Mutual side to side edge contacts on rear supporting element

Oh, and one more thing.

If anyone disagrees with the above House Rule and insists on taking the current rule literally, consider this.
In good going a warband column with it’s support in two mutual edge contacts would suffer two overlaps.
And a +1 for rear support with -2 for mutual edge overlaps would have the front warband fighting at 2 instead of 3.

Now take the very same situation but put the warband column in rough or bad going.
As it has no support in these terrains, the two mutual edge overlaps on it’s support element would have no effect.

So the warbanhd column fights with a combat factor of 2 in good going, but as a 3 in rough or bad going.

Try and justify that.



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

You make a good point primuspilus.

Perhaps the “whether in close combat or not” does refer to the overlapping element.
(i.e. it doesn’t matter if the mutual edge overlapping element is in close combat or not, it still overlaps)

However, that still doesn’t change the last sentence of page 10 paragraph 7:-
“A flank or rear contact on an element providing rear support is treated as if on the supported element.”

I’ll be honest…I’m trying to prevent the front warband element in a column from having its normal combat factor reduced just because it’s supporting element has two mutual edge overlaps/contacts in good going, but in rough or bad going the same column still fights at full strength.

That House Rule has this effect, even if the wording does not match the exact wording of the current rules.
I’m more interested in the final effect rather than how that effect is generated.



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

Sorry primuspilus…
…you may have been playing that way for years, but it is not how DBA 3.0 uses the word ‘contact’.
(I know I’ve posted this before, but I’ll post it again in full)

The Times DBA 3.0 Uses The Word ‘Contact’ To Just Mean ‘Touching’:-
Road Moves: Moving along a road until it contacts enemy or friends [8.6].
Dismounting: Troops cannot dismount while in any contact with enemy or in an enemy TZ [8.9].
Groups: Elements must be in both edge and corner-to-corner contact with another [8.10].
Columns: Elements must be in at least corner-to-corner contact if part of a wheeling column [8.10].
Making Contact: CP/Lit/CWg/Art/WWg cannot move into any contact with enemy [9.12].
Support Contact: A flank or rear contact on an element providing rear support affects the supported element [10.7].
Overlaps: in mutual right-to-right or left-to-left front corner contact with any enemy element [10.8].
Side-Edges: Any enemies in any mutual flank-edge contact overlap each other whether in close combat or not [10.8].
Table Edges: A front-corner 1 BW from the battlefield edge unless this is in contact with a friendly element [10.8].
Flank Support: Some troops +1 if in mutual side-edge and mutual front-corner contact with a friendly element [11.2].
Recoil Obstacles: An element already in such contact with any of these cannot recoil and is destroyed instead [12.5].
Fleeing Direction: If it contacts a battlefield side-edge, it pivots and continues the move along that edge [12.6].

The Times The Words ‘Front-Edge’ Have To Be Added To A Line Containing The Word ‘Contact’:-
WWg: count the first edge in contact as their front-edge when in close combat [4.10].
Sequence of Play: elements of both sides whose front-edges are in suitable contact with enemy fight in close combat [8.4].
Moving into Contact: moving a front-edge into contact with enemy always results in combat [9.9].
Legal Contacts: front-to-front, front-to side, front-to-rear, with corners touching, and overlap positions [9.9].
BUA Contact: Other elements (except Scythed Chariots) can contact a city, fort or camp with their front edge [9.12].
Close Combat: when an element moves into both front-edge and front corner-to-corner contact with an enemy [10.6].
Assaults: A city, fort or camp can be in contact with the front-edges of up to 3 assaulting elements [10.9].
Flank/Rear Destruction: An element that has an enemy front-edge in contact with its side or rear-edge is destroyed [12.1].
Pursuers: If pursuing element’s front-edge contacts enemy or its front-corner contacts an enemy front-edge, [12.11].

Clearly DBA 3.0 uses the word ‘contact’ to simply mean any kind of touching, and then has to add the words ‘front-edge’ when only front-edge touching applies.

Very well…I’ll rescind that House Rule and submit to peer pressure.

Just as long as we all acknowledge that we are adding words and bending the written rules to get the result we want.


I’ll just have to add this to my growing list of “DBA 3.0 rules that don’t mean what they say”…

Hmmm…that might be true up to a point primuspilus…but only up to a point.
Simply changing a single word can sometimes do wonders to improve clarity:-
“A flank or rear contact attack on an element providing rear support is treated as if on the supported element.”
(Although including the words ‘front-edge’ or ‘close combat’ would be even clearer)

Another prime example is that old chestnut of mine, page 11 paragraph 4, last sentence, which says:-
“A supporting element in close combat against an enemy element’s flank or rear recoils if the friendly element in combat with that enemy’s front recoils, flees or is destroyed.”
And page 12 paragraph 9, “Pursuing”, last sentence, says:-
“…an element whose close combat opponents recoil, flee or are destroyed must immediately pursue (if they’re right type).”
So troops in front-edge contact with an enemy flank or rear are classed as being in close combat…
…and some close combat troops will pursue!

But noooo I’ve been told…it might say that, but what it really means is the way we old-time players have been playing it for years, and we never have flanker’s pursuing (even if Phil Barker’s rules say they do).

Well, if that is the case, then perhaps page 11 paragraph 4, last sentence, should say:-
“A supporting element in close combat front-edge contact against an enemy element’s flank or rear recoils if the friendly element in combat with that enemy’s front recoils, flees or is destroyed.”


(I strongly believe that if a problem exists in a DBA rule, we should at least try to fix it, rather than just pretend everything is fine)

Bob, take the following rules (paraphrased in order to save space):-

Close Combat: Close combat is when an element is in both front edge and front corner-to-corner contact with an enemy. [10.6]
Flank/Rear Attacks: Troops in close combat against an enemy flank/rear also recoil if the friends in combat with the enemy’s front are defeated. [11.4]
Pursuing: an element whose close combat opponents recoil, flee or are destroyed must immediately pursue. [12.9]

You can’t say “We don’t want to change Phil Barker’s rules…but we don’t want to follow them either!”

You and I both want the same thing: we both want to stop flank attackers from pursuing.
The difference is you want to change people’s perception of what the word’s ‘close combat’ mean when it comes to pursuing.
I want to change the written words to show what ‘close combat’ means when it comes to pursuing.
But we both want to change the words as they are currently written in order to give us the effect that we want.

Figure 19c gives us both what we desire, as the dialogue says:-
“Auxilia A is in front-edge close combat with Cavalry X. Psiloi B is in flank contact with Cavalry X.”
Note that it does not say “Psiloi B is in close combat with Cavalry X”…it just says it’s in “flank contact”.
So if Psiloi B were of a type that likes to pursue, it wouldn’t do so, because it is in “flank contact” and not “close combat”.

Figure 19c is giving us the correct interpretation.
Rules 10.6, 11.4, and 12.9 are giving a false misleading interpretation, if you take them literally.
Therefore, the Pursuing rule 12.9 doesn’t mean what it says.

Perhaps if Pursuing rule 12.9 were re-worded, it would mean what it says:-
“...or whose pursuit move would cross a battlefield edge, or enter such bad going, or if they are attacking an enemy flank or rear, does not pursue.”

That might be better than trying to justify why ‘close combat’ means one thing in rules 10.6 and 11.4, but means something completely different in rule 12.9.