bbs
Munifex
Posts: 8
|
Post by bbs on Oct 24, 2022 18:23:28 GMT
Hi.
Sometimes, in the middle of the struggle, we stumble on thorny questions...
1) Here is a simple question, as it seems, but I want to make sure I have the right answer. See the drawing. Red player has a ligne of two Blades, A & B attacking a column of Pkes P & Q. Blade A is overlapping and Blade B attacking and wins. It forces the Pikes column to recoil and is obliged pursue. The line is broken, the group splits.
In his turn, Blue payers counter-attacks with his Pikes and forces Blades B to recoil back to Blade A. Can we consider that Red player is closing the ranks ? Do the 2 Blades form a group like in the first place ? In other words, can we use a recoil move to form (reform) a group ? I would say yes, troops are back in ligne after being too bold, but... I could say no, since recoiling is not a voluntary move. So ?
2) Another simple one. On the second figure, Player Red has a Pikes unit fighting in CC a 3Bw enemy unit. When comes his turn, Blue players sends an unit of Knights 3Kn in rear edge contact against Pikes P. How do we resolve tne fight ? Are the Bows who were attacked obliged to fight, the overlapping Knights providing only a -1 tactical factor, or an we decide that the Knights ARE the attackers and the 3bw the overlapping unit ? In this case, the Pikes would make a 180° U-turn.
3) The last one, more tricky. In the 3rd figure, the Blades unit (B) has forced Spears S to recoil. Blue Player would like to disengage his 3Kn, but they are in the zone of control of Spears S. What move could the Knights undertake ? Could they by example attack the other Spears unit P ? Or must they move backward to leave the red threatening zone ?
AND what about Red player ? What could he do in his turn with his Spears Unit P ? Can he choose to attack the esay target of Bows, or can he choose to charge the Knights ? In fact, this unit is in both TZ of 3Bw and 3Kn. So what ?
Thanks !
I cannot add a JPG file, so here is a link.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 24, 2022 19:14:05 GMT
I think I can help bbs.  1) Page 12, Recoiling:- “A recoiling foot element always moves its own base depth (or ½ BW if this is less than its base depth).” Page 12, Pursuing:- “An element that is of Pk, Bd (but not CP, Lit or CWg) or Wb and that fought against any foot (except Ps) pursues ½ BW.” Last of all, page 8, Tactical moves, third paragraph:- “A group is a contiguous set of elements all facing in the same direction with each in both edge and corner-to-corner contact with another (see figure 3a)” So yes, Blade-B will fall back to form a contiguous group. However, this assumes that both the red Blades and the blue Pikes all have the same base depth. My heavy foot all have a base depth of ½ a BW. If one were 15mm deep, while the other is 20mm deep, then the recoil won’t match. 2) Page 10, Turning To Face:- “(Turn) unless they are already in full frontal edge contact with another enemy” So Pike-P cannot turn to face the Kn charging into their rear, and must fight the Bows at -1. 3) Finally, page 9, Threat Zones:- “(a) to line up its front edge with one such enemy generating the TZ, or
(b) to advance into or towards contact with such an enemy, or
(c) if a single element, to move straight back to its own rear for the entire move." Since the Knight is in both Spear TZ’s, it can choose which to attack (or move straight back out of the TZ). |
|
bbs
Munifex
Posts: 8
|
Post by bbs on Oct 25, 2022 6:21:59 GMT
Tanks Stevie for your cristal clear answers.
1) Yes, in my case, both Pikes ans Blades share the same base depth. It would not work if not.
2) So, it's not worth attacking an enemy rear edge with a stronger unit (Knights) to help one's weaker unit (Bows) engaged in close combat. A light Psilète unit is here as good as a heavy knight unit.
Another question :
3) OK. Sorry, I use "ZOC" (zone of control) instead of TZ (old habit). Another detail : what must we understand by "straight back out of the TZ to its own rear for the entire move" ? Does that mean that an unit in an enmy TZ is supposed to pull back, keeping their front edge towards the enemy, like a regular recoil, OR must it make a 180 u-turn before leaving the TZ (like fleeing) ? AND WHAT distance can it move, only 1 BW, or more ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Brian Ború on Oct 25, 2022 8:06:35 GMT
Tanks Stevie for your cristal clear answers. ... Another question : 3) OK. Sorry, I use "ZOC" (zone of control) instead of TZ (old habit). Another detail : what must we understand by "straight back out of the TZ to its own rear for the entire move" ? Does that mean that an unit in an enmy TZ is supposed to pull back, keeping their front edge towards the enemy, like a regular recoil, OR must it make a 180 u-turn before leaving the TZ (like fleeing) ? AND WHAT distance can it move, only 1 BW, or more ? Hi bbs, the DBA rules are written in 'barkerese' you know. It looks like English, but often its meaning is rather obscure (as often in German) or even ambiguous. Up to now I understood this particular passage so: to leave a TZ the unit must be moved backwards, and on its way it keeps on facing the enemy unit. Furthermore I thought, that in this action the unit was obliged to move its full possible movement range, but now I'm not so sure about this any more. (English is not my mother language.) Why should Ps for example move 4 BW backwards in GG when they pull back from some slow & heavy unit? Thanks to your question, bbs, I now read this passage: For its entire move to leave the TZ the unit keeps facing the enemy, and it may move up to its full movement range or less. But there must be many more experienced generals who can help us with this question. |
|
|
|
Post by sheffmark on Oct 25, 2022 8:24:07 GMT
Thanks to your question, bbs, I now read this passage: For its entire move to leave the TZ the unit keeps facing the enemy, and it may move up to its full movement range or less. Yes Brian, that is the generally accepted definition, it can move less than it's full move but it can't deviate, i.e. it can't back out of the TZ and then go off and do something else in the same move. And yes bbs, it backs out and doesn't turn 180 degrees. |
|
|
|
Post by sheffmark on Oct 25, 2022 8:29:40 GMT
Since the Knight is in both Spear TZ’s, it can choose which to attack (or move straight back out of the TZ). This is one area where I prefer the HOTT ruling, that if you are in multiple TZ's you have to attack the one most easily reached. But that's not what DBA says. Mind you I also prefer the HOTT (and 2.2 I think) ruling that elements block TZ's, but presume it was changed because of some sneaky play or other? |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 25, 2022 8:46:47 GMT
Another detail : what must we understand by "straight back out of the TZ to its own rear for the entire move" ? Does that mean that an unit in an enmy TZ is supposed to pull back, keeping their front edge towards the enemy, like a regular recoil, OR must it make a 180 u-turn before leaving the TZ (like fleeing) ? AND WHAT distance can it move, only 1 BW, or more ? Well, I take the page 9, Threat Zones, option (c), where if says “if a single element, to move straight back to its own rear for the entire move.”to mean the following:- “if a single element….”= obviously single element moves, and not a group. “...to move straight back…”= in a dead straight line, with no deviations or turns. “...to its own rear…”= measuring directly from its rear, not front-edge. “...for the entire move.”= moving backwards out of a TZ takes an entire move. The last item means whatever the distance traveled takes up the entire move, so you cannot simply move back enough to clear the TZ, then use the remaining movement to zoom off in some other direction. However, page 9 Subsequent Moves says:- “Some elements or groups that have already moved this bound can make a second or subsequent tactical move…”.So once clear of the TZ (using an entire move), they can start the next subsequent move free from any TZ restrictions and go where they please. Backing-out of a TZ takes up an entire move, not an entire bound. ====================================================================== All the above is pretty clear…but there is a related contradiction in the page 12 Fleeing rules:- “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 page 9 Interpenetration says:- “(a) it starts partly directly in front (even if unaligned or facing a different direction – see figure 6a) and ends the move lined-up behind,
(b) or starts lined-up behind and ends lined-up in front.”Here is the contradiction: troops leaving a TZ or fleeing must move in a dead straight line. And if they move in a dead straight line, they can’t deviate or shuffle sideways to line-up. And if they can’t shuffle sideways to line-up after passing through, does this prevent interpenetration? Personally I think it’s a bit daft that skirmisher Fred, who is running for his life, would be bothered by etiquette and say to Joe Bloggs “sorry old chap, I’m not correctly lined-up with you, so I’ll refrain from passing through”. I think that the lining-up is a compulsory involuntary action that overrides the fleeing straight-back situation. Only then does it make sense. |
|
|
|
Post by sheffmark on Oct 25, 2022 10:53:56 GMT
Here is the contraction: troops leaving a TZ or fleeing must move in a dead straight line.
And if they move in a dead straight line, they can’t deviate or shuffle sideways to line-up.
And if they can’t shuffle sideways to line-up after passing through, does this prevent interpenetration?
Hi Stevie
In short I think yes, it does.
The rules seem pretty clear that you can't deviate when moving back from a TZ. Maybe because the situations between that and fleeing are sufficiently different?
Fleeing is a 'running for you life' compulsory move to get away from the enemy as fast as possible and if you can burst through friends in your way then you're going to do that, hence maybe why the rules do allow you to interpenetrate even if not lined up, if of types allowed to. This is also a forwards move by the fleeing unit as they turn 180.
Retiring out of a TZ is a voluntary move backing away from the enemy but presumably still in order whilst presenting some forward threat to the enemy. Interpenetrating whilst doing this would probably be a lot more difficult I suspect, hence the difference?
|
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Oct 27, 2022 6:31:24 GMT
Hi.
Sometimes, in the middle of the struggle, we stumble on thorny questions...
2) Another simple one. On the second figure, Player Red has a Pikes unit fighting in CC a 3Bw enemy unit. When comes his turn, Blue players sends an unit of Knights 3Kn in rear edge contact against Pikes P.
...
Hello bbs, just to minimize the confusion ... in your picture 2nd figure ... you drew the red element (Pike P) the wrong way. The typo must be readable and not upside down, to show Pike P in Close Combat with 3Bw!
You drew it "after" your hypothetical 180 degree turn of Pike P, which won't be allowed.
Cheers, Ronald
|
|
bbs
Munifex
Posts: 8
|
Post by bbs on Oct 28, 2022 5:29:43 GMT
Hi.
Sometimes, in the middle of the struggle, we stumble on thorny questions...
2) Another simple one. On the second figure, Player Red has a Pikes unit fighting in CC a 3Bw enemy unit. When comes his turn, Blue players sends an unit of Knights 3Kn in rear edge contact against Pikes P.
...
Hello bbs, just to minimize the confusion ... in your picture 2nd figure ... you drew the red element (Pike P) the wrong way. The typo must be readable and not upside down, to show Pike P in Close Combat with 3Bw!
You drew it "after" your hypothetical 180 degree turn of Pike P, which won't be allowed.
Cheers, Ronald
|
|
bbs
Munifex
Posts: 8
|
Post by bbs on Oct 28, 2022 5:32:13 GMT
Hi Ronisan.
You are perfectly right. On my drawing, Pike P should have been set upside down since it was struggling wirth Bows 3Bw. here it has made a 180 turn to face the Knights, but now I know it's wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by glemm on May 22, 2023 22:23:18 GMT
If a pike element has rear pike support and is recoiled what happens?
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 23, 2023 5:31:32 GMT
Welcome to Fanaticus Glemm. The answer to your question is quite simple… …the element fighting recoils and pushes back those behind it, if it can. See Recoiling Or Being Pushed Back on page 12, where it says:- “If the recoiling element is not Elephants, friends facing in the same direction can be interpenetrated if allowed (see p.9). If not, they are pushed back far enough to make room (unless they are Elephants or War Wagons). Pushed back elements cannot interpenetrate or push back others.” Some Helpful Downloads can be found here: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And here is the latest Nov 2022 FAQ: ancientwargaming.files.wordpress.com/2022/10/dba_faq_q4_2022_final.pdf
Note that a "404 Error Message" means you are using a mobile device...the Fanaticus Wiki can only be accessed via a computer. |
|
|
|
Post by martin on May 23, 2023 6:58:54 GMT
If a pike element has rear pike support and is recoiled what happens? Both recoil (it pushes back the support element). If, however, there’s a third element in the column then the front pike gets destroyed. All this assumes there’s no enemy glued to the pikes’ flanks….. |
|
