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.
