|
|
Post by bob on Dec 18, 2017 1:21:02 GMT
Revised Thought
"Combat to both front and to flank and/or rear or when overlapped or overlapping:
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. Others only provide tactical factors. A flank or rear contact on an element providing rear support is treated as if on the supported element."
I have been restudying this rule. I think I was confused because Phil included both flanking/rearing and overlap in this paragraph. So why is there this third sentence rule on second ranks?
If an enemy front edge contacts the flank of second rank that is not supporting, that rank will turn to face the contractor. But 3 now prevents such an action if the second rank is supporting front rank. A favorite tactic in 2 was to flank hit the second rank of a Pike column to make it turn and remove support from front rank (and kill it if recoiling).
To prevent this in DBA 3 , and maintain integrity of the pike block, the second rank does not turn to face the flanker, but to give this some value, the -1 is taken against the front rank, which is in contact.
There is no effect of a mutual flank contact on the second rank that is not supporting the front rank. Thus there should be no similar effect of a mutual flank contact on a supporting second rank.
So, in summary.
Enemy in front edge and front corner-to-front corner contact with flank of second rank element not giving support = contacted element turns to face.
Enemy in front edge and front corner-to-front corner contact with flank of second rank element giving support = contacted element does not turns to face and front element takes a -1.
Any enemies in any mutual flank edge contact overlap each other whether in close combat or not. If this is against a second rank element behind element in close combat but not giving support = no effect
Therefore
Any enemies in any mutual flank edge contact overlap each other whether in close combat or not. If this is against a second rank element behind element in close combat giving support = no effect
Because of the wording of the top paragraph, it seemed to me at first that any flank contact would apply. However, since mutual flank contact between non-supporting second rank and enemy gives no penalty, such arrangement between enemy and supporting second rank should give no penalty.
|
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Dec 18, 2017 8:13:18 GMT
Hello Bob, thank you for this excellent explanation.  Cheers, Ronald. |
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Dec 20, 2017 16:58:18 GMT
The key sentence is:
"A flank or rear contact on an element providing rear support is treated as if on the supported element."
So if your in mutual flank contact with a supporting element you treat this as if in mutual flank contact with the supported element (ie the one in frontal contact). Generally this will provide a -1 overlap penalty to the supported element.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Dec 20, 2017 18:01:54 GMT
My head hurts...but what I REALLY want to know is this the OFFICIAL CONSENSUS ruling as illustrated by Bob below:
Bob:
"Therefore
Any enemies in any mutual flank edge contact overlap each other whether in close combat or not. If this is against a second rank element behind element in close combat giving support = no effect
Because of the wording of the top paragraph, it seemed to me at first that any flank contact would apply. However, since mutual flank contact between non-supporting second rank and enemy gives no penalty, such arrangement between enemy and supporting second rank should give no penalty."
This is how we have been playing it forever.
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Dec 22, 2017 3:06:56 GMT
My head hurts...but what I REALLY want to know is this the OFFICIAL CONSENSUS ruling as illustrated by Bob below: Bob: "Therefore Any enemies in any mutual flank edge contact overlap each other whether in close combat or not. If this is against a second rank element behind element in close combat giving support = no effect Because of the wording of the top paragraph, it seemed to me at first that any flank contact would apply. However, since mutual flank contact between non-supporting second rank and enemy gives no penalty, such arrangement between enemy and supporting second rank should give no penalty." This is how we have been playing it forever. I agree with Tony. Those who know Phil have suggested that as an "old school" gamer, he would expect opponents to discuss and decide the interpretation between themselves. In the digital age, we could poll the Fanaticus members on how they interpret this situation based on the rules as written. I think the FAQ committee is best placed to perform the poll and use the information. Here is a first draft at a poll question to help: An element of Pike and Warband is providing a positive tactical factor in close combat to a friendly element by being in front edge to rear edge contact with the friendly element. The supporting element is in mutual side edge to side edge overlap with an enemy element. Based on the rules as written, you would interpret this situation as: a) No effect b) -1 tactical factor Jim PS Wow! Just writing this question gave me a headache! |
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Dec 22, 2017 5:02:29 GMT
I presume that full face to rear contact (let me re-phrase that) - front edge to rear edge contact on a supporting unit should trigger a -1 as well as preventing recoil. Or does it if mutual side edge contact on a supporting unit has no effect.
Logically if an element is providing support anything that would have distracted it (i.e. created a negative modifier) if it were the actual combatant would create a negative as well. The fact that that element could be in side contact as well as rear contact and thus create a -3 modifier when it only provides a +1 might call for a ruling that the negatives can't exceed the positives in the case of a supporting element.
On the other hand having ones support thrown into some disarray by threats from its flanks and/or rear seems likely to cause concern in the supported unit as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Dec 22, 2017 14:29:46 GMT
Again, it all depends on what you believe that "support" actually represents. In the case of a Phalanx, there is no hard evidence that the rear ranks did anything other than provide morale inertia to slow down the ability of front ranks to back away. The idea that a 32-rank Pike block would all push together is ludicrous. The front ranks would be crushed to death in mere minutes, as happens in soccer stadium riots.
By the same token, I do not believe this rear support represents cycling of ranks either. Otherwise why would the most famous and ubiquitous example thereof (the legion) not also receive it?
If you accept these two premises, then the relative level of "distraction" of the rear ranks is irrelevent to frontal close combat support factors.
On the other hand, we are led to believe that in the case of Wb, this rear support does represent waves of charges. If so, then the level of distraction, of the rear element, is relevant.
I am reluctant to see further weakenning of Alexander. That said, Fast Pike still represent the ultimate infantry nightmare to me and my 3Ax armies... Might be nice to clip their wings a tad.
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Dec 22, 2017 18:20:21 GMT
Jim, good start but why bring in both Pike and Warband? Question: My two rank Pike block are in close combat with an enemy Blade. An enemy Auxiliary is in side edge to side edge contact with the second rank Pike. Does this second rank flank contact impact the front rank? Answer 1: The side to side contact on the second rank does not effect the front Pike rank. Answer 2 The side to side contact on the second rank gives the front Pike rank a -1 in combat. I believe that 1 is the correct answer. goragrad and primuspilus -- nice discussion of historical referents, but what do the rules mean  |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Dec 22, 2017 18:39:19 GMT
The key sentence is: "A flank or rear contact on an element providing rear support is treated as if on the supported element." So if your in mutual flank contact with a supporting element you treat this as if in mutual flank contact with the supported element (ie the one in frontal contact). Generally this will provide a -1 overlap penalty to the supported element. TomT Notice the context and especially the title of this section Combat to both front and to flank and/or rear or when overlapped or overlapping: 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. Others only provide tactical factors. A flank or rear contact on an element providing rear support is treated as if on the supported element. "' There is a clear distinction made in the title between "to flank/or rear" and "overlapped or overlapping." Likewise in the first sentence. The last sentence, however, does not refer to "overlap," only to "flank or rear contact." This follows the wording of the title and first sentence to differentiate between these two different forms of contact. If the last sentence were referring to overlap that would be in the sentence, as in the others, such as. "A flank or rear contact or overlap on an element providing rear support is treated as if on the supported element. " There is plenty of space on the line of text to include this if Phil intended overlap to be part of the rule. |
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Dec 22, 2017 22:25:33 GMT
Pretty much how I and our club have been playing this. Since like forever. I see nothing in the rules verbiage that would lead me to treat overlaps on the supporting element generating the -1.
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Dec 22, 2017 23:58:29 GMT
Jim, good start but why bring in both Pike and Warband? Question: My two rank Pike block are in close combat with an enemy Blade. An enemy Auxiliary is in side edge to side edge contact with the second rank Pike. Does this second rank flank contact impact the front rank? Answer 1: The side to side contact on the second rank does not effect the front Pike rank. Answer 2 The side to side contact on the second rank gives the front Pike rank a -1 in combat. I believe that 1 is the correct answer. goragrad and primuspilus -- nice discussion of historical referents, but what do the rules mean Thanks Bob. That's why it was a draft. It was supposed to say Pike "or" Warband! Maybe it should've said "Pike, Warband or Light Horse" to cover the types allowed to give rear support in close combat. I was trying to make the question as broad as possible but still based on a game situation rather than directly quoting the rules. I don't think there is any practical possibility of the rules being rewritten any time soon and I don't think that is required. They are what they are and we obviously like them or we wouldn't spend so much effort playing them, discussing them and then playing them again! I like the idea of the FAQ that has been developed by experienced players that were involved in the playtesting. I think it will help bring more people into the game by helping inexperienced gamers navigate the rules. Your insights into Phil's reasoning for many of the rules has been invaluable. So when a situation pops up on the tabletop and then is discussed on this forum and causes some debate then it is possibly a candidate for the FAQ and maybe a poll is reasonable way of assessing the community's interpretation. That's the reasoning behind my post. Cheers Jim PS Just noticed that Double Elements are in the rear support section. I assume everybody plays that double elements have their rear support built-in and don't require a second double element to obtain the tactical factor! |
|
|
|
Post by martin on Dec 23, 2017 8:53:05 GMT
Pretty much how I and our club have been playing this. Since like forever. I see nothing in the rules verbiage that would lead me to treat overlaps on the supporting element generating the -1. Likewise. Martin |
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Jan 2, 2018 19:04:33 GMT
In the real world the friction from the opponents on the supporting element would be a considerable distraction (just like friction is on any engaged element) somewhat reducing their frontal support (as they are more interested in preserving their own lives then helping out friends).
But now we get to the rule lawyering. Bob contends that the rule title creates a definition of "contact" outside the dictionary one. It means "frontal contact" and not just "contact". Nothing says this but its a valid if very trickly arguement. By using this trick we can avoid the real world result of friction on supporting troops.
So if I go with the consensus on this we will have to thwart the real world application with a very clever rule lawyer trick - and like humptydumty create our own meaning for common words.
I'm willing to rule this way - if its the consensus - but its little wonder that players are embracing the French game over DBX.
(The average reader will indeed see "something in the rules verbiage that would lead them to conclude that the -1 applies". It says "contact" (not "front edge contact") which would in any normal interpration mean "any" contact. I full admit the rule isn't clear and can support either view).
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Jan 2, 2018 22:15:07 GMT
But Tom, by your logic, what if the element making side contact with the supporters, is itself in the fight of its life against Knights to its front? It would surely be rather LESS able to provide a meaningful "distraction" than one that is not so engaged to its front. And now you have to "case manage" between elements that are or are not in frontal close combat while attempting to deny the support bonus.
I am just not convinced by the argument. Do we really want to nerf Alexander the Great and his pursuing Pike phalanx even more? If this was indeed Phil's intent, so be it. But I think it would be a bad rule. For a real issue, watch what happens to two Blade lines when they clash: they often shatter into isolated Blade versus Blade perpetual motion machines. That is an actual issue worth fixing, imho, long before us getting finnicky about side contact upending the rear support Pikes and Warbands rely on to be competitive as troop types.
As for the French game: let's see who is still playing it five years hence. I do not support gerrimandering the DBA rules in order to appeal more to players of other game systems. They play other game systems because they reject the basic premise and design principles of DBA as a concept.
But the DBA system works, is mostly consistent, and gives a very rich, deep and subtle tactical experience as is. It succeeds incredibly well as a game, and rather well as history in the majority of cases, given how little we really know of the difficulties and pain of an ancient battle experience.
For instance I haven't seen too many ADLG campaigns yet, for example. I just don't think DBA is in danger of a mass exodus to the French game because of the side contact rules as written.
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jan 3, 2018 13:38:22 GMT
This is a difficult bit of the rules because you can make logical arguments for both sides. In my opinion, in comes down to what rear support is supposed to represent, albeit in an abstract form, from the ancient battlefield. We can't ask Phil directly as to what he was thinking but it may have come up in conversation with the playtesting group.
Clearly, it gives the player the decision to increase his frontal combat factor at the expense of a shorter line, potentially exposing the flanks. On the gaming table it also increases the depth significantly but is this intentional or unintentional? I say that because I imagine the two groups of troops merging into one mass more or less rather than standing apart. This would put all the troops near the front edge of the element. By allowing side to side overlap on the rear element to affect combat we are effectively treating the two elements as a double-based element. I don't see reinforced warband or pikes as similar to the 50-deep Theban phalanx.
Personally, I wish we could ignore the rear element in this situation, letting it act simply as a marker, and all contact is adjudicated in relation to the front element but that can never happen. So we are again left with the two choices:
1) All forms of contact can affect the supporting element (overlap is listed as a form of contact in the rules "Moving into contact with enemy")
2) All forms of contact except overlap can affect the supporting element
I like number 2 but I can certainly see the arguements for number 1
Jim
|
|
