "fighting in two or more of front, flank and rear".

One proposal put for was that if you are hit in the flank (and combat qualifies for the flank bonus) and you do not turn to face, then you are eligible to break-off since all your files are facing the same direction. I believe this to not be true and that you are fighting multiple directions (front and flank) even though you did not turn to face because you have one enemy fighting you frontally and another enemy fighting on your flank - it doesn't matter that all of your files are facing the same direction.

In contrast, UG A in the following diagram is not fighting in multiple directions even though its two files are turned 90 degrees to each other. Even if A was hit in the flank, because it turned file #A2 to face UG C it is now only fighting frontally and therefore is eligible to breakoff in this position - forming on either file A1 or A2, moving directly to its rear and sliding past the front of one or the other UGs fighting it.



I'd be interested in comments on this. It seems to be consistent with the rules as written, although it feels a bit dodgy.

Lenny and I just finished a game, and during it we had a loooong discussion about how you get into combat when in corner-to-corner contact. (Gee, why does this seem familiar?) We decided that the following was at least one hypothetically legal scenario - but I've been only studying the rules for less than a lifetime, so what to I know? 

Given the following initial position:



Blue chooses during the movement phase to wheel as follows. Note that Unit C does not take part in any combat this turn.



During the next charge phase, Blue can't charge with the rightmost file of Unit C, but at the time wethought that it could charge with the middle file:



(But now I have my doubts. The QRS for prompted charge states "an unengaged file of an engaged unit can charge up to 1 BW", and Unit C is not engaged.)

At some point, Unit C will align, allowing the center and right files to fight melee combat with benefit of the flank bonus, but only only the middle file could fight charge combat, but with the charge flank bonus.



So any thoughts on if the above is allowed, or should C simply give up any thought about charging Unit A once it gets into corner-to-corner contact?

Quote from: nikgaukroger on May 21, 2022, 05:30:45 AM
Try reading page 111 and the section on pushing back enemy SUGs.

Don't be coy Nik - tell the class what you know. 

OK, what Nik is referring to (I presume) is that the rule on p. 111 further clarifies that the SuG is not pushed back in terrain when it has not been contacted in good going.

All is right with the world, and I withdraw my (ahem, ludicrous) assertions.

I'm still billing the client, though.

Quote from: Jilu on May 20, 2022, 09:44:09 PM
are open areas not removed after terrain has been placed?

But, Your Honor, the QRS for Open Area under the Special Rules clearly states "Leave on table for show or remove." Now, the prosecutor may make some spurious argument that "for show" negates any effect of the open area terrain piece, but since my client elected to leave the terrain piece on the table, and since the terrain piece has a description of terrain under the terrain column, it clearly qualifies as terrain and thus indemnifies my client from being pushed around.

(Maybe I shouldn't have binge watched the entire season of "Lincoln Lawyer" last night.)

The rules do not allow you to push back a SuG that is in terrain. (p. 80 #17) Technically, both hills (even without additional terrain) and Open Areas left on the board are terrain, and so would prevent you from pushing back SuGs that are in them. At this point, I think I would rule that gentle hills count as terrain and prevent SuGs from being pushed back, but extending this to Open Areas is a rule pendanticism too far, even for me. Seem reasonable, or does allowing SuGs to not be pushed back on gentle hills seem ridiculous as well? (but... but... it's terrain!)

Quote from: AntiokosIII on May 20, 2022, 06:03:08 AM
Did the 2 units fight in melee last turn, either in overlap or otherwise? If they ended the turn in contact, why didn't they fight melee? I would suggest that if they didn't fight even as an overlap, they were not in contact whatever the board looks like now. Clearly, if they fought , even as an overlap, they are in contact so no charge. Or do I mistake?

Well, I think the ruling can be based solely on their current position and does not depend on their previous fighting status - at least it would not appear that how they may or may not have fought affects the ruling.

To recap, the rules logic (hope that's not an oxymoron) as I understand it is:

• They are in front-corner to rear-corner contact
• Corner-to-corner contact does not permit combat of any kind as is.
• Corner-to-corner contact does not permit you to charge into combat.
• We then enter into the realm of p. 132 "Engaging in Melee When Already in Combat", which allows aligning into front/flank/rear combat. The rules are a bit murky in that it only mentions front-corner to front-corner contact in the context of corner-to-corner contact which is not the case here, so a real pendant would not allow you to align into contact. Nik and I seem to be on the side of thinking that's a bit over the top, and would allow the knights to align into flank contact.

Thanks - that clarification was quite useful!

It seems as though a supporting file should be considered in close combat given that they are rolling a combat dice and all, yet I seem to recall a ruling was that they were *not* in close combat. There is a glossary entry for "combat" - a contiguous set of files that are fighting - and it would seem that supporting files are fighting, but again I think the ruling was that they are not. Maybe I'm just asking the same question and expecting a different answer - but could someone clear this up for me?

9.4.M (p.132) says that you can not create a charge combat if you are already touching the UG - so it seems pretty clear that a charge is out.

The rules go on to describe 4 situations where you can create a melee combat, none of which apply to this situation because you are neither in side to side contact (and thus could do a 90 degree turn) nor in front-corner to front-corner contact (where you could align, wheel, or do MF1 moves)

That being said, I don't see why you couldn't just simply take a free alignment and line up in flank contact. You would only fight one file, it wouldn't count as a charge, but you would get the flank bonus.

Quote from: nikgaukroger on January 28, 2022, 06:59:32 AM
I have (crudely) indicated the Path of Charge...

Crude, yet effective. This was a very helpful post Nik.