Slitherine

Hi

Our game last night was 850points of Hittites vs NKE with 4 players, and one issue provoked significant discussion.

STE specifically gives the Egyptian archer/close fighters the ability to interpenetrate as they are known to have done in reality.

But as far as we can see the rule as written is just a waste of ink.

If the archers are out front they cannot retire through the close fighters in less than two complete moves, and if the close fighters move through once the enemy are within charge range, they effectively restrict the archers to one shot are only, since once the combat is joined they cannot intervene. This is a disaster because the close fighters - doing what they did historically remember - are so close to the archers that they are guaranteed to become disrupted when the archers rout.

So, have we read the rule wrong ? If so could someone please explain where.

If we have read the rules correctly, would someone please explain how the rule as written refelects historical tactics.

Thanks,

Pete

The archers can shoot at the oncoming enemy and then fight it in close combat. The close fighters can give rear support to the archers and then be there to absorb the pursuit when and if the archers rout. If the enemy is able to threaten the archers with a match up that is sure to lead to quick disaster, the close fighters can move to the front and obtain rear support from the archers.

One can also start with the archers in the rear and then move them to the front if the match up that would be created is favorable.

Terry G.

guthroth wrote: STE specifically gives the Egyptian archer/close fighters the ability to interpenetrate as they are known to have done in reality.

Nik: Swifter Than Eagles, p29, second bullet point

"Close Fighters can interpenetrate archers and vice versa"

I've never been able to figure out a way to make effective use of it, even in DBM.

Oddly I know about that , however, "as they are known to have done in reality" ...

Yes, I've often wondered what the basis of that ability was.

As far as I remember, it's been a feature of New Kingdom Egyptian lists for quite a while - all through DBM, and possibly 6th and 7th too - I'll have to dig out my 6th lists and check.

johno

nikgaukroger wrote:however, "as they are known to have done in reality" ...

Yes, very Zen Nik, but your non-reply acutually throws up an important question.

As someone who's name is on the book credited second only to RBS, can you tell us what sources you used to come up with the second bullet point on P.29 ?

If it's correct and supported by some evidence, why is the rule in the book so useless ?

If it's not correct why is it in the book in the first place ?

Pete

guthroth wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:however, "as they are known to have done in reality" ...

Yes, very Zen Nik, but your non-reply acutually throws up an important question.

As someone who's name is on the book credited second only to RBS, can you tell us what sources you used to come up with the second bullet point on P.29 ?

I didn't want it, Richard did, however, as it is so useless in practice it wasn't worth arguing about. I am aware of no sources that show it happened (unless we count a series of WRG lists), of course the sources are not exactly detailed - I think AANE may suggest archers could have formed up in front of other troops but it can't be anything other than speculation.