Odd detail support shooting

[gozerius]

The rules are inconsistent. The Impact Dice chart (page 92) permits dice only from front rank bases and bases providing support shooting vs the front rank opponent. The opening paragraph on impact combat (Page 91) identifies front rank troops as the key troops at impact. The bullet point on page 57 dealing with charging bases contacting the flank edge of a base when not a legal flank charge refers to it counting as contacting the "enemy front". Appendix 1 describes the base depths as a compromise to accomodate figure size and is not representative of actual depth of formation. This caveat is used extensively by the authors to explain away all sorts of geometrical oddities. The gist being "don't get too hung up on the actual size of the bases, but consider what a real world body of men would be doing"

Why should two BGs with a frontage of 3 fight differently when contacted in the exact same manner, with the enemy stepping forward the exact same distance into a flank edge, just because one BG had a deeper base depth than the other? Under the current convention, a front rank base that is contacted on its flank edge as well as its front edge only fights one enemy base. But if the flank contact hits a second rank, the second rank base must fight that enemy base as if it were in the front rank.

The only reason is because the authors failed to maintain consistancy when writing the rules on who is eligible to fight in impact and wrote that all bases contacted are eligible to fight, thus creating a loophole which allows non-front rank bases to contribute with dice. Now because non-front rank bases can contribute dice, support shooters must pull double duty and support ALL bases in contact, and sometimes provide support for their own base?!?!

Close the loophole. Treat all non flank chargers contacting a flank edge of a BG as contacting the front of the front rank base.

[philqw78]

I agree.

[rogerg]

A lot of the confusion with this is because people have a mind set about 'bases fighting' If you think instead about files of BG's fighting, it all goes smoothly. Rather than worrying about which particular bases have been contacted, just use the number of bases contacted as the number of groups of dice to be used.

Your loophole closure would generate other anomalies with too few dice being used. Imagine a BG of four bases in column. It could conceivably get hit by four charging BG's, each contacting a different base, none being flank charges. As the rules stand, this is a very simple contact. There are four sets of dice rolled. Each is calculated separately as a one base to one base contact on the head of the column. This is clear and simple. The target gets eight dice rolled against it and will probably pay the price in casualties.

[grahambriggs]

Probably this is on for the FAQ.

I have always played this, and had it ruled in UK competitions, that you fight it as if 3 files have hit 3 files. i.e. one of the support shooters gets two goes.

I understand the concern about base depths, howver , the charger can usually wheel to hit the second rank base.

As I understand it from the authors, they wanted it this way to stop cheesy advantages from hitting rear bases.

[TERRYFROMSPOKANE]

But the rules on page 98-99 say "...support shooters get one dice per supporting base." - not 1 dice for each base being supported. It sure seems to me this means 2 supporting bases start out with just two dice regardless of the number of bases each could be deemed to be supporting.

Terry G.

[grahambriggs]

I appreciate that Terry and it's a reasonable argument. I read the 'contacting second ranks at impact' rules to mean "pretend that there's an extra file fighting, we know it doesn't quite work but go with it - we're trying to stop cheese here".

Granted, it would be better if the rules writing was clearer. However, the difference between the two ways of playing it is not that great (a single die with a - POA).

[gozerius]

But there are no contacting second ranks rules. The rules refer to front rank bases fighting and contacting a flank edge when not a flank charge counts as hitting the enemy front. Since the rules only allow front rank bases to roll dice, and a flank contact counts as hitting the enemy front it is reasonable to conclude that such a contact counts against the front rank base regardless of where on the flank the charger actually contacts. Thus the front rank base fights one base (determined per the rules regarding multiple contacts as applicable) that has contacted its file by a frontal charge. A support shooter shoots only at that enemy base. This would be consistant with the model that is used when conforming bases that contact a flank edge. And it would definitely eliminate cheese.
It is a radical rethinking of the current interpretation of the impact rules, and would require an updated FAQ. The rules themselves need no changes.
My proposed FAQ would read something like:

Q: What happens when a charger contacts the flank edge of a non-front rank base in a charge not qualifying as a flank charge?
A: Contacting an enemy BG on a flank edge when not qualifying as a flank charge is treated as contacting its front, so the charging base(s) would count as contacting the front rank base of that file. If there are multiple charging bases in contact with the bases of that file the charger selects which charging base fights the enemy front rank base.

This would eliminate the current FAQ entry regarding contacting a BG already in melee. Since all charges not qualifying as a flank charge would be ineligible to hit a file currently in melee.

[petedalby]

You make a good point gozerius.

If 3 bases impact against 2 - both only get 4 dice each.

Where the rules on page 57 state: 'is treated as a normal charge on the enemy front' - then maybe we should treat it exactly like that.

So no extra dice, no dilemma over support shooters. The charger has to decide which dice to drop.

So back to Dan's original example - it would be 4 dice v 4 dice with 1 support shooter.

It would make a lot of sense.

[philqw78]

You make a good point gozerius.

If 3 bases impact against 2 - both only get 4 dice each.

Where the rules on page 57 state: 'is treated as a normal charge on the enemy front' - then maybe we should treat it exactly like that.

So no extra dice, no dilemma over support shooters. The charger has to decide which dice to drop.

So back to Dan's original example - it would be 4 dice v 4 dice with 1 support shooter.

It would make a lot of sense.

But this takes us back to a point the writers are trying to discourage. Fighting with less bases if POA down. This would allow cheesy wheels to hit with as many, or more bases but fight with less.

[petedalby]

Fighting with less bases if POA down. This would allow cheesy wheels to hit with as many, or more bases but fight with less.

I can't have explained myself properly Phil - sorry.

Let me try another example.

I have a 6 base BG, 2 wide and 3 deep, the rear rank are LF support shooters. In the impact phase, my BG is charged by 4 enemy BGs, 2 frontally, and 1 on each flank, contacting the 2nd rank base but not counting as a flank charge.

Taking the rules literally as written, this could be fought as 4 impact dice vs 4 impact dice, and I have 1 support shooting dice to allocate. The charger must choose which of his BGs fight - the others are ignored. That way the charger derives no advantage from hitting me in the flank.

We would currently play this as 8 dice vs 8 dice and argue about the support shooting. But maybe we've being doing it wrong - and it is just the front rank bases that fight? Re-read page 57 - final bullet point. "Such a charge does not count as a flank or rear charge and is treated as a normal charge on the enemy front."

[peterrjohnston]

We would currently play this as 8 dice vs 8 dice and argue about the support shooting. But maybe we've being doing it wrong - and it is just the front rank bases that fight? Re-read page 57 - final bullet point. "Such a charge does not count as a flank or rear charge and is treated as a normal charge on the enemy front."

That was my understanding (in my reply right at the start of this discussion), i.e. the Dailami only have 2 front ranks bases so it doesn't matter how many lancers pile in, you still only get two lancer bases in impact.

[grahambriggs]

Fighting with less bases if POA down. This would allow cheesy wheels to hit with as many, or more bases but fight with less.

I can't have explained myself properly Phil - sorry.

Let me try another example.

I have a 6 base BG, 2 wide and 3 deep, the rear rank are LF support shooters. In the impact phase, my BG is charged by 4 enemy BGs, 2 frontally, and 1 on each flank, contacting the 2nd rank base but not counting as a flank charge.

Taking the rules literally as written, this could be fought as 4 impact dice vs 4 impact dice, and I have 1 support shooting dice to allocate. The charger must choose which of his BGs fight - the others are ignored. That way the charger derives no advantage from hitting me in the flank.

We would currently play this as 8 dice vs 8 dice and argue about the support shooting. But maybe we've being doing it wrong - and it is just the front rank bases that fight? Re-read page 57 - final bullet point. "Such a charge does not count as a flank or rear charge and is treated as a normal charge on the enemy front."

I had thought the rules said that you count up how many bases touch, and use the lowest common denominator. In your example 4 bases vs 4?

I agree with Phil, it opens the door to ahistoric tactics. Troops that are poor at impact but strong in melee would go into a one base wide column to minimise the impact phase. I've had this a couple of times:

6 base, two deep drilled armoured heavy weapon/crossbow foot are faced by 6 base two deep protected Impact foot/sword. If they hit like that the impact foot are likely to win the impact and have a fair chance of taking a base off which would give them a tasty crossbowman to fight.

So, outside the restricted area, the HW/XB contract into a one wide column, leaving a gap in the line. If the IF charge in and can only get 2 bases vs 2+1 then the chances of killing a base are low and the odds are with the HW troops in melee. If the IF can charge at an angle, stagger into the second rank and get 4 bases agains 4+2 then at least they have some chance of a decent impact result.

[grahambriggs]

But there are no contacting second ranks rules. The rules refer to front rank bases fighting and contacting a flank edge when not a flank charge counts as hitting the enemy front. Since the rules only allow front rank bases to roll dice

That's an interesting take on it. However, does that square with the combat section/

The mechanism for deciding how many dice to roll at impact says, IIRC, that you count up the touching bases on either side, round down to whoever has the smallest number, and that is how many bases fight each other in melee. They all fight as front rank bases.

[gozerius]

That is exactly the interpretation that I find fault with. The rules do say that all bases touching are eligible to fight. But the dice chart says that only front rank bases and support shooters contribute dice. So one or the other is in error. Since the Impact section refers to flank contacts by non flank charge qualified chargers as counting against the enemy front, you have taken that to mean that contacting a second rank base counts as contacting another front rank base of a file composed the same as the file contacted . This gives the charger an advantage for angling his charge to pile into a corner, stepping forward into the second rank. The defending BG now has to fight as if a whole basewidth wider. Now to counter this advantage you have to make up a rule (not mentioned in the rulebook) that allows a support shooter to cover all contacted bases on that flank, including its own if necessary. But I say that a base cannot possibly do that. It violates the rule prohibiting bases from fighting more than one base at impact.
On the other hand, if we read "treated as contacting the enemy front" as "treated as contacting the front rank base of the file contacted" then the charger loses his incentive to wheel into a corner and we eliminate the need to tack on unnecessary and unwritten rules allowing support shooters to support more than one base (which may be their own).
It greatly simplifies everything. And the rules are already there. They just need to be interpreted properly.

[ShrubMiK]

That's the approach I would definitely like to see adopted.

(Although I don't share your outrage at a base being able to contribute against more than opponent in exceptional circumstances - it's just a rule mechanism, these guys don't really come equipped with one giant dice per several hundred men, which is so heavy it can only be picked up and thrown once per phase )