Who is an activated unit

We thought we had the rules pat but in a recent battle a newbie caused us palpitations when we couldn't defend our interpretation of the following.

After the previous turn Persian unit A was left in contact with Macedonian Unit 1 but only touching for a small part of their respective frontages. Persian unit B was now activated and charged Macedonian unit 1 along a large part of its frontage. Persian unit B was thus the main unit and counted Persian unit A as a supporting unit. Macedonian unit 1 was defeated and retreated 5U. Persian unit B pursued only 3U and thus was no longer in contact with the Macedonian unit at the end of its pursuit. Persian unit A, as a supporting unit, could not pursue

Now the Persian player said he would activate Persian unit A, the one which had been the support unit, and charge Macedonian unit 1. We said that having already taken part in a melee as a supporting unit where Persian unit B had been the main unit it had thus been activated and could not be activated again by charging. He asked where that was explicitly stated in the rules and, to our collective chagrin, we could not justify our interpretation from our reading of the rules.

So, have we been doing this wrong all these years?

Help!

Hi,

In the "full fat" version of the rules, section 7.6.5  it reads as follows:

"A, the active player's Unit, attacks B, the inactive player's Unit and melee ensues. If B has not already been activated that turn then, once activated, it will fight with A again if still in contact or may charge A and fight if one of them has retreated."

Also in BI:

7.6.6 Melees in more than one phase
In Basic Impetus you may encounter more than one
melee phase in the same turn. Multiple melee phases
normally happen after pursuit in a melee. Example:
A beats B, who retreats. A pursues and if it catches
up with B, and a new melee is fought immediately.
In this case the melee phases could even be more
than two.

7.6.7 Multiple melee in more than one phase
In a multiple melee, a melee may start again if a new
Unit moves to contact one of the fighting Units.
Apply the criteria for deciding Main Unit and
Support Units. The Unit that re-starts the fight does
not have to be declared Main Unit.


These all suggest to me that the newbie's interpretation was correct. It is about the activation rather than the number of rounds of combat fought, or even who was the main unit.

I hope this assists..

John

Grateful though I am for your comments I don't think they answer the problem. The first para refers to two units on opposite sides of a battle so not relevant.

Second para refers to pursuits ending in contact which means a further melee.

The third paragraph is the one that is perplexing us. where it says "a melee may start again if a new unit moves to contact one of the fighting units." Three things to say here
1. Is the unit which was supporting a "new" unit? It has already taken part in a melee.
2. the para refers to moving to contact a fighting unit. In our example it was suggested it could move to contact a unit which was not at that point fighting (it had retreated) but logically it could equally have advanced to attack some other unit. 3. The question is whether it could advance at all having already been involved as a supporting unit in a previous melee.

Come on guys. Someone (Lorenzo?) who knows the rules backwards and forward please help me out here.

The key is the word activate. If a unit has already participated in combat - but not as the active unit then it can move and initiate combat during its activation.

The second paragraph does not only refer to pursuit - the key there being normally.

Keep it simple and don't over examine it.

If a unit has not been activated it can do whatever it chooses and is not restricted by previous combats in another units activation.

I may be new to the forum but have been playing this game since 2006.

John

1ngram wrote:

1. Is the unit which was supporting a "new" unit? It has already taken part in a melee.
2. the para refers to moving to contact a fighting unit.  In our example it was suggested it could move to contact a unit which was not at that point fighting (it had retreated) but logically it could equally have advanced to attack some other unit.  
3. The question is whether it could advance at all having already been involved as a supporting unit in a previous melee.

1. It does not matter if it fought a combat as it was not the unit that initiated the combat even if it was the main unit.

2. Correct in both cases. It may make any legal move/contact.

3. It can still advance even if it was the main unit in the combat.

Again it is all about which is the ACTIVE unit. If the unit in question has not yet been activated then it may make any legal move irrespective of what has gone before. You cannot "trump" a unit out of the game by attacking it with other units.

Using your interpretation a player may use an S unit to lock a CP with VBU of 8 in place (even if it is destroyed in doing so) simply by forcing it to roll combat dice.

I have to say we have never played it that way and, like you, we have been playing BI for a good number of years here. Though I understand the logic of what you are saying I would still like Lorenzo to pontificate for us though.

As to your last sentence though I can't see what this has to do with the query. I'm not asking about one side doing something that locks a unit of the opposing side in any way.

My query is quite specific to one side having a unit which starts a melee phase in contact with the enemy (from the result of a previous turn now being either the main or supporting unit of a new melee caused by a friendly unit coming into that new melee and THEN after that melee is concluded being able to activate, having already been involved in a melee. Essentially, is it a NEW UNIT if it hasn't moved but been involved in a melee that player turn already. You answer yes, and I can see the logic in that - but in the back of my head . . . . . .

The melee must always been considered as the last thing you can do during an activation. After the melee you can only pursuit/retreat and fight the incoming new melee. But if this doesn't occour, the the activation is over.

Now, a Unit can start its activation as already in melee. When you activate that unit you can only fight (or disengage if possible). When you fight that melee the Unit has been activated and cannot do anything else (as said on top).
No matter if the Unit is the Main or the Supporting Unit in the melee.
If 2 Units start in contact with enemy, the single melee (multiple melee) will complete the activation of both (an exception can be if they belong to 2 different commands, but this is not the case in BI).

Back to the first example posted by Ingram, the Persian player has 2 options. Start to activate the Unit already in contact and solve the melee and once solved activate the other Unit. Or do like he did, charging with the new Unit and solve the whole as a multiple melee.

Hope to have cleared, if not let me know please.

So basically, Lorenzo, you are saying we have been doing it correctly - once a unit has been in a melee in any specific melee phase whether as main or supporting unit, then though it may get involved in more melees in THAT phase, due to retreats and pursuits, its activation has occurred and thus it will not be able to be activated thereafter.

To go back to my first example (in the hope this will clarify the situation once and for all) lets say the phasing player did the second of your options and charged with the new unit. The enemy retreated and the pursuit by the new unit failed to contact him again. Can the supporting unit - remember the one which started the phase already in contact with the enemy unit, now charge the enemy unit? Or has it been de facto already activated by taking part in the melee caused by the charging new unit?

no, it cannot. It supported the melee adding dice, so already did what could.