Quote from: lionheartrjc on September 01, 2025, 04:51:56 PMIn the following melee phase, the pike are treated as fighting the Gauls to their front and the Gauls to their flank become a supporting file (that does not downgrade its colour). 
Richard

why? previously,  the first two ranks of pike would have fought the gallic base to its front, the 3rd and 4th back ranks would have fought the frontal charge that hit its side edge? or can they also alternatively fight all 4 would have fought/supported the frontal base with no dice thrown to the not-a-flank contact, as per the cavalry charge on the other side of the diagram. I'm not understanding how this amendment wording creates this overlap effect?

how can gallic B be a supporting file? its not '3.3. If beyond the fight, have its front within 1BW of the line of fighting.' 

and
'Question 2:
If gallic B is a supporting file only  the unit can move away next movement?' - 'Yes'

how? it can neither wheel, the enemy pike blocks it. Nor step backwards, unless drilled

and presumably if the pike break the gauls to the front, they pursue as normal and the Gallic B unit is left in place behind it as it was counting as only an overlap?

Quote from: tarnowski1 on September 14, 2025, 04:46:26 PMhow can gallic B be a supporting file? its not '3.3. If beyond the fight, have its front within 1BW of the line of fighting.' 

A nice point - on the diagram on page 85 the Gallic unit hitting the side is doing so at a point more than 1BW ahead of those contacting the front edge and so cannot quality as a supporting file where they are.

They would need to be allowed to align for combat into a supporting file position to contribute - the usual up to (but not including) 1 BW would suffice but the aligning rules would need to be tweaked to cover it (I think; I'm not great on aligning).

Or you simplify the rule and if the file is next to the frontally engaged file, it is a supporting file. Less cheesy, less headaches, simplicity .

"Next to" is wonderfully vague.

I do suppose you understand my meaning well enough to write it in a better english

Quote from: nikgaukroger on September 14, 2025, 05:10:39 PMThey would need to be allowed to align for combat into a supporting file position to contribute - the usual up to (but not including) 1 BW would suffice but the aligning rules would need to be tweaked to cover it (I think; I'm not great on aligning).

They already are
page 74  6.C:5.1 3rd sentence

"Front rank bases in contact with an enemy flank but not as a valid flank charge may ignore the 1BW restriction to align with the front edge of a file contacted if all other restrictions are obeyed".

Richard

Told you I wasn't good on aligning 

Good to see it already covered 

Quote from: lionheartrjc on September 15, 2025, 12:06:41 PMThey already are
page 74  6.C:5.1 3rd sentence

"Front rank bases in contact with an enemy flank but not as a valid flank charge may ignore the 1BW restriction to align with the front edge of a file contacted if all other restrictions are obeyed".

Richard

However, this would not allow conforming into a supporting file position in the example per diagram as it requires aligning to the front edge which is not possible as there is a unit in that position.

Quote from: nikgaukroger on September 16, 2025, 08:09:11 AM

Quote from: lionheartrjc on September 15, 2025, 12:06:41 PMThey already are
page 74  6.C:5.1 3rd sentence

"Front rank bases in contact with an enemy flank but not as a valid flank charge may ignore the 1BW restriction to align with the front edge of a file contacted if all other restrictions are obeyed".

Richard

However, this would not allow conforming into a supporting file position in the example per diagram as it requires aligning to the front edge which is not possible as there is a unit in that position.

Aligning to the front edge doesn't mean you have to contact the front edge.  Corner to corner contact is still aligned.

Richard

Ah, I was reading it as "to" when it says "with" - continuing my great run of being a bit rubbish with aligning