The core of this argument is that it is not about which base is contacted but about which file is contacted. A non-flank charge counts as if contacting the front base of the file.
Consider a single base impact where a non-flank charge hits the fourth rank base of a pike block. The factors for the pike would be ++, just as if the contact had been on the front of the pikes. I.e it is the file that determines the factors, not the particular base being struck.
For consistency, exactly the same must apply to a second rank bow. For the sake of argument, assume the only contact is on the second rank base of the bow BG. The contact would be resolved as if the first rank base had been hit. If it was a spear armed front rank it would count two dice at spear impact factors plus the bow support for three dice. The fact that the only contacted base is the bow in the second rank does not mean the factors are calculated as if the bow was the front rank.
Perhaps we can line up a few figures at Derby on Sunday.
Support shooting
Moderators: philqw78, terrys, hammy, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Moderators, Field of Glory Design
Me and Roger had a discussion (very friendly and most constructive) regarding support shooting a the recent round of the Northern Doubles.
We both agree (I think) that currently the wording in the rules is open to interpretation - this is because:
The bit about contacting the flank of elements, but not being a legal flank charge states (pg 57)
"A charge which does not qualify as a flank or rear charge can still contact the flank edge of an enemy base, provided that it was not already in melee to its front. Such a charge does not count as a flank or rear charge and is treated as a normal charge on the enemy front."
This bit in support shooting states (pg98)
"Foot armed with certain missile weapons will attempt to inflict damage on enemy chargers by shooting over the ranks in front. This is represented by support shooting from a rank behind the one fighting in the impact phase and allows additional combat dice"
The problem here is that if you are in two ranks and the rear rank element is contacted then it doesn't have an element behind to provide support shooting. However the counter argument is that if you contacted the front of the enemy it would have a second rank.
I think we need to clarify what "treated as a normal charge on the enemy front" means - does this mean
a) treated as a charge on the front of the element contacted
b) treated as a charge on the front of the column that includes the element being contacted
We both think b) should be the case as this would eliminate a certain amount of cheese, but it is not conclusively covered anywhere. It is all very well talking about the rule's intent, but I for one would like this to be sorted out one way or another!
One for the FAQ?
We both agree (I think) that currently the wording in the rules is open to interpretation - this is because:
The bit about contacting the flank of elements, but not being a legal flank charge states (pg 57)
"A charge which does not qualify as a flank or rear charge can still contact the flank edge of an enemy base, provided that it was not already in melee to its front. Such a charge does not count as a flank or rear charge and is treated as a normal charge on the enemy front."
This bit in support shooting states (pg98)
"Foot armed with certain missile weapons will attempt to inflict damage on enemy chargers by shooting over the ranks in front. This is represented by support shooting from a rank behind the one fighting in the impact phase and allows additional combat dice"
The problem here is that if you are in two ranks and the rear rank element is contacted then it doesn't have an element behind to provide support shooting. However the counter argument is that if you contacted the front of the enemy it would have a second rank.
I think we need to clarify what "treated as a normal charge on the enemy front" means - does this mean
a) treated as a charge on the front of the element contacted
b) treated as a charge on the front of the column that includes the element being contacted
We both think b) should be the case as this would eliminate a certain amount of cheese, but it is not conclusively covered anywhere. It is all very well talking about the rule's intent, but I for one would like this to be sorted out one way or another!
One for the FAQ?
I was not involved in the discussion but if a) is the case then if you charge the side of a mixed BG by this argument you could count end up counting as if you were charging the supporting LF rather than the front rank Impact Foot or whatever.dave_r wrote: I think we need to clarify what "treated as a normal charge on the enemy front" means - does this mean
a) treated as a charge on the front of the element contacted
b) treated as a charge on the front of the column that includes the element being contacted
We both think b) should be the case as this would eliminate a certain amount of cheese, but it is not conclusively covered anywhere. It is all very well talking about the rule's intent, but I for one would like this to be sorted out one way or another!
One for the FAQ?
I am not convinced it needs an FAQ as I still think that you are being rather perverse in your interpretation of front. Granted adding the word rank so it read "normal charge on the enemy front rank" would mean that even you would struggle to missinterpret the rule
Its (b). We would have said base specifically if we meant (a). The enemy has BG and has a front. We view it this way in part because a BG is made up of several unit and we are restricted by alternate movement. In reality if you had such a charge in real life it is not far enough around to deal a deadly blow from the flank, and some units would angle sideways to deal with the threat normally.a) treated as a charge on the front of the element contacted
b) treated as a charge on the front of the column that includes the element being contacted
We both think b) should be the case as this would eliminate a certain amount of cheese, but it is not conclusively covered anywhere. It is all very well talking about the rule's intent, but I for one would like this to be sorted out one way or another!
Si
Last edited by shall on Sat Jun 20, 2009 7:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
Simon Hall
"May your dice roll 6s (unless ye be poor)"
"May your dice roll 6s (unless ye be poor)"
That is exactly why we want to change the wording to say hit the front of the file - if you hit the front of the file then that file would get support shooting. So in this instance it would be four dice against six (assuming all are steady).I would offer that a supporting base adds one die of support shooting(MF). In the above case there is only one base providing that support so how could it count as two, one to the front and one to the base contacted on the flank.
It is better to do it this way than get the cheese from angled charges and such like.