Slitherine

Something we didn't get an answer on from the Try out the Polish thread.

What do you need to be to get a plus POA if a mixed armour BG. Mainly Polish Knights.

If a Protected base is shot at and there is no base behind it but the BG is in 2 ranks is there a + POA for 2 ranks

If a protected base is shot at and the base behind it (or even in front of it but not the target) is not a protected base but a HA base is there a +POA due to 2 ranks

IMO if the BG is in more than one rank and a protected base is the target of the shooters you get a + POA

My opinion to, but I'm very self opinionated. Which means if I was on the receiving end I may not be happy

hammy wrote:IMO if the BG is in more than one rank and a protected base is the target of the shooters you get a + POA

That would be my view.

OK, but which base takes the loss from a death roll? The front protected base?
Presumably so, then the unprotected rear rank steps forward to fill in.





John

In this example it was a heavily Armoured rear (non-target) rank. But yes the death roll would only kill a target base. Unless you could get 9 hits on it then I don't know what would happen

rbodleyscott wrote:

hammy wrote:IMO if the BG is in more than one rank and a protected base is the target of the shooters you get a + POA

That would be my view.

Would this be the case even if the Protected base was only in one rank?
ie had moved up for some reason do to loss or partially expanded line?

I believe it is to simulate the closer formation that they'd be in - immaterial where / what the other ranks are.

If any part of the target BG is in more than 1 rank you suffer the penalty for the target base.

Pete

petedalby wrote:I believe it is to simulate the closer formation that they'd be in - immaterial where / what the other ranks are.

If any part of the target BG is in more than 1 rank you suffer the penalty for the target base.

I can see that and don't really care one way or the other, just wanted clarity that he wasn't just refering to rear shots.

IMHO ...

POAs are calculated as per the target BG using the bases you are shooting at. I have only seen it once when I put my nikeporians 8 wide with 2 deep Sp on left and 2 deep bpow on right. Enemy were shooting at 4 arm sp at a - and 4 UP bowmen at a +. We knew who each base was shptting at so just split the dice as per a melee with different POAs.

As for taking bases off you take the nearst bast to the shooters and I would add "who do the most damage" to make it in match combat in concept. Ss as the Bowmen suffered most we took a base off there when we did the death roll.

Si

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.

Andy1972 wrote: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.

So if I have BG of 6 cavalry five wide with a 'tail' on one side and you shoot at the other side of the BG where all the bases you are shooting at are in one rank does that count as in one rank or two?

I should also point out that the rules (not the QRS) say "protected cavalry unless entirely 1 base deep" which is slightly different to the shortened version on the QRS.

The 6 stand unit is not in a single rank. Even with 1 stand in the 2nd rank.. And i know that. But what i am talking about is what you just said.. Cavalry unless 1 base deep.. The cavalry are 1 base deep behind the knights... The knights are not Cavalry.. I am just going by what the words say. Besides i take the 2nd rank as armored and you don't have this argument.

Well done Andy - that's the best way!

Just longbows to worry about then!

Pete

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

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.

If a mixed BG of cavalry and knights loses one knight base and a cavalry base replaces it but the BG is still in more than one rank does the cavalry if shot at count as being entirely in one rank as the base being shot at is in one rank but the BG is in more than one?

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.

Don't sit on the fence Hammy - say what you mean.



Pete

hammy wrote:What were you smoking last night Si.

It should be good! He refused to share!

Now if a knight stand is lost.. The Cav is no longer in one rank... If you take it literal. I do enjoy jerking peoples chains.

isnt the + POA for a non-skirmish formaition?? ie, a massed body of men and horeses - not a just "a nice deep target ". I.e - the Cv have no way to avoid the +POA as long as the knights are alive - but then they should have to be fired upon either if you dont mess up.

The Cv forming up behind the knights must be in a pretty thight formation with the knights to allow them to fire though the knights - hardly a lose "skirmish-type" formaition which is necessary to avoid the + POA. The enemy would know exactly where they, the x-bow Cv, are and have no difficulty to direct thier missilies towards them.

Then i dont smoke anything so I might have read Si´s post the wrong way..?