|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Apr 5, 2017 15:14:31 GMT
So we went round and round with this one the other night. Bd 1 is in frontal combat with Pk1. Pk 2 is providing support for Pk1. Does Bd 2 give a -1 to the combat. Note is is overlapping just the supporting element, not the main combatant.  |
|
|
|
Post by paulhannah on Apr 5, 2017 16:37:02 GMT
Yep, it does. Per, Pg.10: "A flank...contact on an element providing rear support is treated as if on the support element."
So, yes, Bd2 does provide a -1 tactical factor in CC.
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Apr 5, 2017 16:38:05 GMT
Yep.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Apr 5, 2017 16:49:28 GMT
Ok, thanks guys. I wanted to be sure. I read that sentence too but wanted to be sure since it seem that is a change from earlier versions.
|
|
|
|
Post by martin on Apr 5, 2017 18:46:08 GMT
Yep, it does. Per, Pg.10: " A flank...contact on an element providing rear support is treated as if on the support element." So, yes, Bd2 does provide a -1 tactical factor in CC. I'm inclined to disagree. Seems to me the reference to "a flank or rear contact on an element providing rear support" cross refers to the very top of the same page, where we are told we do not turn those supporting elements who are flank attacked/rear attacked, but penalise them in a different way. That would be contact, as against the scenario in Tony's query, which was flank OVERLAP, not contact. Martin |
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Apr 5, 2017 19:12:18 GMT
I think I agree with Martin. The moving into contact paragraph at the bottom of P9 suggests to me that case d overlap is not contact as defined in cases a, b and c. If an overlap on a supporting element was intended to count as if on the element being supported, would the sentence on P10 have rather read " A flank or rear attack or an overlap on an element providing rear support ...."
Simon
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Apr 5, 2017 20:53:10 GMT
I am with Martin. A flank contact is not an overlap. So the question is about an overlap on the second Pike rank.
"A flank or rear contact on an element providing rear support is treated as if on the supported element."
No mention of overlap.
I wonder if the Bd2 could move to the position it is in. Not a legal contact. This could come about from previous outcome moves.
Why not have the B2 move into rear contact to give the -1 to the front combat.
|
|
|
|
Post by martin on Apr 5, 2017 21:06:26 GMT
First thoughts:- Bd2 cannot attack the rear, as it doesn't start behind the rear of Pk2 (though it COULD attack the flank of Pk1 or 2).
Bd2 probably ended up where it is because Pk1 and Pk2 won combats and pursued.
M
|
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Apr 5, 2017 21:48:27 GMT
I am with Martin. A flank contact is not an overlap. So the question is about an overlap on the second Pike rank. "A flank or rear contact on an element providing rear support is treated as if on the supported element." No mention of overlap. I wonder if the Bd2 could move to the position it is in. Not a legal contact. This could come about from previous outcome moves. Why not have the B2 move into rear contact to give the -1 to the front combat. Bob, I just illustrated the important players in the situation. There were 6 other elements around that were participating in other combats. For SIMPLICITY I just illustrated what was in question. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 6, 2017 12:14:13 GMT
I think it has to be as martin, simon, and bob says, and ‘overlaps’ on a second element of a column that is providing rear support do not count as a -1 against the leading element. Take this (crudely drawn) example. Here a warband column marked ‘W’ has pursued its recoiled auxiliary opponent ‘O’ twice, in two separate combats:- OOOO OOOO WWW OOOOWWWOOOO OOOOWWWOOOO @@@www@@@ @@@ @@@ (after the 1st pursuit) (after the 2nd pursuit) -2 for overlaps no effect?, or zero for rear support?, or -1? The 2nd rank Wb element only provides a +1 of rear support to the column leader. How does a +1 for rear support suffer -2 for being overlapped on each flank? Does it become zero?...or does it become +1-2 = -1, which is then applied to the column leader? (If the warband was not in a column, then it would suffer no overlap after the second pursuit...so having rear support would actually be a disadvantage if such overlaps counted) Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Apr 6, 2017 17:04:26 GMT
Martin, good point. I should've been more clear why didn't the blade attack the rear from somewhere else not from where it is now. when it came up to that point it would've been better with front edge on the rear instead of Side edge contact on the flank.
It actually could not have moved into that flank to flank edge contact, could it.
The reason that Phil put in having flank attacks or rear attacks not turn the element was to prevent such attacks from siphoning off the rear support of the front element in a column. But he wanted it to still have some effect so he allowed the minus one to the front element. Since an overlap on a second rank would not take it away from supporting the front rank, and overlap on a second rank has no impact.
The rule only applies against elements providing rear support. If two blades were in a column and the back one we were hit in the flank or rear , it would turn. It would of course not turn if there were just side edge to side
edge contact
|
|
|
|
Post by Dangun on Apr 7, 2017 5:58:02 GMT
Yep, it does. Per, Pg.10: " A flank...contact on an element providing rear support is treated as if on the support element." So, yes, Bd2 does provide a -1 tactical factor in CC. You are confusing contact and overlap. I agree with Bob and Martin. |
|
|
|
Post by paulhannah on Apr 7, 2017 15:03:09 GMT
Yep, it does. Per, Pg.10: " A flank...contact on an element providing rear support is treated as if on the support element." So, yes, Bd2 does provide a -1 tactical factor in CC. You are confusing contact and overlap. I agree with Bob and Martin. Yep, I can see my error. Thanks, guys. |
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Oct 1, 2020 11:46:40 GMT
Hello Tony, according to the DBA-FAQ-document:
(quote of Close Combat, 2nd Paragraph)
Q: My opponent is facing my line of Blades with a Pike block. I moved another element into side-to-side contact with the rear Pike. A flank contact against a supporting Pike counts as a flank contact against the front element. Does my side-to-side contact against the rear Pike element count as an overlap?
A: No.
Therefore, Bd2 In your example is not overlapping the combating Pk1! No -1 for Pk1!
Cheers, Ronald
|
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Oct 1, 2020 11:51:45 GMT
Hello Tony, according to the DBA-FAQ-document: (quote of Close Combat, 2nd Paragraph) Q: My opponent is facing my line of Blades with a Pike block. I moved another element into side-to-side contact with the rear Pike. A flank contact against a supporting Pike counts as a flank contact against the front element. Does my side-to-side contact against the rear Pike element count as an overlap? A: No. Therefore, Bd2 If you example is not overlapping the combating Pk1! Cheers, Ronald I am pretty sure that my question prompted the discussion in the FAQ Group (which I am a part of) and it's inclusion in it. We have played it this way in all our videos. |
|
