Terrain and POAs

[philqw78]

That doubt has now been clarified by one of the authors - and yet you would still choose to ignore both the rules and the authors view if you were running a tournament?

Clarified by one Pete. IIRC there are three. Also The rules as written state situational factors make up a POA. In my reading depth and terrain are situational.

1) 4th Rank Pike POA - do all the ranks of pike need to be in the open or only the 4th rank or only the 1st rank?

It is the base claiming the POA that needs to be in the open - see P135 - last bullet point on the left hand side. So in this case the 1st rank.

This is the intention. The wording of the 4th rank pike POA in the Melee chart somewhat confuses the issue, but if a ruling is required for the IWF (rather than a persistent argument just for the hell of it) I would rule that it does count if the front rank is out of the terrain, even if the 4th rank is in disordering terrain. (For the reason stated by Pete, and because in reality all of the ranks are in the space represented by the front base, so in reality none are in the terrain).

This needs to go in the FAQ.
It is very easy to read either way for the melee phase since POA's are made up of capabilites and situational factors. And the number of rank things are situational. Obviously a re-write for V2 as well.
I can understand if it is the intent that the rear ranks add to the weight of the formation for the push of pike (and spear), as these are the only troops that gain POA's for depth, but three ranks of pike not severely disordered means just that in my simple world.
At least three ranks of pike, unless first rank severely disordered or BG fragmented. Is more understandable and describes the situation better.
4th rank of Pike, if first rank in open terrain unless fragmented. Describes it better as well.

[nikgaukroger]

That doubt has now been clarified by one of the authors - and yet you would still choose to ignore both the rules and the authors view if you were running a tournament?

I think what a number of us are perhaps expressing is a disatisfaction with what appears to be an inconsistently applied rationale.

For the POA rule, ranks after the first are not really there - its just a quirk of the physical models. In reality, all the soldiers are in the area demarcated by the front rank. Deal with it!

For other rules, ranks after the first are precisely where the models are and are not in the area demarcated by the front rank. Deal with that too.

Well, OK, I guess they're your rules but the inconsistent treatment seems kinda dumb to some of us. Shame really.

Personally I think the effect of the rules as they currently are is good and would not be looking to change them. Whilst it is certainly a good thing to have as much consistency as possible it is not always achievable whilst getting the desired result.

I'd also say that whilst the situations are not covered in the same manner it really isn't difficult to remember.

[nikgaukroger]

This needs to go in the FAQ.

Perhaps more importantly it needs to be worded in v2 to be clear.

[grahambriggs]

has anyone ever seem this in practice? Please send me an opponent that would waste pikes in terrain.

[philqw78]

has anyone ever seem this in practice? Please send me an opponent that would waste pikes in terrain.

But seemingly they aren't Graham. Providing the front rank is out.

[grahambriggs]

has anyone ever seem this in practice? Please send me an opponent that would waste pikes in terrain.

But seemingly they aren't Graham. Providing the front rank is out.

Yes they are. They're wasting bounds getting the daft things into position. Assuming you've walked through the forest, then the front rankj will have moved, say 5MU. That's 5 moves at 1MU per move. Meantime the rest of the army has been torn to bits.

[philqw78]

Yes they are. They're wasting bounds getting the daft things into position. Assuming you've walked through the forest, then the front rankj will have moved, say 5MU. That's 5 moves at 1MU per move. Meantime the rest of the army has been torn to bits.

You could always be ambushing out of it, in which case 1MU would get the important bit out. And after putting your enemy to rout you may roll a one on the VMD and end up reversing an inch back into the woods with your -2MU VMD.

[TERRYFROMSPOKANE]

Look at the archers in the woods in the picture. Let's suppose the front rank was out of the woods while the back rank was still in the woods. My understanding from a prior thread is that the page 131 rule, "Troops inside can only shoot in one rank." would apply here and even though there is only one rank in the woods, the BG would only get to count one rank of bases when shooting.

1. Is that true or did I mis read the former thread?

2. If true, shouldn't BBS' reasoning apply here too? Shouldn't both ranks get to shoot under the theory that most of the troops are in the area defined by the front line of bases?

Thanks, Terry G.

[Polkovnik]

And once the front rank is out, shouldn't they move at full speed ?

[zoltan]

Look at the archers in the woods in the picture. Let's suppose the front rank was out of the woods while the back rank was still in the woods. My understanding from a prior thread is that the page 131 rule, "Troops inside can only shoot in one rank." would apply here and even though there is only one rank in the woods, the BG would only get to count one rank of bases when shooting.

1. Is that true or did I mis read the former thread?

2. If true, shouldn't BBS' reasoning apply here too? Shouldn't both ranks get to shoot under the theory that most of the troops are in the area defined by the front line of bases?

Thanks, Terry G.

Well I think this is exactly one of the inconsistencies I don't like. If the front rank of archers is out of the wood and the second rank is in the wood we potentially have:
- they can move off at normal speed because the front rank is out of the wood
- they can only shoot with the front rank because the second rank is in the wood. Or is that over-ridden by the rule that says the second rank shoots from where the front rank is? So because the front rank is out of the wood, the second rank does not count as in the wood?

[petedalby]

Well I think this is exactly one of the inconsistencies I don't like.

Fair enough - but there are other things that are inconsistent too.

- they can move off at normal speed because the front rank is out of the wood

No they can't - this is covered on Page 40.

they can only shoot with the front rank because the second rank is in the wood. Or is that over-ridden by the rule that says the second rank shoots from where the front rank is? So because the front rank is out of the wood, the second rank does not count as in the wood?

You seem to be intent on deliberately misinterpreting and misapplying what has been said? RBS gave the example of pike depth to illustrate why the POAs apply to the front rank only.

This is entirely different. In your example, both ranks of shooters can shoot since only one is within the wood.

As has already been noted by others, the chances of this ever occuring are extremely slim - why are you making such a big deal over such a relatively minor issue?

[TERRYFROMSPOKANE]

I agree with you, Pete but I am sure this issue was discussed in an earlier thread the the conclusion was that if one rank of shooters is in the woods then only one rank can shoot -even if- the other rank is in the clear and in front of the one in the woods.

Terry G.

[zoltan]

You seem to be intent on deliberately misinterpreting and misapplying what has been said? RBS gave the example of pike depth to illustrate why the POAs apply to the front rank only.

Pete - I don't accept your/RBS's selective post-hoc rationalising that in the matter of pike block combat, all ranks are really where the first rank is and that this is the reason why the RAW should be interpreted in a certain way. This interpretive rationale is in marked contrast to the treatment of subsequent ranks in relation to movement, shooting etc. In these latter cases, each rank is precisely where it is on the table and takes account of "situational" matters (as I think Phil calls them).

I don't accept a reading of the plain English RAW that allows an inconsistent treatment of ranks after the first for this POA. In the (apparently extremely unlikely) event that I am asked to rule on this matter at the Worlds in Wellington, I will rule that to get the + POA a 4th rank of pike must itself be in open terrain. That is my plain English reading of the words.

There, it'll never happen, let's move on.

[lawrenceg]

You seem to be intent on deliberately misinterpreting and misapplying what has been said? RBS gave the example of pike depth to illustrate why the POAs apply to the front rank only.

Pete - I don't accept your/RBS's selective post-hoc rationalising that in the matter of pike block combat, all ranks are really where the first rank is and that this is the reason why the RAW should be interpreted in a certain way. This interpretive rationale is in marked contrast to the treatment of subsequent ranks in relation to movement, shooting etc. In these latter cases, each rank is precisely where it is on the table and takes account of "situational" matters (as I think Phil calls them).

I don't accept a reading of the plain English RAW that allows an inconsistent treatment of ranks after the first for this POA. In the (apparently extremely unlikely) event that I am asked to rule on this matter at the Worlds in Wellington, I will rule that to get the + POA a 4th rank of pike must itself be in open terrain. That is my plain English reading of the words.

There, it'll never happen, let's move on.

As far as I can see, "in open terrain" is never mentioned in the rules in the context of pike POA.

You get a + unless severly disordered or fragmented or less than 3 ranks.

You get another + unless severly disordered or less than 3 ranks. This one still counts if fragmented.

No mention of 4th rank either. Is this an errata item?

As the gloss about only the base claiming the POA needing to be in the open is only relevant to POAs that apply only "in open terrain", this is not relevant to the pike POA question. However, it looks to me (reconstructing a full sentence from the table on p96) as though only the front rank needs to be not severely disordered.

It also looks to me as though it needs to be made much clearer in v2.0.


Zoltan may wish to revise his policy declaration to allow for the POA to apply when all ranks are in terrain that causes disorder but not severe disorder.

[hoodlum]

As far as I can see, "in open terrain" is never mentioned in the rules in the context of pike POA.


As a starter for 10 how about pages 96 and 97 where impact poas includes a section entitled - Only in open terrain and sets out a seriesof criteria that apply - one of these is "Extra for 4th rank of pikemen whether charging or not"

and then for the melee poas there is a category " Extra for 4th rank of pikemen in Open terrain"

[philqw78]

Lawrence, look at the table P97.


(and thanks for being more patient and literate than me)

[lawrenceg]

Lawrence, look at the table P97.


(and thanks for being more patient and literate than me)

THanks for pointing that out, I only looked at the impact table and misread the top section, assuming that the two rows for pikemen both applied to all impacts. As that gave me two + for pike I didn't look any further down.

In the melee table "Extra for 4th rank of pikemen in open terrain" looks as though it means "extra for 4th rank of pikemen [which is] in open terrain", so it could have been made clearer.

Looks as though v2.0 needs to take out the picture on p97 and put in a much expanded version of the explanation in the glossary.

That would make the intention crystal clear, although it would still mean the treatment of bases in terrain is inconsistent between combat and movement. Umpires may still wish to rule differently as a result of that.