Looking at Andrea’s rather nice photos, I think the situation is a follows.
Page 9, Contacting an Enemy, 1st paragraph, last sentence, says:- “Elements contacted this bound by enemy or whose front edge is still in contact when combat ends automatically conform if necessary.” So the single Blade, now that its friends have backed off, has the room to conform to the City, and will be hit in the flank by the Chariot. (This is the cleanest and simplest solution)
Alternatively (if you think that conforming to a City is not implied in the rules), then Page 9, Contacting an Enemy, 2nd paragraph, first sentence, says:- “A single element contacting a single element conforms to it.”...which the Chariot cannot do because the City is in the way, so the single Blade has to conform to the Chariot instead, or stay as it is and fight as if overlapped. (This is the messy and awkward solution)
It’s messy and awkward because who does the Blade fight? The Chariot or the City, as its front-edge is in contact with both? Especially as Page 10, Combat against a City or Fort, 1st sentence, says:- “Troops assaulting or defending (a City or Fort) do not count overlaps”. In other words, a City cannot overlap an enemy.
All-in-all, I’d say the first solution given above is the better interpretation... ...as it leads to fewer arguments! Make the Blade conform to the City once the combat phase ends.
Last Edit: Jan 25, 2021 21:00:42 GMT by stevie: ...but I’m sure there will be others that disagree...☺
That’s a good point Baldie. Very well then, I suppose we’ll have to follow these rules.
Page 8, Tactical Moves, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence:- “(Disengaging) cannot be used by an element in close combat, which can break-off only by a recoil or flee outcome move.” And Page 10, Turning to Face, 1st sentence:- “...unless they are already in full front edge contact...” (Yes, I know that conforming is not always part of a Tactical Move, but it’s not a combat outcome either, and the Blade is not in ‘full’ front edge contact)
Soooo...the Blade is already assaulting the City, so cannot conform or turn-to-face the Chariot, as that would mean disengaging from its current close combat opponent. Therefore, the Blade must continue with its fight against the City, and the Chariot merely provides it with a -1 overlap penalty.
Actually, it’s in the interest of the Chariot to hit the Blade in the flank, which also gives it a -1 overlap penalty AND means it will be destroyed if it recoils from the combat with the City.
Note that all this is not so much of a problem when using curved edges, as it’s difficult to contact the front edge of an element that is already engaged against a curved City, Fort or Camp perimeter.
Ah! I’m afraid this has opened up another interpretation dispute Menacussecundas.
My little gang of DBA players has always assumed that the Page 10 “Combat Against a City, Fort or Camp” rules only refer to the actual assaulter's and the BUA defences themselves. So assaulter’s cannot overlap the walls and the walls cannot overlap the assaulter’s. (After all, the “Overlap” section on page 10 comes before the “Combat Against Walls” section)
Bd-1 Bd-2 Bd-3 Aux City/Fort
Bd-2 clearly overlaps the Aux, but not the City/Fort. Likewise, the City/Fort, although larger, does not overlap Bd-3. However, we see no reason why Bd-4 in the next diagram should be immune to the Aux overlap:-
Aux Bd-4 City/Fort
...as the Page 10 Overlap section says: “Any elements in any mutual flank edge contact overlap each other whether in close combat or not”.
As we see it, the Page 10 Overlap section tells us what an overlap is...and the Page 10 Combat Against certain BUA’s tells us that Cities, Forts and Camp neither give nor do they receive overlaps, as well as preventing side and rear support (which also includes the double-base bonus).
Last Edit: Jan 26, 2021 13:24:05 GMT by stevie: ...of course, as always, others will differ...☺
Well, I can fully understand why overlapped troops don’t fight so well. It’s because they are worried about their vulnerable flanks, and this causes them to become distracted...hence the -1 combat penalty.
What I don’t understand is why troops assaulting a City, Fort or Camp would be totally indifferent to an overlap, with many of them halfway up a tall scaling ladder...even when the enemy has their front edge in contact and are actually charging the assaulting troops in the flank! Do troops assaulting walls have more bravery and are less prone to disorder?
Following the rules word-for-word is fine... ...providing they don’t fly in the face of common sense. Phil Barker knows what he means, but he is not always good at conveying it.
There are several rules in DBA that I have been told by the DBA community don’t actually mean what they say. Here are just a few examples. * Page 7, BUA’s, 1st sentence at the very top of the page:- “Cities, Forts, Hamlets and Edifices belong to the defender”...so the invader can’t deploy in them, any more than the invader can deploy in a City or Fort. (“Oh no Stevie, it might say that, but it doesn’t mean it! An invader can deploy in a Hamlet or Edifice, no matter what the rules say”) * Page 11, Tactical Factors, says:- “+4 if garrisoning a City”...which can happen to mounted if they storm a City. (“Oh no Stevie, it might say that, but it doesn’t mean it! We all know that only applies to foot troops, even if it doesn’t say it”) * Page 12, Pursuing, says:- “...an element whose close combat opponents recoil, flee or are destroyed must immediately pursue if they are of the right type”...and having a front edge in contact is a form of close combat - see Close Combat on Page 10 - so troops attacking a flank should also pursue. (“Oh no Stevie, it might say that, but it doesn’t mean it! We all know that troops attacking a flank don’t pursue”) * Page 9, Contacting the Enemy, conforming:- Sometimes it says the contacting troops must conform, and at other times it says those contacted must conform...so which is it? (Fortunately this is cleared up by “single elements conform to a group” etc. Nonetheless, it would be much clearer if it didn’t use the words ‘contacting’ and ‘contacted’, but just said “conforming troops must do the lining-up”) * Then there is my old favourite, Page 6, Rivers, which says:- “For movement, a River is neither good nor other going.”... ...for movement only it says, not combat. (“Oh no Stevie, it might say that, but it doesn’t mean it! We want to apply this to combat as well, even though it says don’t do this”)
Perhaps, just perhaps, the Page 10 Combat Against a City section is yet another case of the rules saying one thing but meaning something else...and the real intention is to have Cities, Forts and Camps neither giving nor receiving overlaps, but a poor choice of words can lead to the wrong impression.
As I said, Phil Barker knows what he means, but he is not always good at conveying it.
Last Edit: Jan 26, 2021 22:14:18 GMT by stevie: ...of course, we didn't write the rules...we just have to use them...☺