|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 18, 2020 8:18:14 GMT
This is something that came up in another thread.
Pk can recoil through Bd, but Bd cannot recoil through Pk.
What exactly is this for?
Snowcat thinks it might have something to do with the Swiss, but intended or not,
it could also be used by the later pike Successors with their ‘imitation legionaries’.
I ask because it seems a pretty poor column formation.
An all Pk column has a higher combat factor against both foot and heavy mounted.
So why would anyone want to weaken their Pikes by backing them up with Blades?
Does anyone know why this was included in the rules?
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 18, 2020 8:24:06 GMT
Swiss or landsknechts, but without much confidence.  |
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Sept 18, 2020 9:11:05 GMT
It is possible, the difference in fighting style would make blade armed troops easier to be passed through than pikemen. Afterall, halberd and sword wielding troops were an integral part of medieval pike formations, so this might be one way DBA handles the lack of sub-units.
There must be an article or two in Slingshot covering this, possibly even from Phil.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on Sept 18, 2020 9:18:15 GMT
This is something that came up in another thread. Pk can recoil through Bd, but Bd cannot recoil through Pk. What exactly is this for? Snowcat thinks it might have something to do with the Swiss, but intended or not, it could also be used by the later pike Successors with their ‘imitation legionaries’. I ask because it seems a pretty poor column formation. An all Pk column has a higher combat factor against both foot and heavy mounted. So why would anyone want to weaken their Pikes by backing them up with Blades? Does anyone know why this was included in the rules? The Barkers in their genius have not only given us the most perfect game and rulesets. They have created it in such a way as to allow us all an eternity of discussion and interpretation. My club already know I am obsessed by DBA but now see me as an evangelist trying to convert them to the one true rule book as well. They may even becoming a little annoyed with me but I am luckily self assured enough in my mission to continue blindly until they are all collecting Aztec vs plains Indian armies to complete their collection. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 18, 2020 9:43:51 GMT
Ha! That sounds exactly like me Baldie.  Nonetheless, I am still curious (and the non-DBA heathens are bound to ask me one day):- Perhaps it’s as they say at the end of those old black and white science fiction films:- “There are just some things Man is not meant to know...” |
|
|
|
Post by haywire on Sept 18, 2020 16:40:00 GMT
There was probably one battle, that someone has documented, where a great success was achieved when Pk recoiled through Bd.
|
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Sept 24, 2020 18:31:28 GMT
The Swiss certainly used tactic as most Swiss Columns contained a core of Halbardiers who guarded the Canton banners. If it came to stubborn enemy foot entering into "push of pike", the Halbardiers would move forward to break the deadlock. Of course this was how it was documented in their chonracles and battle accounts, but it is conceivable that the Pikemen could equally likely fall back through the Halbardiers.
For a possible example is the attack on the Grunhag at the battle of Morat 1476,where the Swiss were temporarily halted until the Swiss broke through the defences.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 24, 2020 21:39:56 GMT
Understood Haardrada.
But I still ask:-
If players are expected to back their Pikes with Blades, at least give them some sort
of advantage for doing so.
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 24, 2020 22:34:03 GMT
Given that these formations (pike blocks with a central core of halberdiers) are treated homogeneously as Pk in the army lists, it's a bit moot as there are no Pk recoiling through Bd on the table top - they're just Pk. So perhaps this rule is referring to some other examples from history...?
|
|
|
|
Post by macbeth on Sept 25, 2020 5:22:02 GMT
Understood Haardrada. But I still ask:- If players are expected to back their Pikes with Blades, at least give them some sort of advantage for doing so. I think you will find that this interpenetration rule dates back to the heretical era when a deeper formation (3 elements or more) could be pushed back so 2 ranks of 4Pk on the shallower bases (when they were the only kind) might be able to recoil through a single element of 3Bd on the deeper base.
I assume there was a reason (now lost in the mist of legend) when it was preferable to have something that was +5/+3 fighting an enemy that had just recoiled a block that was +6/+7 in the previous round.
Possibly it was when the front rank of Pk was destroyed somehow, because in 2.2 the second rank only died as well if it gave a +1 in rear support, but then in the follow up whatever it was that got lucky against the front rank only managed to push back the second rank.
In all of these scenarios I am wondering why the Bd was in the rear of the Pk and not out the front or at least beside.
Stevie
with all due respect, your question is about a mechanism in the rules that will hardly ever come up because there is no reason why you would put Bd behind a single rank of Pk, and now if it is behind a double rank of Pk there is no recoil - so really no reason to do it unless forced.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 25, 2020 8:24:04 GMT
I agree with you Macbeth...there really is no reason why anybody would want to deliberately
weaken their Pikes by backing them up with Blades, even if there’s a rule that lets them do so.
I often quote a line by Phil Barker himself:-
“We shouldn’t make rules that prevent players from making mistakes”
...well here is a rule that seems to have the sole purpose of enticing players into making a mistake!
I think you’re right, and it is just a left over ‘fossil rule’...much like how “Psiloi can recoil through
any friends except Psiloi” is also a ‘fossil rule’, perhaps intended for javelin/sling/archer/handgun
Psiloi to have different abilities, but this was never implemented.
(After all, if recoiling Psiloi can pass through dense Pk/Sp/Bd where the men are all standing tightly
shoulder-to-shoulder, then one would have thought they’d have no problem with recoiling through
other skirmishing open order Psiloi where the men are standing a couple of paces apart!)
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 25, 2020 23:54:55 GMT
Maybe Ps got confused when they tried to recoil through other friendly Ps... "Hey, I know you, you're just like me, weren't we in a unit together at some point? Or are we back together again? Let's stay together in case we get separated again..."  (I'll be ignoring that rule for sure!) |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 26, 2020 0:22:16 GMT
Regarding Ps, may be PB is just being a purist? Ps wouldn't fall back through Ps to find relative shelter. The mass would just fall back from whatever the pressure was facing them. In practice, you can swap the two of them. It doesn't affect the game.
I don't think this is a major wrinkle that needs ironing. Pikes on the other hand...
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 26, 2020 2:30:43 GMT
Regarding Ps, may be PB is just being a purist? Ps wouldn't fall back through Ps to find relative shelter. The mass would just fall back from whatever the pressure was facing them. In practice, you can swap the two of them. It doesn't affect the game. I don't think this is a major wrinkle that needs ironing. Pikes on the other hand... Cheers Jim Yep, that makes sense. Hmm... |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 26, 2020 9:29:05 GMT
Yes, there are several of these ‘fossil rules’ lurking quietly in the Great Purple Book. For those interested, some time ago I made a short list of some of these ‘fossil’ or ‘unnecessary’ rules...see fanaticus.boards.net/post/8552/ |
|
