Picking on a pike block - but was it legal?

Be very wary of opening a can of worms with this, Joe.....

If we start to say that “rear support “ is being provided outside of a combat situation then what happens to shooting? An element ‘providing rear support’ is not a valid target, as you know. This would be a complete change to the game.

To suggest that rear support exists outside of the combat conditions, as clarified by Bob’s quote, would seriously muddy the waters.

Personally, I don’t see any problem here - a phalanx is attacked in flank and rear, while facing completely the wrong direction, and then chaos break out. Seems perfectly plausible. Allowing both elements of the phalanx to conveniently about face in that situation unintentionally rewards the player who has been caught in a dodgy position, would you not say?
Basic rule of thumb:-
Phalanx frontal assault....hard to defeat.
Phalanx hit from flank and rear....should be in trouble.

Nope, nor was an 8Sp involved in the rules query we’re looking at here...(nor an 8Bw, 6Bd, 6Kn or 6Cv). Just trying to make a sensible decision on the situation two players encountered at a tournament.

Support is given by the rear element to an element in front of it. The rules as written suggest that an element in the situation the rearmost pike found itself in would have to turn to deal with the rear attack, but the ‘front’ element would not. A simultaneous flank attack added to the confusion, and MAY, as per the RAW, have needed the front element to deal with this distraction.
Allowing both pikes to turn when the rearmost is assaulted would give the outmanoeuvred sixteen rank deep pike block an undeserved advantage- it would allow it to claim rear support and ALSO allow the engaged element to recoil (had there been no flank attack), instead of causing the chaos that I would imagine would otherwise ensue. The outflanking of and/or rear attack on a pike block was a historical phenomenon used by eg Romans to deal with such a behemoth, and is currently reflected quite well by an interpretation such as the one we applied.

Whether it would be considered ‘correct’ for an 8Sp (or other DBE) to be undaunted by an attack from the rear is certainly questionable, but under current rules the attack is not to the 8Sp’s disadvantage.

From my own point of view, if anything the rules might be seen as too lenient on an outmanoeuvred 8Sp.

Martin,

Having followed the thread and thought about it, I also think that your call was the right one.

Simon

Whilst Martin makes a coherent argument, and one that I was initially thinking was correct (and would have supported on Saturday), I don't feel that it fits either with the abstract nature of DBA or the RAW (supported by the diagrams). Page 12 states the concept of 'providing rear support' as a key aspect of how an element reacts to 'turning to face a flank or rear contact' and is supported by diagrams 14b and 14c, showing how this is dealt with when a Pike block is hit in the flank. If they were a column of Bd/Sp/Ax, not providing rear support, then I think Martin's interpretation is correct, as this fits with the concept behind diagram 20c. Unfortunately, there is not an equivalent diagram for when the Pike block is hit in the rear, and/or other elements join in, which leads to this conundrum. 

However, I believe Phil's concept here is that the Pike are operating as a block (what Primuspilus refers to as a DBE) and not as single elements, and this is where the abstract aspect of DBA comes in. There is also the aspect that a bound, on average, lasts 15 minutes (p4. 'Time scale'), so what is the Pike block doing, having dispatched the Ax in the previous bound, as the Kn and other Ax bear down on it? I would expect there is an element of about face/forming square, as there would be if they were being hit in the front and flank simultaneously, but this is not modelled literally due to the abstract nature of elements - 'although each element is denoted as a rigid rectangular block, this does not imply that the troops it represents are necessarily in such a block or do not vary their position (p4. Army Size and Troop Representation').

Although this may be a rare situation, it definitely requires the FAQ group to rule on it, as it has implications for several aspects of the 'turning to face a flank or rear contact' rule for elements such as Pk, Wb and LH, as well as giving clarity to the design philosophy behind rear support.

I see your train of thought, Paul, but am inclined to think that there should be serious repercussions for any pike block so badly out of position/caught on the hop. Personally (and it’s just an opinion) I feel the way we ran it ‘felt’ about right, and we saw the Ptolemaic phalanx seriously undone by the situation it had gotten itself into. In the dust and heat of battle can we imagine the very front of a 16 rank phalanx having ANY clue what the h*ll was going on behind it, let alone actually being able to respond adequately to it....feels all a bit ‘parade ground’ otherwise (?).
Anywayzup, paddy asked a very thought provoking question, and we’ve given the keyboard a jolly good bashing over it. 😊

Maybe ‘2’ could be better imagined as significant casualties from shooting causing disruption in the phalanx and reducing its fighting abilities (ie temporarily removing its rear support capability), rather than seeing it as a physical displacement of half of the block (?). Sort of a ‘theoretical disadvantage’ manifested under the rules as a physical movement....just a thought.

DBA abstraction/ ‘big picture’ type stuff.........