Odd detail support shooting

[hazelbark]

Game last night.

Lancers (from 2 different BGs) strike front and side of dailami that had supporting LF Bows. No flank attack.

LL
DD
DDL
BB

So we have 3 bases to 3 bases at impact. The question was posed how many support shooting bases are there for contributing dice? Now only 2 bases existed, but a person asked since there were 3 bases striking, and the attack on the side the 2nd base counts as if front. Which normally would mean that base would get the support shooting. Does that change things?

So does one of the LF bases effectively get to double count and provide its 1/2 die twice?

Or does the owner of the LF base just get to choose where it applies its 1/2 die?

I said, if I was asked to rule as an Umpire (which I wasn't) I would say the later rather than the former.

[peterrjohnston]

So we have 3 bases to 3 bases at impact.

The Dailami only have two bases in (effective) front edge combat, not 3, surely?

So does one of the LF bases effectively get to double count and provide its 1/2 die twice?

Or does the owner of the LF base just get to choose where it applies its 1/2 die?

It's not a 1/2 die, you lose 1 per 2.

[philqw78]

IMO. The dailami are fighting with 6 front rank dice as the lancer to the right fights as if in front edge contact. The supporting LF lose one dice per 2 so it works out easy. 1 support dice against each lancer. If the dailami were 3x3 it would seem more complex. But it is worked out the same as frontal contact so a rear rank may get to add (1 per 2) dice more than once. Done to discourage cheesy charge angles I believe.

[ethan]

So we have 3 bases to 3 bases at impact.

The Dailami only have two bases in (effective) front edge combat, not 3, surely?

The third lancer is hitting the second rank Dailami MF, but it does not count as a flank attack as it didn't start in a position to make one.

The rules say something like "counts as if attacking the front rank base." The front rank base has a supporting LF...But that would mean the LF counts twice. Each MF is only counting once (the front rank is fighting one lancer, the second rank a different lancer). So is support shooting an integral part of the "file" thus the LF shoots twice (the LF being akin to the fourth rank of a pike file) or is the LF "fighting" so can only contribute once?

[SirGarnet]

Referring to the marginal notes in my worn rules book, thread 9630 is the definitive thread on non-flank charge flank impacts, as well as conforming for melee after.

viewtopic.php?t=9630


Mike

[gozerius]

I would like the language tightened up, especially regarding support shooting, to eliminate the currently held convention that a missile armed non front rank base can shoot in support of every base in the file that is in contact with an enemy base, including its own. I don't care what the rationale for that is, it's just wrong. A base should count as fighting, or support shooting. Not both. As the charts are written, I see bases contributing in impact as either front rank bases (in contact with the enemy) or support shooters ( not in contact with the enemy, and behind someone who is).

[hammy]

I would like the language tightened up, especially regarding support shooting, to eliminate the currently held convention that a missile armed non front rank base can shoot in support of every base in the file that is in contact with an enemy base, including its own. I don't care what the rationale for that is, it's just wrong. A base should count as fighting, or support shooting. Not both. As the charts are written, I see bases contributing in impact as either front rank bases (in contact with the enemy) or support shooters ( not in contact with the enemy, and behind someone who is).

How is this different to the second rank of spear fighting twice or the fourth rank of pike?

If the rules took away support shooting in this instance you would always find troops trying to charge into corners and step down into the side of a BG juts to gain an advantage.

[nikgaukroger]

I would like the language tightened up, especially regarding support shooting, to eliminate the currently held convention that a missile armed non front rank base can shoot in support of every base in the file that is in contact with an enemy base, including its own. I don't care what the rationale for that is, it's just wrong. A base should count as fighting, or support shooting. Not both. As the charts are written, I see bases contributing in impact as either front rank bases (in contact with the enemy) or support shooters ( not in contact with the enemy, and behind someone who is).

How is this different to the second rank of spear fighting twice or the fourth rank of pike?

If the rules took away support shooting in this instance you would always find troops trying to charge into corners and step down into the side of a BG juts to gain an advantage.

Quite so - the status quo is clearly the better way to do it in this case.

[hazelbark]

Referring to the marginal notes in my worn rules book, thread 9630 is the definitive thread on non-flank charge flank impacts, as well as conforming for melee after.

viewtopic.php?t=9630

Mike

Right which is how we played it but not the queston we had.

[hazelbark]

IMO. The dailami are fighting with 6 front rank dice as the lancer to the right fights as if in front edge contact. The supporting LF lose one dice per 2 so it works out easy. 1 support dice against each lancer. If the dailami were 3x3 it would seem more complex. But it is worked out the same as frontal contact so a rear rank may get to add (1 per 2) dice more than once. Done to discourage cheesy charge angles I believe.

Correct

So three front rank bases = 6 dice.
But do you count 2 or 3 supporting LF bases, when there are only two on the table? Then as pointed out you get 1 per 2.

It looks like you are saying becuase of the odd 3 front base situation you would roll as if there were 3 supporting LF bases.

[TERRYFROMSPOKANE]

PG 98-99: "...support shooters get 1 dice per supporting base. Light foot lose 1 dice per 2 as normal." There are only 2 supporting bases. Since they are light foot, they lose 1 dice and have one left to shoot with.

Terry G.

[gozerius]

I would like the language tightened up, especially regarding support shooting, to eliminate the currently held convention that a missile armed non front rank base can shoot in support of every base in the file that is in contact with an enemy base, including its own. I don't care what the rationale for that is, it's just wrong. A base should count as fighting, or support shooting. Not both. As the charts are written, I see bases contributing in impact as either front rank bases (in contact with the enemy) or support shooters ( not in contact with the enemy, and behind someone who is).

How is this different to the second rank of spear fighting twice or the fourth rank of pike?

If the rules took away support shooting in this instance you would always find troops trying to charge into corners and step down into the side of a BG juts to gain an advantage.

The second rank of spear only fight once. With two dice. At the POA of the front rank base of its file. As stated in the rules. It is in contact with the enemy so counts as a front rank base.
A base which is missile capable does not support shoot if it is fighting in the front rank. Therefore a base that is fighting as if in the front rank should not support shoot either.

A missile capable base that is behind one or more bases fighting at impact should contribute one die and only one die to the total dice rolled in that impact phase.

Alternatively, we could interpret the rules to mean that flank edge contact not qualifying as a flank charge counts as contacting the front of the file, and only one base will be eligible to fight that file at impact. This would eliminate cheesy manuevers as you describe, or at least the benefit of them.
It would also be in keeping with the wording in the combat charts, since then only the front rank bases would be considered for impact combat dice and support shooters would perform normally.

[ShrubMiK]

Do the rules actually say that the non-first rank bases fights as if it itself is a front-rank base? Haven't got my rules handy, but that is not how I remember it.

>The second rank of spear only fight once. With two dice.

Umm, now you are being cute, surely? How is that different from a LF support-shooting base shooting once, but contributing two dice (which are then part of the lose one dice per two equation)?

[gozerius]

No, I'm not being cute. Page 92 lists the dice each base contributes to impact combat. Page 91 states that all bases coming into contact with the enemy are eligible to fight. The chart on page 92 says that only front rank bases contribute dice. If a base is in contact and is contributing dice, it must therefore count as a front rank base. No base fights twice. Therefore support shooters should not support twice. And if a missile armed base is fighting it must then not be able to support shoot, since it counts as a front rank base.

We don't allow bases in contact with multiple bases to roll dice against each base in contact. Why should support shooters be able to shoot at multiple targets? This is something that is not supported by the rules, and is not an official clarification in the FAQ. It's not legal.

[petedalby]

This is something that is not supported by the rules, and is not an official clarification in the FAQ. It's not legal.

Possibly - possibly not. Read page 57 - last bullet point.

'is treated as a normal charge on the enemy front.' No mention of bases or support shooting.

If the BG is charged frontally and it has support shooters, then surely they can contribute.

I believe the rules are written this way to ensure that a charge cannot get an unfair advantage by coming in at wierd angles.

In Dan's original example, the frontal contact is easy - 4 impact dice vs 4 impact, plus 2 support shooters, but they're LF so you drop one.

If both of the chargers had hit frontally, the number of dice would be the same. But one charger has hit a flank base, so we have 6 impact dice vs 6 impact dice. To ensure the flank charge contact does not gain an unfair advantage, I believe there are now 3 support shooters - one of which is dropped.

I agree it is an interpretation only but one which I hope you will agree is reasonable? Or not - but that's how it tends to played in the UK.

[gozerius]

Precisely my point. The wording is ambiguous. If It refers to the front of the BG, then only one charging base per contacted file should be considered. If it means the front of the base contacted, which is what the examples of play seem to indicate, then the base contacted counts as a front rank base.
What I am saying is that base support shooting should not count its shooting contribution more than once. This is what is spelled out in the Impact Combat chart on page 92. Otherwise why can't other bases with multiple targets get to roll their full dice against each base in contact? I already know that this is not the commonly held premise in the UK.

[ShrubMiK]

We are not talking about "commonly held premises" here, we are talking about a very particular case for which there is no really good answer, given that combat is resolved according to number of bases in contact not number of figures.

As I said in the previous thread, I persoanlly don't think any of the bases in the end file which is contacted on the flank should get to contribute to combat dice twice - either for support shooting or for normal impact hand-to-hand combat dice. But the flip side to that is that the extra file of chargers shouldn't get to fight in impact either. Conform and fight as overlap in melee seems fair to me.

But if the ruling is to be that the extra file of chargers get to fight in impact as if a frontal contact, then to offset those extra dice the defenders should get an equal advantage.

The reason I said "cute" is that unless I am misunderstanding you seem to want to treat impact hand-to-hand and impact shooting dice in completely different ways in this case, which doesn't seem particualrly logical to me. One way or the other for both.

[hazelbark]

It is also a very persnickty example. And can be judged either way.

For the reasons debated, I said I would say it doesn't count twice, but I can totally see Pete's point it could.

Thanks all for the discussion.

[gozerius]

I would prefer we consider each file only once at impact. With any additional contacts on that file not contributing to the impact, unless they are legal flank or rear contacts. This is consistent with the concept mentioned on page 91 that the front ranks are the key troops at impact. Non-front rank bases contacted by flank/rear chargers are supposed to turn to face the enemy, so become de facto front rank bases. The Impact Phase Dice chart is explicit that dice are rolled based on eligible front rank bases and their support shooters. No base fights twice. In situations where a base is in contact with more than one eligible enemy base, the side with more in contact chooses who fights whom. Page 57 states that a non-flank charge that contacts the flank edge of an enemy base "is treated as a normal charge on the enemy front. In the maneuver phase, the chargers must, if possible, align with the enemy front". It is clear from the rules on conforming that the "enemy front" is the front edge of the enemy battle group. The issue is muddied by the fact that on page 91, the decription of who is eligible to fight only mentions bases contacted by chargers. This is the source of the difference of opinion on who fights and how dice are counted. Some argue that to not let support shooters contribute twice when more than one base in a file is fighting gives unfair advantage to the charger. I say that allowing a non-flank charger to be eligible to fight non-front rank bases gives an unfair advantage to the charger. And allowing support shooters multiple shots is only compounding the problem.

[ethan]

I would prefer we consider each file only once at impact.

This would be a clear rules change as the rules explicitly allow for non-flank contacts on rear ranks in melee.