Actually, the rule you are referring to is on page 11, paragraph 4:- (The very last sentence under “Combat Outcome”)
COMBAT OUTCOMES [11.4] An element whose total is equal to or less than that of its opponent may need to make an immediate outcome move, which depends on its own type and that of the opponent in close combat with its front edge or shooting at it. Shooting disregarded: An element shooting without being shot at disregards an unfavourable outcome. Flank and rear attacks: 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 (see diagram 19c).
Note the bits I’ve underlined: “in close combat against an enemy element's flank or rear”.
And in the case you described, Spear 'B' is not in contact with the flank or rear of Blade 'D'.
This thread got me to thinking about Phil's use of various words related to helping elements in combat.
"Rear Support" typically refers to certain friendly elements touching the rear of an element in combat. Rear Support gives a +1 or +3 to the friendly front element. Pikes, Warband, and Light Horse can get Rear Support from like types. "Flank Support" typically refers to certain friendly elements touching the side of an element in combat. Flank Support gives a +1 to the friendly side element. Only 1 flank support per combat. Spears supported by Spears or “Solid” Blades and “Solid” Bows supported by “Solid” Blades.
Double deep elements also count as supporting. They : "... fight in close combat against most foot as if the rear element was providing rear support." Obviously, the second rank recoils with the whole element:)
Overlap refers to enemy elements contacting an element on its front corner, or side edge, when the element is in frontal contact with an enemy. Each overlap gives a -1 to the element in combat. There are two overlap positions. 1. Enemy element is in front corner to front corner contact, and not itself in front edge combat. 2. Enemy element is in side to side contact and can itself be in front edge combat.
Shooting elements do not "support" each other. The term is not used in the rules in this context. A shooting element can "Aid" another shooting type. "A second or third element shooting at the same target aids the shooting of the nearest by providing it with a tactical factor instead of being resolved separately." "-1 for each second or third enemy element aiding opposing element’s shooting,"
Close Combat is resolved between elements in front to front, corner to corner contact. Elements can contact enemy with their front on enemy Flank or Rear. This is not usually "Support" but is referred to as close combat. However, "When an element is in close combat both to front and to flank or rear . . . only it and the enemy element in front fight each other."
Thus an element in combat to its front, can also have a flank contact and a rear rear contact. Now Phil's otherwise consistent wording fails. This is where the original confusion of this thread might have arisen. He writes: "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."
He refers to a flank or rear combat element in contact as "supporting." These recoil if the element in frontal combat loses.
Thus there are 4 words for multiple elements in combat situations: non-contact support, overlap, aiding, and contact support.
There are 6 different types of ‘overlap’:- When an element who's front edge is not touching but is in corner-to-corner contact (see diagrams 9a and 16c). When an element who's front edge is in contact with an enemy’s flank or rear (see diagrams 9a, 16b, and 19c). When an element’s side edge is in contact with an enemy’s side edge (see diagrams 16b and 16c). When an element suffers from ‘Battlefield Edge Overlap’ (see the rule on page 10 paragraph 8). When a WWg on a deep base has two enemy elements in front edge contact to it’s flank (see page 10 paragraph 1). When two or three elements are assisting the assault on a Camp, City, or Fort (see page 10 paragraph 9). (Note that Ps and SCh are not affected by the first case, but they are affected by the others, and that the last case is the only one that applies when assaulting or defending a Camp, City, or Fort)
There are also 4 different types of ‘interpenetration’:- Interpenetrating during voluntary movement (which costs PIP’s). Interpenetrating due to a recoil (as a result of a combat outcome). Interpenetrating while fleeing (similar to voluntary interpenetration). Interpenetrating while pivoting or wheeling (rear corner only interpenetration…see diagram 6c).
Basically, 'support' means 'help'. And the words 'flank' and 'side' mean the same thing.
Good discussion Stevie. I was only thinking of the element to element relationships. Your point about attacking an city, fort or camp is good. However I would not call that an example of overlap. Isn't it rather three elements attacking the entity, with those not computing the combat as tactical factors for the combatant? Indeed, Phil's words are: "Troops assaulting or defending these use their combat factor against foot and do not count overlaps or flank or rear support." The functional result is like overlap, in that the city, fort or camp receives a minus one for each element not fighting. So in Phil's lexicon, this is not an overlap.
Front edge contact of an enemy element on an element's flank or rear, your second point, it's definitely not an "overlap". Again, The positioning is the functional equivalent of an overlap in that it gives a minus one, but not called an overlap by Phil.
I believe it is important to be careful in the language usage with these rules. This situation is a flank or rear attack or close combat. Phil explicitly excludes this relationship from being an overlap. Note the use of the word "or " below. "-1 For each enemy element either overlapping or in front edge and front corner-to-front corner contact with flank or in full front edge contact with rear, ..."
When someone writes about an overlap that they have, I don't want to think that it is a flank or rear attack. Your comment about war wagon overlap, being in full edge contact, is using Phil's language. Thus, I suggest Phil only uses "overlap" in four contexts.
I do have a tendency to simplify things by grouping stuff together so that my feeble brain can understand them. Just like I class any element destruction without the need to double them as a ‘quick-kill’ (including Bd/Lb/Cb scoring equal against Kn or Cm, or recoiling while being attacked in the flank or rear, or being unable to recoil due to some sort of obstacle), likewise I treat any -1 in close combat as an ‘overlap’. After all, if it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck……..
But you are correct that flank and rear attacks are not technically overlaps, they just have the same -1 effect. The main difference between a flank/rear attack and an overlap is that a ‘corner-to-corner overlap’ and a ‘side-edge-to-side-edge overlap’ do not recoil if the element dicing loses the combat, whereas front-edge contact on an enemy does cause a recoil if the element dicing loses the combat (which was Eric’s original question).
WWg’s on 2 BW deep bases is an interesting case in point. The rule on page 10 paragraph 1 says:- “War Wagons count the edge first contacted as its front edge, so does not turn. A second element contacting the same edge is treated as if overlapping the nearest flank. That edge of the War Wagon ceases to be treated as its front edge when the contact ceases.”
So if say two Ax elements make front-edge contact on a WWg’s deep flank, one of them is treated as overlapping the nearest flank, but both will recoil if the dicing Ax scores less. This is a flank attack, and not an overlap (as true overlaps do not have their front-edge in contact, so do not recoil).
Therefore, as you pointed out, I should adjust my previous lists…...
There are 5 different types of ‘overlap’, where only the element dicing recoils, and not those helping it:- When an element who's front edge is not touching but is in corner-to-corner contact. When an element’s side-edge is in contact with an enemy’s side-edge. When an element suffers from ‘Battlefield Edge Overlap’. When a contacted element cannot or chooses not to conform (see diagrams 13a, 13c, 13d, and 13e). When two or three elements are assisting the assault on a Camp, City, or Fort. (Note that Ps and SCh are not affected by the first case, but they are affected by the others. And all of these are ignored when defending or assaulting a Camp, City, or Fort. Assaults on Camps, Cities, and Forts are sort of ‘overlaps’, in that the defending element is being attacked from different directions… ...and is a special case, where each element gets to fight in turn, causing the defender to roll more than once in a single bound.)
And there are 2 different types of ‘flank attack’, that do cause all the elements in front-edge contact to recoil:- When an element who's front-edge is in contact with an enemy’s flank or rear. When a WWg on a deep base has two enemy elements in front-edge contact to it’s flank.
Post by medievalthomas on Jul 18, 2017 19:37:59 GMT
Trying to get Phil to use consistent terminology or any terminology proved impossible. Hence we have all these made up terms like "Quick Kill" that are not in the rules but just player jargon. DBMM players use the even more monstorous "EMTLU" term. Overlap appears in the rules but covers alot ground. Flanker (meaning corner over lap), Friction Flanker (meaning side edge contact) and Hard Flanker (meaning front edge contact with side edge) are useful subterms.
It's interesting how regional dialects develop. I have played DBA since 1991 and I have never heard anyone ever say friction flanker, hard flanker, hard rearer. Those must be Georgia terms. Our local group does not use the term quick kill but rather keeping the words of the game, destroyed if beaten. Happily with the advent of the "threat zone "we no longer have to worry about zone of control (ZOC).
By the way I forgot to mention after Stevie's last comments, that elements do not overlap cities, fort, camps. Phil writes:
"Troops assaulting or defending these use their combat factor against foot and do not count overlaps or flank or rear support. "
I was not writing about functional equivalent of overlap, I was writing about Phil's actual usage of the word overlap. If a player were to write that he had an element overlapping a city, others might be confused because elements do not overlap cities. Elements "assaulting" a city do give tactical factors if not actually in combat. It must be noted that elements Assaulting a city do combat in turn, each with possibility of destruction or recoil. Overlapping elements do not actually fight in combat and so do not recoil or be destroyed. Best to try to use the language of the rules as much as possible, not invent Phrases nor miss use actual phrases.
Post by medievalthomas on Jul 19, 2017 17:55:57 GMT
The point is that we don't have a terminology - I'm just suggesting examples. Here no one likes the term "Threat Zone" and I have given up calling it that since everyone just calls it a Zone of Control (standard wargame terminology which everyone understands) - a good example of not re-inventing the wheel.