|
|
Post by j on May 5, 2019 21:25:26 GMT
Can Attacker have >3 elements in front edge contact with a City etc. or is it limited to 3?
I know p12 (Purple) Close Combat against a City, Fort or Camp says “A City, Fort or Camp can be in contact with the front edges of up to 3 assaulting elements” but can it be contacted by more elements in a move so that, in the event of Recoils, it may still count more additional enemy elements in the next Combat?
Regards,
j
|
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on May 5, 2019 22:23:04 GMT
I read it as limited to 3. Almost no point in committing more than that.
|
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on May 6, 2019 7:29:23 GMT
My reading is that you can move as many into contact as you like, but only three can fight. You might have a glut of PIP's to use up and the assault is your game-winning strategy, so having a few spare assaulters in reserve should some of your first wave die is a worthwhile strategy. Bear in mind that the BUA might be in your half of the board so a quick assault might be a logical approach. Not that I have ever seen it though!
Scott
|
|
|
|
Post by warlord476 on May 6, 2019 7:54:48 GMT
My reading is that you can move as many into contact as you like, but only three can fight. You might have a glut of PIP's to use up and the assault is your game-winning strategy, so having a few spare assaulters in reserve should some of your first wave die is a worthwhile strategy. Bear in mind that the BUA might be in your half of the board so a quick assault might be a logical approach. Not that I have ever seen it though! Scott Yes. I have seen one battle where lots of PIPs were spare so spare attackers were moved up. The first wave was recoiled off, then the next lot won on the enemy bound. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 6, 2019 14:06:35 GMT
Hmmm...please forgive me for being pedantic, but how on earth can page 10 paragraph 9:- “A city, fort or camp can be in contact with the front edges of up to 3 assaulting elements.” ...be interpreted as:- “A city, fort or camp can be in contact with the front edges of as many assaulting elements as you want.”? Since when did ‘3 assaulting elements’ come to mean ‘whatever you feel like’? Has the English language changed so that ‘up to 3’ now means ‘any amount’? (I try that on my boss when he next says I can have ‘up to 3 weeks holiday a year’.  )Or is my copy of the DBA rules different from everybody else’s?!  Some Helpful Downloads can be found here: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And here is the latest Jan 2019 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2019_1st_Quarter
|
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on May 6, 2019 15:41:29 GMT
Ah, perhaps I missed that bit!.
|
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on May 6, 2019 15:43:35 GMT
Although on further reflection (30 seconds thereof), perhaps in can also be in contact with any number of non-assaulting elements.
|
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on May 6, 2019 16:08:54 GMT
Hmmm...please forgive me for being pedantic, but how on earth can page 10 paragraph 9:- “A city, fort or camp can be in contact with the front edges of up to 3 assaulting elements.” ...be interpreted as:- “A city, fort or camp can be in contact with the front edges of as many assaulting elements as you want.”? Since when did ‘3 assaulting elements’ come to mean ‘whatever you feel like’? Has the English language changed so that ‘up to 3’ now means ‘any amount’? (I try that on my boss when he next says I can have ‘up to 3 weeks holiday a year’. )Or is my copy of the DBA rules different from everybody else’s?! Some Helpful Downloads can be found here: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And here is the latest Jan 2019 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2019_1st_Quarter
Pedantic is fine, Stevie. It is patronisingly sarcastic which offends. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 6, 2019 16:39:53 GMT
Sorry. 
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on May 6, 2019 20:09:08 GMT
And of course what does "assaulting" mean ... ? I reckon if a city or fort is so poorly defended and situated that the enemy is able to move 6 elements into contact with it, so be it. It's not like the other elements stand around and wait their turn in any and all cases. They'd be getting to work with ladders and climbers, and clearing parapets with archery, etc... But MY opponents almost never let me get into that much contact with such high-value targets ...  |
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on May 6, 2019 20:27:12 GMT
Apology accepted, Stevie.
Asking round at the club this evening, my view had some support. If there is an issue, it is whether the defender can chose to fight a different three elements than the attacker choses to attack with in the previous bound. The lack of mention of this makes me think that your interpretation is probably as intended, but I would suggest that the rules as written also allow my alternative.
Scott
|
|
|
|
Post by j on May 7, 2019 9:47:26 GMT
And of course what does "assaulting" mean ... ? I reckon if a city or fort is so poorly defended and situated that the enemy is able to move 6 elements into contact with it, so be it. It's not like the other elements stand around and wait their turn in any and all cases. They'd be getting to work with ladders and climbers, and clearing parapets with archery, etc... But MY opponents almost never let me get into that much contact with such high-value targets ... Then maybe I'm reading the rules poorly as I don't understand why a defender would opt for a city or a fort in the first place. Take our last game. My defending Athenians placed a BUA in 1st quarter & garrisoned it with Sp The Spartan was able to choose to attack from the side closest to the BUA, placing a solid phalanx of Sp within 1BW of the BUA He took 1st move & immediately contacted the BUA with 2 x Sp & was able to envelop both flanks with Sp in his following move. In this case, his Sp are equal to mine but as he had his General with one & the +4 for garrisoning the city was offset by -2 for enemy elements' aid it it unlikely that an attacker would be destroyed& that on a 6:1, only recoiled - in fact his General cannot be destroyed - 4+1+(d6)1 = 6 vs 4+4-2+(d6)6 = 6 As I understand it, all it takes is a Beaten result for the city to fall, which is 3 element losses from the 4 needed for victory & he has several moves - in both phases if at least 1 of the attackers can get a draw - in order to do this. I was surprised that it took so long - 4 moves - but it seems inevitable. I know cities & forts should not be impregnable, but should they be so fragile? Am I getting something wrong here? Regards, j |
|
|
|
Post by j on May 7, 2019 9:53:53 GMT
Re: how many element can be in contact with a city, I can see why my opponent wanted to surround my city with 6 elements although only 3 could assault at any time (presumably coordination) so that even if all 3 were recoiled, he would still have 3 for the next phase thus massively increasing the chances of the city falling. On the other hand, reality says "why can't he do that?" If I can't find a balance then I can't see me deploying a city again. Upside is, I can cancel my building program  Regards, j |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 7, 2019 10:38:35 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on May 7, 2019 16:54:58 GMT
Munifex, it depends on the size and position of your BUA. Also, presumably you have Cv or Ps to screen and harass till your relief force arrives. The defence factors on a city are not insignificant: A Bd or Sp element is pretty good. And how was that Sp line able to get more than three elements in contact with your city? I submit that at that point the relief army is not doing its job. Your initial assault is three elements at most. The relief army's job is to threaten to annihilate the assault force. If it's assaulting the city, it isn't arrayed to meet an oncoming field army.
My opponents are always in my face quickly when I try to sack their town. Oh once sacked, you o ly have abound or two to rearrange your forces till the enemy come crashing into you. Again, I have never been successful at getting more than three elements into contact with a city or fort. And if the first attack fails, subsequent attacks in the same bound are worse and worse. 4 vs 8 can be pretty hard on the last remaining assaulting Sp...
|
|
)
