|
|
Post by primuspilus on Oct 30, 2017 12:37:10 GMT
You know Bob, after thinking about it, you may well be right, and knights attacking a flank are not meant to pursue. If so, then the rules are using an unfortunate use of words, and giving the wrong impression. On the other hand, maybe Phil Barker also agrees that it is absurd that impetuous knights don't pursue when they attack a flank. If so, then the wording in the rules is entirely correct, and have been deliberately chosen to reflect this. And having forgotten how previous versions of DBA handled the situation, all I and other new players can do is to follow the current rules as they are written, word for word. After all, the words used to describe the rules are there for a reason...
Stevie, picture a single Sp attacked by Kn on 3 sides, front, left and right flanks. It (unsurprisingly) gets vaporised. Which Kn element pursues? I am with Bob on this one. Not because I think your reasoning is wrong, but for reasons of practicality... |
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Oct 30, 2017 13:19:50 GMT
Well, can you tell me where my interpretation is incorrect?:- Page 11 paragraph 4:- "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." Page 12 paragraph 9:- “Otherwise an element whose close combat opponents recoil, flee or are destroyed must immediately pursue, but only if (they are of the right type)…” Seems pretty clear to me...attacking a flank is classed as close combat, and close combat troops must pursue. Hello Stevie, well - page 10, Paragraph 6+7 say, that the close combat is only fought by the two elements, which combat factors are used! Additional Elements (overlaps, rear supports, flank Supports, "closed doors", ...) take part in the close combat. But it's not "their" close combat. So a pursuing element can only be an element (including friends in column behind it), you've diced for in the close combat!. Cheers, Ronald. |
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Oct 30, 2017 13:39:22 GMT
To add support, I fully agree that when more than one shooter targets the same element, the factor of the shooter closest to the target is the factor used, and the other(s) provide a minus one factor. The rule In DBA 3 seems to be exactly the same as it was in the original DBA and has been play that way since the beginning. Hi Bob, that's exactly the way we play it!  ... and nobody cares if artillery is a supporting shooter. ... It's combat factor isn't used for shooting ... so - nobody cares for "combat outcomes vs. Artillery"! Cheers, Ronald. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 30, 2017 16:37:07 GMT
... and nobody cares if artillery is a supporting shooter. ... It's combat factor isn't used for shooting ... so - nobody cares for "combat outcomes vs. Artillery"! They might care if their opponent announces that their War Wagons and Elephants have suddenly become immune to the effects of Artillery firing large rocks, metre long iron bolts, and cannon balls, just because a bunch of archers are also shooting their flimsy arrows at the same target...
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 30, 2017 16:41:35 GMT
Stevie, picture a single Sp attacked by Kn on 3 sides, front, left and right flanks. It (unsurprisingly) gets vaporised. Which Kn element pursues? I am with Bob on this one. Not because I think your reasoning is wrong, but for reasons of practicality... Well, if it was three knights, I would say that the one in full face-to-face mutual front-edge contact would pursue first, as they have their entire front in close combat and therefore have more effect than the two flanking knights, who only have a part of their front-edge in contact with the enemy spear’s flanks. But if the frontal element is one that doesn’t pursue, which of the two flanking knights would do so? Perhaps they both should, and meet each other face-to-face half way. (Yes, it looks horrible…but they are being impetuous, and not under their commander-in-chief’s direct control, and it is what would probably happen in reality) Very well, I submit to peer pressure, and withdraw my previous statements.  Perhaps a future FAQ could make things completely clear by adding the following amendments:- Change page 11 paragraph 4 to read:- "A supporting element in close combat front-edge contact 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." And change page 12 paragraph 9 to read:- “An element in a city, fort or camp or in bad going (other than marsh or gully) or whose pursuit move would cross a battlefield edge or enter such bad going, or in front-edge contact with an enemy flank, does not pursue.” Soooo…for the sake of harmony, let us all assume that troops attacking a flank do not pursue… …even though the rules say they do. I will just have to face the fact that there are some rules in DBA 3.0 that do not mean what they say. |
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Oct 30, 2017 17:12:30 GMT
We should probably change the topic header...
Stevie (as he often does) has discovered a rule screw up which we missed (or more likely were not allowed sufficient space to deal with). Its a service. No we don't play nor did we intend flanking elements to Pursue but as Stevie points out that's not what we said. Will try to get FAQ committee to deal with - but keep in mind its a committee and often deadlocks.
But as I'm in the midst of sorting all rule oddities and trying to write up as actually played, can I assume we all agree that flanking elements should not Pursue? - despite what we said.
As to 3.0 in general its only fair to point out that we fixed many 2.2 problems and again as Stevie points out produced a much better simulation with a substantial reduction in gamey tactics. Its better than 2.2 for clarity - that does not mean its perfect or couldn't be improved. That 3.0 is imperfect hardly makes it inferior to 2.2.
Again, Stevie thanks for the service I'll do what I can to plug the "hole"...
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 31, 2017 9:39:06 GMT
Thanks for that Tom. I am sorry to have caused so much trouble…I honestly thought that was what the rules intended. Still, as I often say, it’s better to have these discussions here rather than in the middle of a game. That just leaves us with the question of support shooting and combat outcomes. I’ve caused enough trouble in this thread already, and I don’t want to cause any more. So if the DBA community collectively decides that a support shooter’s combat outcomes are ignored, then fine. It does seem a bit harsh that Art not only lose their combat factor, they also lose their combat effects as well. But players do have a way around it. Art can always choose its own target (last sentence of page 10 paragraph 4), so if you don’t want your Art to be a harmless support shooter, always try to have them shoot on their own, without any support. This might mean wasting PIP’s to turn your bows 90 degrees so that the target enemy element or city is no longer in their field of fire, but it is still an option.  |
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Oct 31, 2017 10:06:29 GMT
Thanks for that Tom. I am sorry to have caused so much trouble…I honestly thought that was what the rules intended. Still, as I often say, it’s better to have these discussions here rather than in the middle of a game. That just leaves us with the question of support shooting and combat outcomes. I’ve caused enough trouble in this thread already, and I don’t want to cause any more. So if the DBA community collectively decides that a support shooter’s combat outcomes are ignored, then fine. It does seem a bit harsh that Art not only lose their combat factor, they also lose their combat effects as well. But players do have a way around it. Art can always choose its own target (last sentence of page 10 paragraph 4), so if you don’t want your Art to be a harmless support shooter, always try to have them shoot on their own, without any support. This might mean wasting PIP’s to turn your bows 90 degrees so that the target enemy element or city is no longer in their field of fire, but it is still an option. Stevie who does not want to be known as ‘the Rule Wrecker’,
No need to apologise.
The discourse has provided interesting moments for my thought processes to shift gears.
What I have not seen is any mention of revising the rule book diagrams and text.
Might this not solve a number of problems?
|
|
|
|
Post by sheffmark on Oct 31, 2017 10:35:42 GMT
Whilst on the subject of shooting, I played a couple of games last night which involved war wagons and art for both sides.
Unless I'm missing something;
1. I hadn't realised that Art v Art is an automatic kill for someone unless it's a draw. This seems a bit strange to have such destructive counter battery fire?
2. My opponent had Art going to shoot at a War Wagon. He then advanced a bow up to support. When it came to shooting he declared that the Art would shoot supported by the bow. I said the bow was the primary shooter as it was closest. He then decided that in that case the bow wouldn't shoot, but we would resolve the Art v War Wagon first, as it was his bound he could choose the order of shooting, then if the War Wagon wasn't killed it could shoot. The only target for the War Wagon was the said bow, the Art being out of range.
I couldn't find anything in the rules that would stop this, (first paragraph of Distant Shooting says "can" not 'must' shoot.
As it happened the War Wagon was destroyed
I presume this is all ok within the rules or have I missed something?
If the War Wagon wasn't destroyed and it fired at the bow, I presume the bow would not fire back, but just treat it as a defensive role with no return fire?
|
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Oct 31, 2017 13:40:33 GMT
Perhaps a future FAQ could make things completely clear by adding the following amendments:- Change page 11 paragraph 4 to read:- "A supporting element in close combat front-edge contact 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." And change page 12 paragraph 9 to read:- “An element in a city, fort or camp or in bad going (other than marsh or gully) or whose pursuit move would cross a battlefield edge or enter such bad going, or in front-edge contact with an enemy flank, does not pursue.” Sorry - but this now confuses me and doesn't make much sense. If 3 Kn in contact with a Sp (front and flanks) I would expect the Kn in frontal contact to pursue. However, if 2 Sp were in frontal contact with a Kn in flank contact and the flanked Sp was KOed - I would expect the Kn to advance impetupusly. You don't stop being impetuous (where and when possible) just because you hit a flank rather than the front of a unit. Paddy |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 31, 2017 13:45:32 GMT
I couldn't find anything in the rules that would stop this, (first paragraph of Distant Shooting says "can" not 'must' shoot). Well sheffmark, I can only tell you what the rules say. (But be warned…I have been known to take the rules too literally…  ) Page 8 paragraph 4, Sequence of Play, says:- “3) Any Artillery, War Wagon or Bow elements of both sides that are eligible to do so, must shoot once each…” If this be true, then the War Wagon in your example must shoot at their one-and-only target, the enemy Bow. As shooters must shoot back at those shooting at them (page 10 paragraph 4), the Bows must target the WWg. And as the Bow is closest, it will be the ‘primary shooter’, and only the Bow combat outcome counts. Therefore, the Art can only shoot at the same WWg as a support shooter, if it cannot find another target. (Does everyone see where I’m going with this?…)
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 31, 2017 14:04:48 GMT
Sorry - but this now confuses me and doesn't make much sense. If 3 Kn in contact with a Sp (front and flanks) I would expect the Kn in frontal contact to pursue. However, if 2 Sp were in frontal contact with a Kn in flank contact and the flanked Sp was KOed - I would expect the Kn to advance impetupusly. You don't stop being impetuous (where and when possible) just because you hit a flank rather than the front of a unit. Paddy Apparently Paddy, you do stop being impetuous when you hit a flank rather than the front of an element. See Bob's and medievalthomas' comments further up this thread. |
|
|
|
Post by sheffmark on Oct 31, 2017 14:36:26 GMT
I couldn't find anything in the rules that would stop this, (first paragraph of Distant Shooting says "can" not 'must' shoot). Well sheffmark, I can only tell you what the rules say. (But be warned…I have been known to take the rules too literally… ) Page 8 paragraph 4, Sequence of Play, says:- “3) Any Artillery, War Wagon or Bow elements of both sides that are eligible to do so, must shoot once each…” If this be true, then the War Wagon in your example must shoot at their one-and-only target, the enemy Bow. As shooters must shoot back at those shooting at them (page 10 paragraph 4), the Bows must target the WWg. And as the Bow is closest, it will be the ‘primary shooter’, and only the Bow combat outcome counts. Therefore, the Art can only shoot at the same WWg as a support shooter, if it cannot find another target. (Does everyone see where I’m going with this?…) Thanks Stevie
I had a suspicion that troops who could shoot had to, but the first bit of the Distant Shooting section made me think it must have been in a previous version of the rules.
Cheers
Mark
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Oct 31, 2017 15:36:27 GMT
Yes, this is correct. The Bow must shoot (I'm making some assumptions here...). It is the "primary" shooter and suffers and inflicts the outcomes.
This is a game convention. It really isn't much different than a Ps fighting another Ps while being contacted in the flank by a Bd. You fight using the Ps factor and the +5 Blade only contributes as an overlap.
Shouldn't one use the higher factor in the combat? The game has the answer, "No".
This is the same for the nearest shooter being the "Primary". I can speculate as to the "why". My notion is that Phil wanted to cut down on the power of the Artillery/Bow combination. Allowing such would overpower shooting against certain troop types (warwagons and elephants) and against BUAs. Such a combo is still possible, but very difficult to achieve.
To answer Timurilank...
Another few pages of diagrams are certainly warranted. Giving the example of a more complex close combat and a more complex distance combat are both needed.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Oct 31, 2017 16:21:34 GMT
Stevie do not drop out we need to have the literal text tossed in our faces - so we know where we screwed up!
Real world stuff intruding into tournament style DBA - gads!
OK why when a Knight crashs into the side of a Spear does the Spear get to fight (and probably beat) the Ps to the front? Well probably because when Phil first designed DBX this did not occur to him and then it got grandfathered in by (conservative) tournament players who don't like change to DBX lore. So now we are stuck. Why has it lasted? Because it doesn't make that much difference. In my example in either case if the Spear loses it dies (either due to Knight Shock or Hard Flank). The only difference is the CF (+2 or +3). The weird convention that the attacker does not get to pick which element is the "primary" attacker drives local players crazy (they are a bunch of historical non-tournament types so what do they know?).
In a perfect world the bounding player would pick the primary attacking/shooting element. (So in the Spear turn it could pick the Ps in an effort to "break out" of the trap.)
But I hate to make such changes even for Knights and Knaves since it supposed to be an easy learn version of DBX to allow transition into the wilds of DBA 3.0 tournament play (at the same time its supposed to be a more advanced simulation of late medieval warfare - so you see the conflicting pulls).
So we have to juggle two considerations: 1) Explaining the rules as they are (ie Knights, even Hard Flanking, do not Pursue even though they probably should) and the closest shooter is the primary shooter even though the Art would probably dominate (and even though Art and Bow would be unlikely to work together in any case); 2) considering what the rules should have said to create a better simulation. Generally I try to explain standard procedures (who shoots, who is the primary attacker, who Pursues) just as per the DBA 3.0 rules (by far the most advanced of the DBX stable). But where I can add stuff to the advanced game (crossbows, polearms etc.) I do so.
TomT
|
|
)