|
|
Post by paulisper on May 12, 2020 14:24:26 GMT
2 Stevie:Why do you ignore the end of the phrase "... but only if:"? I mean the structure is that: "all elements in column ... but only if:", and the text is quite clear in that. Or do you think this "...but only if:" solely applies to the first element that formally in close combat? Yes, it's the latter - the 'but only if' relates to the element in combat, ie. the 4Bd in your initial example. P. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 12, 2020 15:01:18 GMT
2 Stevie:Why do you ignore the end of the phrase "... but only if:"? I mean the structure is that: "all elements in column ... but only if:", and the text is quite clear in that. Or do you think this "...but only if:" solely applies to the first element that formally in close combat? Yes, it's the latter - the 'but only if' relates to the element in combat, ie. the 4Bd in your initial example. P. Agreed Paulisper. I’m not ignoring the “ ..but only if:”...I am using it in its correct context. Page 12 Pursuing says:- “(c) An element that is of Pk, Bd (but not CP, Lit or CWg) or Wb and that fought against any foot (except Psiloi) pursues ½ BW straight ahead.” Applying this to the “...but only if” means only those elements that actually fought would pursue. Thus no-one in a column would ever ‘follow-their-mates-in-front’ after a round of combat. So what is the point of “...and all elements in a column behind such an element.”? The two statements would contradict each other. So yes, the a), b), and c) points following the “...but only if” are referring only to the element at the front of the column that actually did the fighting, and not those in the rear who didn’t fight, who can’t even see the enemy, and are just obeying the last order they received during the last Tactical Move Phase. The General's orders: “You at the head of the column go over there, and the rest of you in the column behind just follow them”. The troops behind: “Oh, the troops in front have moved another 1 BW, we don’t know why, so we had better obey orders and simply follow them.” |
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on May 12, 2020 15:56:08 GMT
But pursuit as part of a column is also forced by the action of another element on the same side - which is why I suggested the two were comparable.
The Art and all the other elements in the column move directly forward 1BW (which is only half their normal move so far from impossible). Possibly it is unlikely that Artillery will be part of a mad dash to kill the surviving members of the defeated element and take their position, but no more unrealistic than the tail element of a 6 deep column of Kn, Pk or Bd doing so, because the pursuit stops before they get anywhere near where the enemy element was.
Actually, reading the rule again, I see it describes pursuing simply as "following up" the enemy, so not necessarily a ferocious attack and no inherent reason why troops in a column should not follow the lead element.
There is nothing in the rules that stops the Art being part of of an attacking column (provided it isn't the front element), so why baulk at it pursuing as part of a column?
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on May 12, 2020 18:14:17 GMT
You are right, Zendor. The type of enemy element doesn't change the point you were making. To answer your question, yes. They are in a column behind an element which pursues, so they all pursue. Even the Art. It's hard for me to agree with you, menacussecundus. Pursuing Artillery is truly madness, don't you think so? Imo, Art do not belong to any type of elements that have to pursue. Therefore why will it pursue? My point is, to pursue while standing in column, both conditions have to be met: being in column + belonging to a certain type of element mentioned below. It seems madness to me to put artillery into a column with elements that pursue. Sometimes for the sake of play ability rules needs to be general and cannot take into account certain specific nonsensical situations. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 12, 2020 18:29:00 GMT
Indeed Bob...I believe it was Phil Barker himself that once said:- "We shouldn't make rules that prevent players from making mistakes."  |
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on May 12, 2020 19:07:49 GMT
It's hard for me to agree with you, menacussecundus. Pursuing Artillery is truly madness, don't you think so? Imo, Art do not belong to any type of elements that have to pursue. Therefore why will it pursue? My point is, to pursue while standing in column, both conditions have to be met: being in column + belonging to a certain type of element mentioned below. It seems madness to me to put artillery into a column with elements that pursue. Sometimes for the sake of play ability rules needs to be general and cannot take into account certain specific nonsensical situations. Bob,
That extra level of madness could mean the difference between victory or defeat.
But think if the knight had destroyed the element on his opponent's bound, then pursues 1BW with the column trundling behind. The artillery is now 1BW closer to possible targets when it shoots on its bound.
Actually, such manoeuvres were not uncommon during the 18th/19th century. Hmm, come to think of it Roman carroballista were mobile artillery.
|
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on May 13, 2020 12:00:48 GMT
Hi Folks, hi Zendor, for me the rules are very clear! All elements ( and not just all elements of a certain troop type!) in a column follow the pursuing front element, which won the combat! ... but only if that front element is in one of the conditions of a), b) or c)! That‘s all😅. Regards Ronald.
|
|
|
|
Post by zendor on May 13, 2020 14:56:02 GMT
Thanks to everyone, you helped me a lot! I got the main point and all the arguments. I need time to adapt to the new way of thinking and way of playing...  |
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on May 13, 2020 20:19:00 GMT
Its a wierdly worded rule. Intent was to keep rear support moving forward with pursuing element not quite sure how the paratentical "all elements in column" got added in but there it is.
First please note that the "basic rule" has ALL element types pursuing but this is then limited by clauses (a), (b) & (c) and the phrase "but only if" - this phrase clearly applies and limits "an element whose close combat opponents recoil, flee or are destroyed" because otherwise all vitorious elements (except those excluded by the sentence just above as Phil had a habit of giving the exception before the rule) would Pursue. But does it also limit "all elements in a column". Logic says yes but there is no way to tell whether the limitation applies only to the sentence in general but not the parenthetical clause.
For tournament rule lawyering I think we are stuck with the whole column advancing, though had we brought this to Phil's attention he might have said otherwise.
But for home games if you want to say "and those Elements providing Rear Support or which would Pursue if in contact and immediately behind the victorious Element also Pursue" go for it - its probably a much more logical result but requires more rules. I stuck with the whole column advancing just to reduce rules.
TomT
|
|
