|
|
Post by Simon on Dec 10, 2017 8:39:20 GMT
A warband is in front edge to front edge contact with an enemy foot, non-psiloi element.
The warband ius supported by another warband to its rear.
The supporting warband to the rear has an enemy in mutual side edge to side edge contact.
Does this give a -1 to the front warband fighting the combat?
Cheers
Simon
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Dec 10, 2017 10:44:06 GMT
An interesting question Simon. I’m thinking of situations where pike and warband columns have pursued through an enemy battleline and now have their rear supporting element in mutual side-edge contact with two other enemies. Pk: combat factor 3, add +3 for the rear support, but -2 from the support for two mutual side-edge contacts = 3+3-2. Wb: combat factor 3, add +1 for the rear support, but -2 from the support for two mutual side-edge contacts = 3+1-2. The warband would be better off without any support! Or does the warband fight at 3 because the rear support of +1 becomes -1…and you can’t have a -1 for support? (In other words, the warband support is ignored as it is less than 1?) Figure 20a on page 28 doesn’t really help much, and page 10 paragraph 8 just says:- “Any enemies in any mutual flank-edge contact overlap each other whether in close combat or not.” So my friends and I have always played it that only mutual side-edge contacts on the front element count. (We could be wrong of course…) Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest June 2017 FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
|
|
|
|
Post by martin on Dec 10, 2017 21:36:57 GMT
A warband is in front edge to front edge contact with an enemy foot, non-psiloi element. The warband ius supported by another warband to its rear. The supporting warband to the rear has an enemy in mutual side edge to side edge contact. Does this give a -1 to the front warband fighting the combat? Cheers Simon Nope, believe not, Simon. M |
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Dec 10, 2017 21:41:33 GMT
Thanks Stevie and Martin. This is also how Tony played it in his, as usual, excellent latest video.
Regards,
Simon
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Dec 10, 2017 23:09:02 GMT
I do not recall having a situation of side to side edge contact on a second rank that is supporting a friend to the front. At first thought I agreed with the above comments. Then I read the rule. Quoted below, with numbers added for reference.
"Combat to both front and to flank and/or rear or when overlapped or overlapping:
1. When an element is in close combat both to front and to flank or rear or in close combat to its front and overlapped, only it and the enemy element in front fight each other.
2. Others only provide tactical factors.
3. A flank or rear contact on an element providing rear support is treated as if on the supported element."
A three part rule.
1. This explains who is fighting, that is, which element's combat factors are used. This does muddy the waters about who is in close combat, as it refers to "element in close combat both to front and to flank or rear. Are these thus in close combat? It is, however, clear which elements are "fighting" each other.
2. This tells what the elements that a are not fighting each other do -- "provide tactical factors."
3. Now the point of possible confusion. The first sentence refers to overlaps and flank and rear contact. The term "close combat" is used in first sentence. Does this last point thus include overlap in the word "contact?" Is an overlap on a flank considered contact? The term "close combat" is not used as it is in the first sentence. Only "contact" is used. This suggests to me that a flank overlap contact is included here
Any contact on a supporting element counts on the front element. I assume these are legal contacts as defined on page 9 "Moving into Contact."
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Dec 11, 2017 3:26:49 GMT
I think Bob has it right. The only combat is the front-to-front contact. So I think the front warband is:
+3
+1 for rear support ( I cannot find a rule that indicates this is negated by side-to-side contact)
-1 for side-to-side contact (as per point 3 from Bob)
Total: +3
It may help to visualise the warband as a temporary double based element. Or more imaginatively, the chaps behind aren't going hard in support of their friends at the front because there worried about the enemy on their side with sharp, pointy things.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Dec 11, 2017 8:10:41 GMT
Hello guys, I agree with bob and Jim. If I change figure 20a of the rulebook accordingly (see attachment), the overlap on the rear supporting element (Y) still gives a -1 to the close combat of the front element (X)! Cheers, Ronald. Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Dec 11, 2017 9:09:45 GMT
I wonder if the crux of this is how widely or narrowly "contact" is defined in "A flank or rear contact on an element providing rear support." Does a flank or rear contact need to be made with an enemy front edge, front corner to front corner for flank and front corners to rear corners for rear contact or does it mean any legal touching on those edges?
I think that this is an important point as, as Stevie pointed out earlier, it has very big implications for supported warband punching their way through an enemy line.
Simon
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Dec 11, 2017 10:44:50 GMT
Simon is right about this having a large impact, and I am far from certain about what the correct interpretation is. I don’t disagree with what Bob, Jim1973 or Ronald have said, but I’m not sure that they have taken in the full ramifications of the situation. Take Ronald’s diagram number 2 and replace the pikes with warbands. Does the support suffer -1 for the side contact? Sounds plausible…the rear element is a bit distracted because of the side contact, and unable to give full support. But what if there were another enemy element in also in side contact with the supporting warband’s other flank? The supporting warband is only worth +1…does it suffer a -2, and cause the front warband to reduce it’s CF to 2? Is the support actually a hindrance, or is it ignored because it’s distracted an cannot lend any support? If it were a column of auxiliaries the front element wouldn’t suffer, so why should the front warband not only lose it’s support, but have its combat factor reduced as well just because it’s support is distracted? There seems to be three ways of interpreting this situation:- 1) only side contacts on the front element count…or… 2) two side contacts on a supporting warband is a hindrance to the front warband, and makes it weaker…or… 3) side contacts on a supporting element do reduce its support factor, but not to below zero. (or to look at it another way, a support of less than one is no support... ...it's the support factor that is being reduced, not the front elements ability to fight) Personally, I prefer option 3 (as reducing pike support would make pike-vs-pike combat less indecisive), and the worst that could happen to a warband is that its support has no effect (rather than become a hindrance)… …but it doesn’t say this in the rules. Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest June 2017 FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
|
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Dec 11, 2017 11:04:06 GMT
I wonder if the crux of this is how widely or narrowly "contact" is defined in "A flank or rear contact on an element providing rear support." Does a flank or rear contact need to be made with an enemy front edge, front corner to front corner for flank and front corners to rear corners for rear contact or does it mean any legal touching on those edges? I think that this is an important point as, as Stevie pointed out earlier, it has very big implications for supported warband punching their way through an enemy line. Simon Hello Simon, yes, that's the main question. On page 10 (close combat) the rules say: "Any enemies in any mutual flank edge contact overlap each other ..." so flank to flank is a contact - isn't it? On page 9 (moving into contact with enemy) the rules say: "d) with no enemy in contact to its front, but in overlap" so d) is also a contact - isn't it? Cheers, Ronald |
|
|
|
Post by martin on Dec 11, 2017 19:02:52 GMT
I disagree with the -1.
My view is that 'edge-to-edge/overlap' is not the same as 'contact', which involves a front edge engaging an enemy, not a side edge brushing up against another side edge.
The diagram 20a shows a contact, not an overlap, and so is not relevant.
Martin
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Dec 11, 2017 20:56:04 GMT
First can we agree that a rear "contact" on the supporting element would inflict the -1 (for rear contact)?
This leaves only whether a side to side contact counts as "contact". Of course by the dictionary definition they are in contact (they touch). So if we say they are not in "contact" we must consult Mr. Humpty Dumpty. In other words the word "contact" now has to have a game meaning (only) and we cannot use it for its normal dictionary definition within the rules least we create confusion. Sometimes you need to do this but it should be done with clarity and caution.
The effect would be to merely cancel the +1 for support as the supports are bickering with the side contactors. This seems the better real world result.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Dec 11, 2017 21:57:27 GMT
First can we agree that a rear "contact" on the supporting element would inflict the -1 (for rear contact)? This leaves only whether a side to side contact counts as "contact". Of course by the dictionary definition they are in contact (they touch). So if we say they are not in "contact" we must consult Mr. Humpty Dumpty. In other words the word "contact" now has to have a game meaning (only) and we cannot use it for its normal dictionary definition within the rules least we create confusion. Sometimes you need to do this but it should be done with clarity and caution. The effect would be to merely cancel the +1 for support as the supports are bickering with the side contactors. This seems the better real world result. TomT Who is Mr. Humpty Dumpty? |
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on Dec 11, 2017 22:35:02 GMT
He's cracked
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Dec 11, 2017 23:20:49 GMT
And can't be put together again... Joe Collins |
|
