You frightened me for a moment, but . . . Page 56 says bases contacted use the normal rules for turning if not in frontal contact. Page 57 says they shift back if turning creates a gap between the bases that have been turned and the rest of the BG. A block of 2, 3 or 4 bases turns as described on page 44, which for foot faces one wide to the flank if 1-2 bases deep and two wide if 3-4 bases deep.
Page 91 clearly says to turn any bases required to turn and then proceed with determining the number of bases that fight. So, two bases turn in place, shift back to maintain contact with BG, chargers moved forward into contact, 1 base fights each side, then in movement the chargers conform into overlap.
How does this not dispose of the issue? What legal loophole the width of a split-hair am I missing?
Wretched flanks again...Aaaargh!!!!
Moderators: philqw78, terrys, hammy, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Moderators, Field of Glory Design
By "each side" do you mean "side" as in overlaps to left and right etc or do you mean "side" as in Romans and Carthaginians, Greeks and Persians? I'm assuming the latter which again agrees with my interpretation but still leaves the anomaly of less bases ending up fighting after the turn than before.MikeK wrote:You frightened me for a moment, but . . . Page 56 says bases contacted use the normal rules for turning if not in frontal contact. Page 57 says they shift back if turning creates a gap between the bases that have been turned and the rest of the BG. A block of 2, 3 or 4 bases turns as described on page 44, which for foot faces one wide to the flank if 1-2 bases deep and two wide if 3-4 bases deep.
Page 91 clearly says to turn any bases required to turn and then proceed with determining the number of bases that fight. So, two bases turn in place, shift back to maintain contact with BG, chargers moved forward into contact, 1 base fights each side, then in movement the chargers conform into overlap.
How does this not dispose of the issue? What legal loophole the width of a split-hair am I missing?
Personally I treat that anomaly as just a quirk of the game, no more odd than pike blocks doing a backward and sideways shuffle to get into frontal contact. I know they are two separate issues but the point I'm making is that sometimes strange little things have to be let pass and treated as merely a device to make the game work as playably as possible as long as they don't make things totally unrealistic.
Last edited by AlanYork on Tue Feb 02, 2010 2:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
Blathergut
- Field Marshal - Elefant
- Posts: 5882
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:44 am
- Location: Southern Ontario, Canada
p44 is clear...if two bases deep, then the two bases contacted turn, ending one base wide, ("the new front edge must consist of the minimum number of bases so that the width of the turned group is at least as wide as the depth before turning") the second base behind the first...impact combat now happens 1 base vs 1 base...I really don't get the confusion/arguments here.
It's because I realised that when the turn is made it means that only 1 cavalry base gets to fight whereas before the turn 2 of them did.Blathergut wrote:p44 is clear...if two bases deep, then the two bases contacted turn, ending one base wide, ("the new front edge must consist of the minimum number of bases so that the width of the turned group is at least as wide as the depth before turning") the second base behind the first...impact combat now happens 1 base vs 1 base...I really don't get the confusion/arguments here.
As I've said in previous postings it's clear to me that 1 cavalry base fights against 1 infantry base if one plays the rules as written. ShrubMik, Rogerg, Mike K and yourself all seem to agree that's correct but some feel that it is not right that the cavalry lose a base fighting or don't agree that one turned base ends behind the other.
-
Blathergut
- Field Marshal - Elefant
- Posts: 5882
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:44 am
- Location: Southern Ontario, Canada
if you think of width of troops fighting....ends up same...so initially it may seem like two bases contact two bases, but you could see it as by the time the units finaly contact, the flank has turned to face, and it is game mechanics that appear to have 2 bases fighting, but by the time you finish the phase, just one on one is actually happening
the weird offset bases trying to get two bases into contact does not seem to follow the spirit of the game either in this ancient soul's opinion
the weird offset bases trying to get two bases into contact does not seem to follow the spirit of the game either in this ancient soul's opinion
They never both got to fight - it's not determined yet. They were only dreamiing of doing so. The turn is part of the pre-combat process. If it helps, turn the target bases before moving the charge into contact and the horsemen won't feel cheated.AlanYork wrote:It's because I realised that when the turn is made it means that only 1 cavalry base gets to fight whereas before the turn 2 of them did.
>the weird offset bases trying to get two bases into contact does not seem to follow the spirit of the game either in this ancient soul's opinion
Agreed. Clever use of geometry to gain an advantage is supposed to be minimised in this rule set. Okay that's not entuirely possible, and whether the charge qualifies as a flank charge or not could come down to a matter of a siongle gnat's todger...but assuming it is a valid flank charge...it seems wrong to allow the charger great control over the resulting formation of the charged BG and number of BGs fighting by merely shifting the direction of the charge by a small amount. If they really want to get maximum impact dice they have to work a bit harder and get further round to the rear before charging.
>it could be argued that a charge onto a flank that isn't engaged frontally (ie what we have here in the example) will be nowhere near as devastating as a charge against a flank that is already fighting to its front.
It could indeed, and I think with very good reason. The rules even make a specific nod to this when they say that a BG does not count as fighting in 2 directions just because it has some of its bases turned to meet a flank/rear attack, it must actually be fighting in 2 directions as well. Being at --/++ and usually dropped a cohesion level before any dice have been rolled is plenty of penalty to reflect the fact the BG was temporarily caught on its flank, if it can recover from that initial disadvantage then fair play
Where it does perhaps make a big difference to the game is when considering whether to charge in on an exposed flank with LH against something meaty...you probably really are gambling on being able to at least fragment the opponents in the impact phase or you will likely get vaporised when it gets to melee.
Agreed. Clever use of geometry to gain an advantage is supposed to be minimised in this rule set. Okay that's not entuirely possible, and whether the charge qualifies as a flank charge or not could come down to a matter of a siongle gnat's todger...but assuming it is a valid flank charge...it seems wrong to allow the charger great control over the resulting formation of the charged BG and number of BGs fighting by merely shifting the direction of the charge by a small amount. If they really want to get maximum impact dice they have to work a bit harder and get further round to the rear before charging.
>it could be argued that a charge onto a flank that isn't engaged frontally (ie what we have here in the example) will be nowhere near as devastating as a charge against a flank that is already fighting to its front.
It could indeed, and I think with very good reason. The rules even make a specific nod to this when they say that a BG does not count as fighting in 2 directions just because it has some of its bases turned to meet a flank/rear attack, it must actually be fighting in 2 directions as well. Being at --/++ and usually dropped a cohesion level before any dice have been rolled is plenty of penalty to reflect the fact the BG was temporarily caught on its flank, if it can recover from that initial disadvantage then fair play
Where it does perhaps make a big difference to the game is when considering whether to charge in on an exposed flank with LH against something meaty...you probably really are gambling on being able to at least fragment the opponents in the impact phase or you will likely get vaporised when it gets to melee.
-
deadtorius
- Field Marshal - Me 410A
- Posts: 5290
- Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 12:41 am
Actually done that with light horse, figured it was the best possible combat odds at impact, unfortunately since the target is meatier they don't drop for being hit in the flank by lights... alas the break off was my saving grace, and I had another light horse set up to flank charge the new flank after my target had to turn to face and its old front was now its new rear.
Plan A had called for both units of LH to charge in, then you get the ++/-- and in melee it would have gone to a - for fighting in 2 directions but one of them thought that MF was a little too meaty for them.
Plan A had called for both units of LH to charge in, then you get the ++/-- and in melee it would have gone to a - for fighting in 2 directions but one of them thought that MF was a little too meaty for them.