|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Jun 19, 2021 13:18:40 GMT
This arises from comments in response to a query which was originally posted in the DBA Facebook group.
The front element of a column was in the TZ of an element directly in front of it. The second element was outside the TZ of that element, but in the TZ of an element off to its flank. The question was whether both elements in the column could attack the element directly in front. I thought I knew the answer. Now I'm not so sure.
The relevant rule is on p9. "A.....group which is at least partly within.......an enemy TZ ......can move only: (a)...(b).....or (c)....". Stripped down like that, it seems to me that if one element in the group is in an enemy TZ, even by a very small amount, the entire group can move as per (a) or (b) and the other elements in the group can ignore any other TZs to which they may be - or become - subject. ((c) is not relevant as it applies only to single element moves.)
Apologies if this seems to be stating the obvious, but I don't think this is how I used to play it (back when I used to play wargames).
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 19, 2021 15:26:51 GMT
The page 9 “Threat Zone” definitely says:-
“An element or group partly in or touching a TZ far edge can only move (a) or (b)…”
So I would say the owner of the column has a choice:-
They can either have the whole column perform (a) or (b) together,
or spend more PIP’s to have the front and rear move independently.
---------------------
On a related subject, many players don’t realise there is a hidden rule in DBA 3.0…
…conforming does not force groups to break-up.
Only turning-to-face and combat outcomes can do that.
Nowhere does it say this…but it is heavily implied in Figures 13c and 13d,
and is reinforced by page 12 “Pursuing” which says:-
"...and all elements in a column behind such a (pursuing) element immediately pursue…”,
…which is further evidence that the column who’s front-edge is in a TZ can choose to
all move together or be broken-up by its owner.
|
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Jun 19, 2021 17:38:13 GMT
Hello, I completely agree with Stevie! (Wow - must be a special day today🤣).
If the flank threatening element wanted to spoil or avoid the group attack on it’s friendly element (splitting up the group), it should have made it into contact (front edge contacting enemy flank edge). Now they will be one bound too late/ too slow😉.
Cheers
Ronald
|
|
|
|
Post by Les1964 on Jun 19, 2021 20:08:08 GMT
From the FB post . Question. After a combat the solid auxilia and cav recoil against light horses column. Next moove Do the light horses can contact 4ax in column? Or because the supporting light horses aren't in Ax TZ but in Cav TZ can't group moove and must if want contact enemy split and go to fight with Cav ?  |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 19, 2021 23:54:14 GMT
Well Lesp1964, let’s look at what the rules ‘imply’, even if they don’t actually say it.
* Page 9 “Threat Zone”: “An element or group partly in or touching a TZ far edge can only move (a) or (b)…”
* Page 9 “Tactical Move Distances”: “1 BW If the front-edge of any single element or group is in a non-paltry river…”
* Page 12 ”Pursuing”: "...and all elements in a column behind such a (pursuing) element immediately pursue…”
It certainly appears that whatever the front element of a column does, those behind can do the same.
This reinforces my claim that the only things that can force a group to break-up are turning-to-face or combat outcomes.
(Or Figures 13c & 13d wouldn’t be a problem).
So I still say the owner of the column in your picture has a choice:-
They can either have the whole column perform (a) or (b) together,
or spend more PIP’s to have the front and rear move independently.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrishumphreys on Jun 20, 2021 0:22:48 GMT
Hi All,
I agree with Ronisan and Stevie. Reasons:
1 fig 12c where the whole group of psiloi slides not just the element making front edge contact so groups are a little bit more than the sum of their parts.
2 In the fleeing rule which might also apply the language talks about an element specifically, not a group.
3 In threat zone Phil could have said "An element which is at least partly within ..." and omitted the words "or group" if he wanted the stricter interpretation that would force the rear LH to respond to the Cav.
Regards
Chris
|
|
|
|
Post by sheffmark on Jun 21, 2021 8:14:31 GMT
Whilst it seems pretty clear that the rules do allow the rear rank LH to effectively ignore the Cav TZ, because they are part of a group which is in another threat zone, I wonder if this was as the rules were intended?
Imagine the following situation:
The two LH are as above with the front element in the TZ of the Ax which is say, just under 1 BW away. The rest of the army is in a long line extending from the left flank of the front most LH with say an Sp unit at the very end. An enemy element has moved around to the flank of the Sp and has 'pinned' it, with its left front corner lined up with the Sp's left front corner, ready to charge the flank next turn.
According to the rules the whole line, from LH to Sp, could move forward so the LH moves towards or hits the enemy to it's front. This would mean the Sp at the end of the line, (10 elements away) can then advance across the front of the pinning element and move out of its TZ, (as it is only pinned by it's base depth amount and the line moves more than this).
This doesn't seem right, so maybe this is one for the FAQ group to consider?
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 21, 2021 9:18:59 GMT
That’s a good point Sheffmark.
Yes, it’s difficult to write rules in short sentences and expect them to cover every situation.
In the position you describe, with a group in a long line but the far end element ‘pinned’ (but
not actually contacted yet) by an outflanking enemy, would it be wise to advance the entire
formation forwards, leaving the outflanking enemy now free to engaged the group’s rear?
I think most players would avoid this by leaving the outflanked end element behind…
…so this scenario largely sorts itself out, without the need for an extra complicated rule.
Of course, it all depends upon the exact situation…
|
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Jun 21, 2021 13:46:30 GMT
Perfect Stevie - perfectly explained!
Cheers
Ronald
|
|
|
|
Post by sheffmark on Jun 22, 2021 16:07:08 GMT
That’s a good point Sheffmark. Yes, it’s difficult to write rules in short sentences and expect them to cover every situation. In the position you describe, with a group in a long line but the far end element ‘pinned’ (but not actually contacted yet) by an outflanking enemy, would it be wise to advance the entire formation forwards, leaving the outflanking enemy now free to engaged the group’s rear? I think most players would avoid this by leaving the outflanked end element behind… …so this scenario largely sorts itself out, without the need for an extra complicated rule. Of course, it all depends upon the exact situation… Hi Stevie, yes it does and I could probably quote other situations where it was worth it, but the point was whether the rule was intended to function in this way. If the words "or group" were taken out would that solve the issue or would it simply create more problems? I wondered whether this issue was discussed at the time of testing? |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 22, 2021 16:50:30 GMT
Well…it all depends upon on what people think a group actually is.
Is a group just a loose collection of individual elements?
Or is it something stronger…like a sort of ‘super element’.
(This is a bit like the difference between single-cell and multi-celled lifeforms…
…a multicellular life-form is much more than a simple loose collection of cells)
If I am right that groups in DBA cannot be forced to spit up, except by combat
and turning-to-face, and no-one has argued against it (yet!), then I would say
they are a sort of ‘super element’.
And if a single element that starts a bound in two Threat Zones can choose
one and ignore the other, then a group should be able to do the same, because
it is treated as a single interconnected internally supporting unified formation.
|
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Jun 23, 2021 6:55:57 GMT
Hello, I still agree with Stevie. 👍
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 23, 2021 9:51:16 GMT
Thanks for that Ronald (I owe you a litre of beer! 🍺)
Another thing is when a group and a single element contact each other,
it is the single element that (usually) has to do the conforming.
Why?…because a unified group is more powerful than a single element.
But I do see Sheffmark’s point of view.
It wouldn’t be too out of place if conforming cannot force a group to break-up,
only combat, turning-to-face, AND an enemy Threat Zone can do that.
If this were the case then Menacussecundas’ original scenario and Lesp1964’s
picture would result in the Light Horse column having to break-up due to the
rear rank being in a different Threat Zone to the first rank.
(Think of it as the officer or clan leader of the LH is making his own decision…
…it may not be what the General wants, but he is not the man on the spot)
And it wouldn’t cause a problem in Figure 12c, as Psiloi ‘A’ isn’t in a TZ,
it’s just snuggling up and keeping in contact with the flank of Psiloi ‘B’.
However, I can see this causing several issues when it comes to lining-up,
what with groups being broken-up by Threat Zones far too easily by leaving
gimmicky gamey gaps in formations solely to break up enemy battlelines
and thus prevent continuous group contact.
Perhaps this is why the rule is written the way it is...
|
|
