|
|
Post by zendor on May 8, 2020 21:16:37 GMT
Hi there, I would like to clarify one thing in the rules. In In Pursuing section we read: "Otherwise an element whose close combat opponents recoil, flee or are destroyed (and all elements in a column behind such an element) must immediately pursue, but only if: ..."So, if I have a red column like on the image, and due to combat results green Sp element has to recoil, will ALL elements in column pursue it, or I misunderstand something?  |
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on May 9, 2020 8:02:14 GMT
Zendor,
Good question!
As in another active thread (" how is it possible" in rants and raves), I have never noticed this before. We would play that only the blade element pursued, but the rules do not appear to say that. Even if we interpret it as saying that elements only pursue if they are in the subsequent list of elements that do pursue (knights etc 1BW, blades and pikes ½ BW), and it is a somewhat liberal interpretation of the language to say it does, then what would happen in the Cv element was a Kn? Would the element pursue 1 BW and shunt the Ps and Ax forwards into the back of the blades?
It may be that the rule as written is a victim of PB's love of brevity and should say something like "Elements in a column pursue if they are in a column immediately behind an element which itself pursues and are of a type which would would normally themselves pursue". If I remember correctly, in 2.2 elements would only pursue if they had been involved in the fighting by providing rear support, and I really don't see why this has been changed.
Scott
|
|
|
|
Post by zendor on May 9, 2020 10:29:24 GMT
Thank you, Scott!
Yes, in 2.2 this situation was clear. And we did not took care about it, playing as you said: elements in column pursue only if they provide rear support.
But only recently I've noticed that in 3.0 text is different. )
So, I'm really want to ask Fanaticus community how do they deal with that.
|
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on May 9, 2020 11:31:27 GMT
There may have been an unconscious assumption that elements wouldn't be in combat and in a column unless they were providing rear support, but it is equally possible that Phil would have taken the view that any player stupid enough to get caught in that sort of formation deserves all they get. However, I wasn't privy to the discussion.
I play it that they all pursue. What I find more complicated is working out which of the red elements would be destroyed if the Sp wins the combat.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on May 9, 2020 11:51:47 GMT
Just the blade die presumably
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 9, 2020 11:53:41 GMT
I agree with Menacussecundus.
Maybe the wording chosen is deliberate, and it is perhaps just another way of punishing columns.
|
|
|
|
Post by martin on May 9, 2020 12:54:28 GMT
The consensus, from previous discussions of this rule, seems to be that they all pursue....so conceivable the entire army, in a column in 12 elements, would pursue if the front element had to do so.
|
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on May 9, 2020 14:02:22 GMT
Thanks, Martin. I must have missed that thread.
Menacussecundus and Stevie, do you suggest the obligation to pursue punishes the column? As I read the rules, each element just pursues ½ BW.
Baldie, I think it is more complex than the blade dying. If defeated, he blade would recoil ½ BW, which means it would push back the psiloi, as it cannot interpenetrate it. The psiloi, however is a "pushed back" element. Pushed back elements who are already in contact with another element are destroyed. So it is the psiloi, not the blade, who are destroyed. The Ax and Cv would be unaffected.
I think.
Scott
|
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on May 9, 2020 14:15:25 GMT
I always thought it was the element fighting that died, blooming rules.
Give me another twenty years of so I may just get it.
|
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on May 9, 2020 15:10:01 GMT
i might be wrong, of course!
Scott
|
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on May 9, 2020 16:23:25 GMT
......... Menacussecundus and Stevie, do you suggest the obligation to pursue punishes the column? As I read the rules, each element just pursues ½ BW...... Not necessarily, Scott. But it will end up somewhere other than where the player intended. That might work to the player's advantage, but could mean the element no longer has enough move to make that decisive tactical thrust elsewhere. |
|
|
|
Post by paulisper on May 9, 2020 17:13:58 GMT
I'm with Baldie, in that the 4Bd dies. The final sentence of the 'Recoliing or being pushed back' section on p12 seals it for me - 'An element already in such contact with any of these cannot recoil and is destroyed instead'.
|
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on May 9, 2020 18:00:34 GMT
I'm with Baldie, in that the 4Bd dies. The final sentence of the 'Recoliing or being pushed back' section on p12 seals it for me - 'An element already in such contact with any of these cannot recoil and is destroyed instead'. Actually I was being a bit facetious. I am reasonably sure of my ground here. The blade is not in contact with "any of the above". The friends with which it is in contact (psiloi), it can push back. Basically because they are not elephants or war wagons. If the psiloi had a gap between them and the auxilia, they would move back until contact and then stop, as would the blade, but because they are already in contact with the auxilia, they are destroyed instead. If you are to suggest that they cannot be pushed back because they are already in contact (and so the blade cannot push them back and the blade are destroyed instead), then the clause describing what happens if a pushed back element is already in contact is redundant, because by your logic if they cannot be pushed back and therefore are not "a pushed back element" they cannot be destroyed as consequence. The clause i am relying on in my defence is in the third paragraph of the "Recoiling or being pushed back" section, also on p12. "If the recoiling element is not elephants, friends facing in the same direction can be interpenetrated if allowed (this does not apply here, see p9). If not, they are pushed back far enough to make room unless they are elephants or war wagons. Pushed back elements cannot interpenetrate or push back others". M'lud. Scott |
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on May 9, 2020 18:29:13 GMT
I agree with Paulisper and Baldie. There is only one element that must recoil – blade; other elements move back to create space.
Reoiling or Being Pushed Back, page 12
‘A recoiling or pushed back element whose rear edge or rear corner meets terrain it cannot enter, a battlefield edge, friends it cannot pass through or push back, enemy or a city, for or camp end its move there. An element already in such contact with any of these cannot recoil and is destroyed instead. ‘
Question:
This is interesting as if the four deep column moved to contact the element of spear, scoring less than, the blade dies.
Spear moves on its bound to engage the psiloi, the psiloi pray for a score of twice as many (*), if not would it too follow the same fate as the blade?
(*) Interpenetrating Troops, page 8, paragraph one.
|
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on May 9, 2020 18:46:07 GMT
I'm with Baldie, in that the 4Bd dies. The final sentence of the 'Recoliing or being pushed back' section on p12 seals it for me - 'An element already in such contact with any of these cannot recoil and is destroyed instead'. Actually I was being a bit facetious. I am reasonably sure of my ground here. The blade is not in contact with "any of the above". The friends with which it is in contact (psiloi), it can push back. Basically because they are not elephants or war wagons. If the psiloi had a gap between them and the auxilia, they would move back until contact and then stop, as would the blade, but because they are already in contact with the auxilia, they are destroyed instead. If you are to suggest that they cannot be pushed back because they are already in contact (and so the blade cannot push them back and the blade are destroyed instead), then the clause describing what happens if a pushed back element is already in contact is redundant, because by your logic if they cannot be pushed back and therefore are not "a pushed back element" they cannot be destroyed as consequence. The clause i am relying on in my defence is in the third paragraph of the "Recoiling or being pushed back" section, also on p12. "If the recoiling element is not elephants, friends facing in the same direction can be interpenetrated if allowed (this does not apply here, see p9). If not, they are pushed back far enough to make room unless they are elephants or war wagons. Pushed back elements cannot interpenetrate or push back others". M'lud. Scott Looking at it again, I think the clause you quote is ambiguous on this point, Scott. What it says, explicitly is that "pushed back elements cannot interpenetrate or push back others". So you can't have the entire column shunted backwards. But it doesn't say that an element which would normally be pushed back but which is unable to move is destroyed. In the situation above, the Ps can't be pushed back (even though it could - different verb, which may or may not be significant - in other circumstances). The Bd is therefore starting in contact with an element it cannot push back. Therefore, as paulisper says, it cannot recoil and is destroyed instead. |
|
