Slitherine

hence my query using 4 deep pike as example, getting hit on the 3rd rank. is it 2fights of 2 ranks (losing all the 3/4 rank pike bonus) or 1 lot of 4 ranks fighting twice or ????

All i've gathered is there's a couple of interps of how this works and no references to the rule sections to support the interps so those of us who are hazy on it can work it through.

cheers

Top p62. "Such a charge does not qualify as a flank or rear charge and is treated as a normal charge on the enemy front."

and from the FAQ
"iii) CHARGES NOT QUALIFYING AS A FLANK CHARGE CONTACTING THE FLANK EDGE OF AN ENEMY BASE
What POAs are used?
The normal POAs are used as if the charge had contacted the front of the enemy file. Thus, for example, if the 3rd rank
base of a 4 rank deep pikemen battle group is contacted, the pikemen use their normal POAs for 3 ranks deep pikemen
and for the 4th rank."

Though it should have been explained more clearly in the rules this time around and wasn't as far as I can see, perhaps I should read them all imstead of cherry picking bits

Thank you

And I think i will go looking for the faq, guessing its o the fog website somewhere

cheers

http://www.fieldofglory.com/

resources

ancients

So to make things simple we have the UK way of doing it and a different american way of doing it ..

Perhaps a ruling from the conceptors could makes things clear .

Oups just saw the FAQ

iversonjm wrote:

philqw78 wrote:Americans arriving late for the argument again then

Its a tradition dating back to World War I.

Though now that I have posted the FAQ you, being American, will make a film about you posting it and the glory will be yours. And I shall have to live in your shadow again

philqw78 wrote:Top p62. "Such a charge does not qualify as a flank or rear charge and is treated as a normal charge on the enemy front."

and from the FAQ
"iii) CHARGES NOT QUALIFYING AS A FLANK CHARGE CONTACTING THE FLANK EDGE OF AN ENEMY BASE
What POAs are used?
The normal POAs are used as if the charge had contacted the front of the enemy file. Thus, for example, if the 3rd rank
base of a 4 rank deep pikemen battle group is contacted, the pikemen use their normal POAs for 3 ranks deep pikemen
and for the 4th rank."

Though it should have been explained more clearly in the rules this time around and wasn't as far as I can see, perhaps I should read them all imstead of cherry picking bits

Yeah, the thing with POAs is relatively clear. Its the supporting archer bit that isn't. And I went back and looked at v.2 last night (Dave and I were using the v. 1 rules for our discussion) and it muddies the water even further. A literal reading of the chart on impact dice would result in a contacted support shooter only getting 1 die using the shooting POAs against the stand in contact with it, as it is not an "other."

gozerius wrote:Dave's position is the one that has the approval of the authors.

The gulf between what the authors write and what they mean to say can be both wide and deep...

iversonjm wrote:

gozerius wrote:Dave's position is the one that has the approval of the authors.

The gulf between what the authors write and what they mean to say can be both wide and deep...

Once people cast doubt on the normal English meaning of the words used anyway.

In this case we say:

"Such a charge does not qualify as a flank or rear charge and is treated as a normal charge on the enemy front."

And we mean it.

What is left to discuss? (Yeah, I know, plenty for nit-picky rules-lawyer types, but only by casting doubt on the idea that we meant what we said in the above sentence.).

I think blaming this discussion on the authors is a bit harsh. The discussion arises only from people effectively saying, surely they don't mean what they say, it has non-intuitive effects.

One answer to that: "Top-down". Our priority is to minimise the benefits from attacking enemy at funny angles (that aren't sufficient to qualify as a flank charge).

rbodleyscott wrote: Once people cast doubt on the normal English meaning of the words used anyway.

In this case we say:

"Such a charge does not qualify as a flank or rear charge and is treated as a normal charge on the enemy front."

And we mean it.

What is left to discuss?

With all due respect, the normal English meaning of the sentence quoted above is that a charge that doesn't qualify as a flank or rear charge doesn't get the benefits of a flank or rear charge. It doesn't speak to how many dice a particular stand rolls when it is contacted by a "normal charge on the enemy front." That language appears elsewhere, doesn't address this situation, and can be reasonably interpreted to produce a different result from the one you intended. And, because that result is more intuitive to some than the one you intended, a number of people reasonably believed it WAS the result you intended.

Remember, not all of us routinely play in comps where we can wander over to an author and ask them what they meant to say. We also don't frequent this forum regularly, and certainly can't cite it as authority when an umpire opens the rule book. We're stuck with reading what you wrote to glean your intent, which is why we get persnickity and all rules-lawyery about it.

That said, while I guess I am blaming the authors for the wording (who else can I blame for it after all?), I'm not intending to suggest that you all did a poor job. I write for a living and I am well aware that it is impossible to draft something that is entirely unambiguous. FOG does a better job than most rules in promoting clarity, but there are bits where reasonable minds differ. Which is why we post about them here in an effort get clarity into the FAQ.

rbodleyscott wrote:

iversonjm wrote:

gozerius wrote:Dave's position is the one that has the approval of the authors.

The gulf between what the authors write and what they mean to say can be both wide and deep...

Once people cast doubt on the normal English meaning of the words used anyway.

In this case we say:

"Such a charge does not qualify as a flank or rear charge and is treated as a normal charge on the enemy front."

And we mean it.

What is left to discuss? (Yeah, I know, plenty for nit-picky rules-lawyer types, but only by casting doubt on the idea that we meant what we said in the above sentence.).

I think blaming this discussion on the authors is a bit harsh. The discussion arises only from people effectively saying, surely they don't mean what they say, it has non-intuitive effects.

One answer to that: "Top-down". Our priority is to minimise the benefits from attacking enemy at funny angles (that aren't sufficient to qualify as a flank charge).

But you have allowed a charger to gain a benefit for charging at a funny angle because a non-front rank base is now counted as a front rank base which increases the dice which will be rolled against the defending BG. This will have negative effects when the POAs are in the charger's favor. By treating the side edge contact as contacting THE front rank base, rather than ANOTHER front rank base, the defending BG is not exposed to additional damage. That is what should happen according to the design principles expressed in the rules. Everything else defeats your premise of minimizing the effects of charges hitting at funny angles when they don't qualify as a flank charge.

gozerius wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote:...
Once people cast doubt on the normal English meaning of the words used anyway.

In this case we say:

"Such a charge does not qualify as a flank or rear charge and is treated as a normal charge on the enemy front."

And we mean it.

What is left to discuss? (Yeah, I know, plenty for nit-picky rules-lawyer types, but only by casting doubt on the idea that we meant what we said in the above sentence.).

I think blaming this discussion on the authors is a bit harsh. The discussion arises only from people effectively saying, surely they don't mean what they say, it has non-intuitive effects.

One answer to that: "Top-down". Our priority is to minimise the benefits from attacking enemy at funny angles (that aren't sufficient to qualify as a flank charge).

But you have allowed a charger to gain a benefit for charging at a funny angle because a non-front rank base is now counted as a front rank base which increases the dice which will be rolled against the defending BG. This will have negative effects when the POAs are in the charger's favor. By treating the side edge contact as contacting THE front rank base, rather than ANOTHER front rank base, the defending BG is not exposed to additional damage. That is what should happen according to the design principles expressed in the rules. Everything else defeats your premise of minimizing the effects of charges hitting at funny angles when they don't qualify as a flank charge.

The current rules prohibit the charger from gaining an advantage from contacting a rear rank stand so it would fight less advantageously. If stands contacting a rear rank stand weren't allowed to fight at all as I believe you would prefer, then the defender would be able to a gain an advantage by angling his troops to minimize the number of charging stands that could make frontal contact as was too often done in the DBx rules that were popular before FoG was developed. The current solution seems to minimize the advantages to be gained by either side by trying to exploit precise angling of chargers or their targets.

Chris

I am willing to study the question further. You bring up a point I hadn't considered. I do recognize that a clever wheel by the defender could force a charger to only hit the corner of the BG, with bases stepping forward into the same base, thereby reducing its frontal exposure to the charge. At the same time, as it stands, a clever wheel by the charger can now force more defending bases to fight than the defending BG has in its front rank. In addition, a BG which is fully engaged in melee to its front is now vulnerable to "normal" charges on its flanks. If this is going to be the law of the land, could we at least get the FAQ to take into consideration that different troop types have different depths at which they are engaged in melee to their front? Pike fight up to four deep, most others fight two deep, but knights, elephants, chariots, artillery, and battle wagons only fight one deep. The generic "two" in the FAQ is, well, less than satisfying.

Dont forget, the defender has to have at least 3 base depth to suffer this. A unit in 2 ranks you cant do it to.

from the faq

iii) CHARGES NOT QUALIFYING AS A FLANK CHARGE CONTACTING THE FLANK EDGE OF AN ENEMY BASE

Which enemy ranks cannot be so contacted if the front base in the file is already in melee to its front?
The first two ranks.

so its going to be a pretty rare thing to happen

cheers

Which enemy ranks cannot be so contacted if the front base in the file is already in melee to its front?
The first two ranks.

Yes but it only applies if the front rank is ALREADY in melee, not in a initial charge where the front rank is not in melee whent the charge is launched .

Had this type of charge occur in a game yesterday. Charge was on front of legionary BG and a supporting LF base. We counted the contact on LF as if on the front of the file, ie. on HF legion. Only bit not clear was whether the LF base got one or two dice for the impact. We counted it as providing support shooting in addition.

In summary we had two options:
- 2 dice for front base (HF) + 2 dice for rear base (LF fighting as if front base) + 1 dice for support shooting
- 2 dice for front base (HF) + 1 dice for rear base (LF fighting as if front base) + 1 dice for support shooting

Which is right? Or is there a third option?

BTW we rolled the dice to see if it made a difference in the game. My three sixes for cohesion and death rolls meant it made no difference on the occasion.

The LF would get 2 dice for impact shooting, but they would then be halved because it is LF.

AlanCutner wrote:Had this type of charge occur in a game yesterday. Charge was on front of legionary BG and a supporting LF base. We counted the contact on LF as if on the front of the file, ie. on HF legion. Only bit not clear was whether the LF base got one or two dice for the impact. We counted it as providing support shooting in addition.

In summary we had two options:
- 2 dice for front base (HF) + 2 dice for rear base (LF fighting as if front base) + 1 dice for support shooting
- 2 dice for front base (HF) + 1 dice for rear base (LF fighting as if front base) + 1 dice for support shooting

Which is right? Or is there a third option?

BTW we rolled the dice to see if it made a difference in the game. My three sixes for cohesion and death rolls meant it made no difference on the occasion.

Assuming each side had 2 bases in contact, each side would get 4 dice for front rank bases in impact (HF for defender) and the defender would get 2 LF bases for support which drops 1 per 2 so would give 1 die for support.

Chris

Thanks for replies. So is consensus for that LF get 2 dice (not halved) when counting as front of file? We were agreed the support shooting was just 1 dice overall.

Yep