Slitherine

I believe the upshot is: if the target base would give a POA if in 2 ranks and the BG is in 2 ranks the POA applies. So if your target base is Knights no POA (actually minus for bow), if the target base is Protected cav and the BG is in 2 ranks then +POA

hammy wrote:

shall wrote:I suspect we will clarify them as counting in single rank as written as the + POA is for a nice deep target os said individuals and you don't have that.

So yes count the rear as on 1 rank which gives you usually - vs front ranks and 0 vs raer ranks. Good enough an effect.

Si

Eh?

What were you smoking last night Si.

This post is probably the most confusing one I have ever seen from you on the forum. I really have no idea what you are trying to say here.

He's turning into Phil Barker

I disagree with the + POA.. And this is why. The chart says.. Protected CAVALRY not in a single rank.. Well the protected cav ARE in a single rank behind KNIGHTS... I stress Cavalry.. It does not say protected mounted not in a single rank.. Heh, yes i know it is a bit technical.. But it is what the chart says.

I was replying to this one, and unfortunately something else slotted in between that made the answer look especially odd - even for me.

With multi ranks of different troops types - i.e. Prot Cv behind Knights - I understood the question to be what POA applies if shooting at the Prot Cv as a target instead of more normally shooting frontally - e.g. with LH from the rear having swarmed them.

There is + POA for shooting Prot Cv in more than 1 rank. So does this apply to shooting the rear rank? Its a good question and not covered explcitily. I don't think it is something we had considered even at the time, but I would say NO. Shoot at the CV as Prot Cv in 1 rank, as the + was in there specifically to give a benefit for shooting a nice juicy deep unarmoured target.

As for BGs all of the same troop type clearly they are either single rank or not as a BG. No variation for individual bases there.

I think the differences in POAs only apply where a target BGs bases are different. Hence me giving the example of my Byzatine BGs with 1/2/ sp and 1/2/ bw where I ended up with a nice unhistorical formation of

SPEAR BOW
SPEAR BOW

And got shot at from the right. Counted them as protected MF for a target rather than the Arm HF they usually present frontally. Technically front rank of the target is half of each...the target being a BG.

Si

Examples: (all facing down the page and shot at frontally unless othewise stated) C= cavalry K=knights

CCC
CCC = 2 ranks.

CC
CCCC = 2 ranks.

CC
KKC = 2 ranks.

KK
KCCC = 2 ranks, or maybe 1 rank as the cavalry are only in a single rank.

KKK
CCC = 2 ranks, or maybe 1 rank as the cavalry are only in a single rank.

CCC shot at from the rear = 1 rank, according to Simon.
KKK

CCC shot at from the rear = 1 rank according to Simon, or possibly 2 ranks as that is what it is.
CCC

Indeed Lawrence.

Although the 1 rank on CV a personal view at present as I don't think its an issue we ever thought about when we set the POAs, and on the words you can clearly argue it either way.

I will see what RBS and TS think.

Si

I appreciate that the author jury is still out on this question but just wanted to point out the definition of '1 Base Deep' on page 133.

This makes it very clear that the whole BG has to be entirely in a single rank of bases.

So unless there is to be a change in the rules as written......

Pete

A fair point Pete. Hadn't noticed that.

I still don't think we considered it, which is why talk about Cv, Cm etc. in there.

Si

shall wrote:A fair point Pete. Hadn't noticed that.

I still don't think we considered it, which is why talk about Cv, Cm etc. in there.

I am sure we did not consider the specific issue of mixed Polish BGs. However, the glossary does rather clinch the point in question, and I for one am happy with the effect.

The single rank formation represents small bodies zooming about skirmishing, which the Polish formation certainly does not.

Yes I hadn't noticed the glossary and it does rather swing it that way. I think with that and your comments Richard happy to leave it as 2 ranks as it is the RAW and its too minor an issues to devaite from them.

Sorted therefore - they count 2 ranks.

Si

I guess it's like many of the things that are debated on the forum - probably very unlikely to happen anyway!

Pete

I am sure there are people out there playing games witht he sole intention of creating wierd situations just for the fun of it - I bet someone manages it.

Still the stream did well to last so long before you spotted the glossary item Pete. I should have remembered that.

So basically don't get your Kn/Cv groups shot at form the rear - horrible. I wonder if I can get my Christain Nubian bowmen behind any ..... ouch!

Si

Surely this situation is very likely to happen. If a mixed BG loses a front rank knight base to shooting, the formation could be

KC
C

or

CK
C

I think the rules as written have it right. Either the BG is in one rank or it isn't. In simulation terms either it is a skirmishing group or not.

A further base loss to a group like the above might become one rank KC. This would not be a skirmishing group. One could rationalise it as a group too strung out to present a dense target.

Will there be a prize for the first person to use a single rank CKCK formation? Anyone think of a use for it?

rogerg wrote:
Will there be a prize for the first person to use a single rank CKCK formation? Anyone think of a use for it?

Support behind LF, esp against cav.

Yes, I like that one. Your prize is my admiration for the idea.

And 'tis a bigger prize than I am giving!

Si

philqw78 wrote:

rogerg wrote:
Will there be a prize for the first person to use a single rank CKCK formation? Anyone think of a use for it?

Support behind LF, esp against cav.

Although I would use KCCK in case of overlaps