|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 25, 2021 21:18:19 GMT
An unusual situation occurred at Simon’s Bakewell Matched Pairs competition which led to a disagreement as to how it should be resolved. As it’s a bit complicated, I’ve simplified things a little in the following diagram in order to make the positions clearer. It’s the red player’s bound, and first the LCh charged into the blue Kn rear (corners touching), and then the red Bd attacked the blue Kn in the flank (right front corners touching). After the end of the movement phase the Kn turns-to-face the first to make contact (the LCh).  Now we have the problem. Once the Kn has turned-to-face the LCh, the Bd no longer has a front corner in legal contact. So what happens? I happen to think that Phil Barker and the playtesters were aware of this, so they made provision for it in the page 10 Turning To Face A Flank Or Rear Contact section, where it says:- “Existing contacts are adjusted by moving the elements forward, back or the minimum sideways to maintain contact.” I take this to mean they maintain the existing contacts (although, admittedly, the word “existing” is not used). As the Bd was in a legal flank attack position, it moves sideways slightly to its right so its left front corner touches the Kn left front corner and it maintains that legal flank position. However, others disagree and take the wording literary, and say that Bd doesn’t move because it is still in contact…albeit an illegal contact…and that the Kn will not suffer from the -1 overlap penalty but will be destroyed if it recoils due to being attacked in the flank. I take the contrary position:- * Elements being attacked both frontally and simultaneously in the flank should be punished. But why should those being attacked in the rear and the flank suffer less of a punishment? If anything they should be punished more…not less. * Why should elements on bases a BW deep suffer more that those on less deep bases? When elements on 40mm deep bases turn-to-face, they can’t slip away from being overlapped. * It’s blatantly obvious that the Knights in the above diagram are being charged in the flank. Good grief…3 out of the 4 Blade figures have their front edge in contact with the Knights flank! Why should elements that have turned 180° be immune to the -1 overlap for being flank attacked? * How can a flank attack prevent recoiling (because they are being attacked in a flank), yet doesn't give the -1 overlap morale-disorder penalty on the flank they are attacking that prevents the recoil? If a mere potential corner-to-corner frontal overlap gives a -1, then having an enemy front-edge actually in contact and fighting with a flank rather than just threatening it should sap your fighting spirit and distract you even more! So my question is this…what does “maintaining contact” actually mean.Does it mean maintaining the existing contact (i.e. corners touching), or does it mean any kind of contact, even an illegal one that allows unfortunate rear attacked troops to escape the -1 overlap penalty as if the flank attack were not there (but for some reason still prevents recoiling as if it were there). I would be very interested in knowing other players views on this matter.  |
|
battledamage
Beneficiarii
is currently hitting his Papal Italian 3Kn(Gen) with a hammer.
Posts: 82 
|
Post by battledamage on Sept 26, 2021 0:08:15 GMT
Perhaps look at it this way:
The rules don't ever use the term 'illegal contact'. The rules on 'Moving Into Contact With the Enemy' on p.9 describe the allowable alignments for elements in contact at the end of the movement phase - i.e. they are the positions that elements are adjusted to ('conform'). The timing of that adjustment depends on which enemy edge was contacted. When you combine that with the rules on p.10 that you quoted, I think it becomes obvious that your interpretation is correct. The Bd, which complied with all the conditions to move into the position it is in, is not in one of the alignments described by p.9. Its position is therefore adjusted according to the rule on p.10 which you quoted.
As for the other interpretations you mention: I don't know where to start with the absurdity of the Bd preventing recoil while simultaneously not providing a tactical factor. I know its a game and not a simulation, but accepting this as both what the rules want and reflective of the real world takes some mental gymnastics.
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 26, 2021 2:25:02 GMT
As for the other interpretations you mention: I don't know where to start with the absurdity of the Bd preventing recoil while simultaneously not providing a tactical factor. I know its a game and not a simulation, but accepting this as both what the rules want and reflective of the real world takes some mental gymnastics. Couldn't agree more! Jim |
|
|
|
Post by martin on Sept 26, 2021 8:08:37 GMT
My interpretation would be that when the positions are ‘juggled’ after the Kn rotates, then the Bd would be moved back to a legal contact position, which it had achieved when moving in, and would this provide a combat factor. (I know it may not be relevant, but I believe Hott has a rule covering exactly the same situation….juggle but end up ‘doing what you were doing before’ type thing).
|
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Sept 26, 2021 8:17:29 GMT
I’m uneasy about units being contacted in the rear or flank being allowed to turn to face and fight as normal anyway. Not even a -1 penalty.
My reading of military history is that in most cases rear contact = game over for the contacted unit, with the possible exception of deep units such as pike blocks and perhaps units being harassed by Skirmishers in the flank or rear which under DBA would be contact.
Can anyone provide an historical example of troops being contacted in the rear and wining the fight? Yet under DBA it is not uncommon.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 26, 2021 8:51:14 GMT
I wholeheartedly agree with Battledamage, Jim1973 and Martin.
Paddy649 also raises a good point, but I'm just concerned with the current ruling.
And speaking of absurdities, here is a further consequence of not allowing the
Blade in my diagram to maintain its existing flank corner-to-corner contact…
…what happens if the LCh recoils?
Well, Combat Outcomes on page 11 says:-
“A supporting element in close combat against an enemy element’s flank or rear recoils
if the friendly element in combat with that enemy’s front recoils, flees or is destroyed.”
But if the Blade doesn’t have its front corner in contact with the Knight’s front corner,
then it isn’t supporting the fight (which is why it is deemed not to give a -1 overlap).
And if it isn’t supporting the fight, then it doesn’t have to recoil when its friends do.
Knights are supposed to pursue…but can they do so if the Blade is attacking their flank?
All these weird absurdities disappear if the ‘intent’ of Turning-To-Face allows existing
corner-to-corner contacts to be maintained.
It seems that misinterpreting a rule (or at least not understanding its true intent) by trying
to follow it exactly 'word-for-word' can sometimes lead to unwanted weird side-effects…
…which themselves then need to be resolved.
-----------------------
I myself have several times been caught-out by trying to follow the rules ‘word-for-word’.
A classic example is the very first sentence at the very top of page 7:-
“If a BUA is chosen, it must be a city, fort, hamlet or edifice and will belong to the defender.”
So Hamlets and Edifices belong to the defender, and the attacking-invader cannot deploy in
them any more than they can deploy in a defender’s ungarrisoned City or Fort.
(And yes, you can start a game with an empty Fort…if an all mounted army chooses a Fort, they’ll
have no foot to garrison the place, and if the attacking-invader then chooses a table-edge so that
this Fort is in their deployment area, they can’t deploy in it, because it “belongs to the defender”)
But when I pointed this out here on Fanatictus there was an almost universal outcry saying:-
“Oh no Stevie, it might say that, but it doesn’t mean it. Invaders can deploy in Hamlets and Edifices.”
(Question: why have a rule in a rule book that doesn’t mean what it says?)
So now I don’t try to follow the rules exactly ‘word-for-word’.
Instead I try to work out the ‘intent’ of a rule, no matter how badly it may be worded.
And if that fails, I simply fall back on good old ‘common sense’, and imagine how I
myself would react if I were in that situation in reality.
This may sound a bit nebulous…but it works surprisingly well during actual games.
|
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Sept 26, 2021 11:23:53 GMT
My interpretation would be that when the positions are ‘juggled’ after the Kn rotates, then the Bd would be moved back to a legal contact position, which it had achieved when moving in, and would this provide a combat factor. (I know it may not be relevant, but I believe Hott has a rule covering exactly the same situation….juggle but end up ‘doing what you were doing before’ type thing). Agree with Martin. Stevie - was there also an interesting conundrum at some stage in this combat whereby a unit recoiled and put a side edge in contact with an enemy and a friendly unit on opposite flanks? All a bit hazy - was rather a busy day organising, playing and umpiring!! I do like this old quote from Fred T Jane ‘Nothing can be done contrary to what could or would be done in actual war.' - From 'The Rules of the Naval War Game' by Fred T Jane Best wishes, Simon |
|
|
|
Post by haywire on Sept 26, 2021 11:58:27 GMT
My view? The 4Bd shuffles to the right. Much in the same way the LCh would shuffle to the left if it had been the second one to make contact. If you are in a valid combat position, then you stay in a valid combat position. Interesting you should mention this. Here is photo from a month ago. Add AttachmentErrr...cannot upload the image...the forum storage space is full... Anyway, it was of an identical situation. |
|
|
|
Post by haywire on Sept 26, 2021 12:15:55 GMT
Here is another one to ponder. www.iandrea.co.uk/wargames/resources/Flanking.pngZ has suffered a flee result. It hits the side of A and stops, but is not in a valid combat configuration at the end of the turn (front corners not touching) It is now red's turn. Y attacks A in the rear. A is forced to rotate to face Y and closes the door on itself with Z. |
|
|
|
Post by paulisper on Sept 26, 2021 12:56:53 GMT
I’m with you Stevie - the Bd adjust to stay in legal side contact.
P
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 26, 2021 16:15:19 GMT
Stevie - was there also an interesting conundrum at some stage in this combat whereby a unit recoiled and put a side edge in contact with an enemy and a friendly unit on opposite flanks? All a bit hazy - was rather a busy day organising, playing and umpiring!! Ah…I think you are referring to the following situation:-  Forgive me but I can’t remember exactly how the Knight got into this position. Perhaps they recoiled into it…or we were speculating about various scenarios. Anyway, the Blades are forever stuck and cannot make any moves at all. * They can’t get their left front corner to touch the Knight left front corner, because they are in the TZ of the blue SCh, and you cannot spend a PIP to make a tactical move sideways when in a Threat Zone. * But they cannot back out of the SCh Threat Zone either, because that means breaking-off their front-edge from the contact with the blue Knight, and you can only break-off from a close combat as a result of a combat outcome. So they are forever stuck there. Although they are obviously in a flank attack position, the Blades cannot roll a combat dice. However, this should be covered by Contacting The Enemy, page 9, first paragraph, last sentence:- “Elements contacted this bound by an enemy, or whose front edge is still in contact when combat ends, automatically (i.e. instantly?) conform.” So it is the blue Knight that should turn-to-face and line-up with the red Blade, not the other way round. This would also apply to Haywire’s situation (see www.iandrea.co.uk/wargames/resources/Flanking.png ). When fleeing Element-Z contacted enemy Element-A, it should have lined-up and conformed, i.e. got those front-corners touching. Then Haywire’s diagram becomes exactly the same as my original diagram… …once Element-A turns-to-face Element-Y, Element-Z no longer has a front-corner in legal flank contact, unless it is shifted to maintain its existing corner-to-corner contact. |
|
battledamage
Beneficiarii
is currently hitting his Papal Italian 3Kn(Gen) with a hammer.
Posts: 82
|
Post by battledamage on Sept 27, 2021 3:11:36 GMT
Stevie - was there also an interesting conundrum at some stage in this combat whereby a unit recoiled and put a side edge in contact with an enemy and a friendly unit on opposite flanks? All a bit hazy - was rather a busy day organising, playing and umpiring!! [snip] However, this should be covered by Contacting The Enemy, page 9, first paragraph, last sentence:- “Elements contacted this bound by an enemy, or whose front edge is still in contact when combat ends, automatically (i.e. instantly?) conform.” So it is the blue Knight that should turn-to-face and line-up with the red Blade, not the other way round. [snip] There was a discussion about this on the DBA facebook page which wandered all over the place, but my view is that you are correct here. Note also that the section of the rules on page 9 is agnostic as to which player's turn it is - as soon as the combat phase is finished, contacts of both sides elements should be adjusted to get into one of the allowable alignments. The rules in the paragraph after that describe who conforms to who when elements meet. In this case, 'a single element contacting a single element conforms to it. So the blue 3kn has contacted a red 4Bd. The blue 3Kn conforms to it the red 4Bd. Simple. |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 27, 2021 5:30:25 GMT
Ah…I think you are referring to the following situation:- If the 3Kn has pursued into this position then it has to turn and face. If it has recoiled from a flank contact then it has to turn and face. If it has recoiled from a front contact then it is in two TZs but should probably still turn and face, bringing its flank into contact with its previous enemy. I'm thinking in terms of how humans would respond when in imminent danger in battle but also thinking that any outcome without frontal contact and subsequent combat is illogical and breaks the game. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 27, 2021 8:21:55 GMT
I entirely agree with you Battledamage… ...if we are to follow the rules, then we should follow ALL of them, and not miss any out. But referring back to Haywire’s diagram (again see www.iandrea.co.uk/wargames/resources/Flanking.png ), the current rules do contradict each other in this case. Fleeing on page 12 says:- “A fleeing element turns 180 degrees in place (unless shot at least partly on its rear edge – see the FAQ), and then moves straight forward without turning for its full tactical move distance for the going it starts in.” But Contacting The Enemy on page 9 says:- “Elements contacted this bound by an enemy, or whose front edge is still in contact when combat ends, automatically (i.e. instantly?) conform.” So which is it? One rule says fleeing troops must move straight forward without turning, but another rule says they must shift sideways and possibly turn to conform with an enemy they bump into. (Personally, I’d have fleeing troops conforming…it prevents weird illegal contact situations,
causing further complications which then have to be debated and resolved)
I also entirely agree with Jim, as I usually do (well…mostly  ). Here he is using the ‘common-sense-imagine-me-in-that-position’ approach. --------------------------------- At the risk of going off-topic (hell…it’s my thread, so “♫ It’s my party and I’ll cry if I want too ♪”), here is yet another example of following the rules word-for-word as they are written giving nonsensical results. Combat Against A City, Fort Or Camp:- “Troops assaulting or defending these use their combat factor against foot and do not count overlaps or flank or rear support.” This gives the impression that troops climbing scaling ladders as they assault walls or palisades are totally immune to ALL forms of -1 overlap penalty from ALL enemy troops. Let us apply the ‘common-sense-imagine-me-in-that-position’ approach to this situation. Imagine yourself halfway up a scaling ladder with several of your mates also climbing behind you while other friends are at the bottom holding the ladder steady, and then an enemy charges into your flank or even worse your rear. Are you telling me this would have no effect on your morale, so no -1 for being overlapped? But it would affect you if you had both feet safely on the ground and had both hands free? Well, “You’re a better man than I am Gunga Din!”  . It seems obvious to me that the ‘intent’ of this rule is to prevent the enemy behind the wall from overlapping the assaulting troops, not every single enemy. But the rule is so badly written it gives the impression that assaulters ignore ALL overlaps. The ‘common-sense-imagine-me-in-that-position’ approach gives much more realistic results.  |
|
battledamage
Beneficiarii
is currently hitting his Papal Italian 3Kn(Gen) with a hammer.
Posts: 82
|
Post by battledamage on Sept 27, 2021 12:21:31 GMT
I entirely agree with you Battledamage… ...if we are to follow the rules, then we should follow ALL of them, and not miss any out. But referring back to Haywire’s diagram (again see www.iandrea.co.uk/wargames/resources/Flanking.png ), the current rules do contradict each other in this case. Fleeing on page 12 says:- “A fleeing element turns 180 degrees in place (unless shot at least partly on its rear edge – see the FAQ), and then moves straight forward without turning for its full tactical move distance for the going it starts in.” But Contacting The Enemy on page 9 says:- “Elements contacted this bound by an enemy, or whose front edge is still in contact when combat ends, automatically (i.e. instantly?) conform.” So which is it? One rule says fleeing troops must move straight forward without turning, but another rule says they must shift sideways and possibly turn to conform with an enemy they bump into. (Personally, I’d have fleeing troops conforming…it prevents weird illegal contact situations,
causing further complications which then have to be debated and resolved)
I also entirely agree with Jim, as I usually do (well…mostly ). Here he is using the ‘common-sense-imagine-me-in-that-position’ approach. --------------------------------- I don't think the situation in Haywire's diagram should ever have occurred.
There is no issue with Z stopping when it meets A: pg.12 on Fleeing: 'It stops before completing its move and lines up if its front edge (or front corner only) contacts any of (a) enemy (whom it will fight next bound) etc etc"
1. If Z flees and contacts A, then at the end of combat they should have been placed into an allowable alignment as per p.9: 'elements contacted this round by enemy or whose front edge is still in contact when combat ends automatically conform if necessary.' Outcomes moves are part of the combat (see p.8). Therefore at the end of the combat phase, once again following the rules on page 9, I'd say that because Z (a single element) contacted A, Z moves to conform. The minimum amount of movement to get into an allowable alignment as per the same paragraph is for Z to slide 1/2BW left to get into flank edge/front edge and front corner to front corner alignment with A.
2. In the next turn: The next relevant rule is the first paragraph on p.10: 'At the end of the movement phase, elements contacted to the flank or rear by an enemy front edge turn to face the first enemy element to contact them etc.' I'd say that this means that regardless of whether Y moves into contact or not, A turns to face Z in front edge to front edge contact at the end of the movement phase. If Y had moved into contact with the rear of A before the end of movement phase, we follow the same paragraph: 'Any existing contacts are adjusted by moving elements forward, back or the minimum distance sideways to maintain contact. Y would be moved back 1/2BW straight back (the minimum distance to maintain contact), ending up in flank and front corner contact with A's left flank.
|
|
).
.