Slitherine

Blue is Protected Bow Sword MF in rough terrain. Red is Protected Offensive spear Heavy Foot. The front of red's left file is in the rough, the right file is not.

IMO both blue and red get 4 dice at evens. Is this correct?

What if red were 2 files of 4 deep pike, also 4 dice each at evens?

POAs vs spears: Blue gets 4 dice at evens and red gets 2 dice at evens and 2 overlap dice at +. The red overlap is in open terrain so the + for the Blue sword is negated for the overlap file.

POAs vs Pikes: Blue gets 4 dice at evens. Red gets 2 dice at even and 2 overlap dice at ++. The overlap pike are steady (in open terrain) which negates the sword +. Both pike files get a + for the 3 ranks but the overlap pikes get a + for the 4th rank of pikes since the front base is in the open.

Reference the definition of 'open terrain' on page 135 which basically says the front front base can only count POAs for open terrain if it (itself) is only in open terrain. And, page 94, bullet 5, says the POAs are based on the front rank, rear ranks using the same POAs.

But bases in overlap count POAs as if in frontal contact?

That would put them in the same situation as the base in terrain, so POA's for pike and spear should be evens

Is red MF or HF?

Heavy foot, sorry

But bases in overlap count POAs as if in frontal contact?

Basically, that is true but it doesn't really say that anywhere. It just says that you look at the terrain the base is in and act accordingly taking the POAs for each front rank according to where it is. Keep it simple is the authors' intention. Also, if you pull the Blue unit forward so the front edge is out of the rough terrain then Blue wouldn't get any + for the sword and it would be 4 at - vs the spear and -- vs pike.

Take a look at:
viewtopic.php?t=5769
Author Simon Hall says, "Therefore if the front rank is in open terrain it can claim a 4th if there is one." He did the text bolding.

I'm aware of that. But the rules on P86 say:
"Each overlapping file fights with the same net POA's and same number of ranks as if it were in front edge contact with the overlapped enemy base"
If it were in front edge contact it would be in the terrain in my example so no plus for 4th rank of pike.

I'm aware of that. But the rules on P86 say:
"Each overlapping file fights with the same net POA's and same number of ranks as if it were in front edge contact with the overlapped enemy base"

I read that to mean that you compare the POAs of the 2 to get the net POA for the overlap.

I can't give you anymore textbook answers than I have already stated. And, I am open to the possibility that I am wrong in interpretation.

All I can say is that when I read the RAW, they are always talking about the terrain only affecting the bases that actually touch it which is why only 1 base in Red is disordered. Or being wholly within the terrain, which is the case of the POA for 'uphill'. The base claiming the POA must be entirely on the hill (reference the definition on page 136). It was rather confusing to me at first until I stopped thinking DBM and just looked at each individual base and how it was affected by the terrain it was wholly in or touched. Now, it's easier (not easy).

philqw78 wrote:I'm aware of that. But the rules on P86 say:
"Each overlapping file fights with the same net POA's and same number of ranks as if it were in front edge contact with the overlapped enemy base"
If it were in front edge contact it would be in the terrain in my example so no plus for 4th rank of pike.

I don't believe it is saying, or implying, that you consider it to be in the physical position of front edge contact with the enemy for purposes of the PoAs.

But it can certainly read as that and would make some sense.

"I'm in the rough, come in and get me" sort of thing.

philqw78 wrote:But it can certainly read as that

If you try hard enough you can read almost any rule in a number of ways

BTW, have made the topic you asked for a sticky.

nikgaukroger wrote:

philqw78 wrote:But it can certainly read as that

If you try hard enough you can read almost any rule in a number of ways

I don't think there are any other ways to read "..as if it were in front edge contact with the overlapped enemy base" Other than exactly like it's front edge is in contact with that base.

And this interpretation has some logic behind it. (More than Dave logic.)

BTW, have made the topic you asked for a sticky.

Ta

philqw78 wrote:I'm aware of that. But the rules on P86 say:
"Each overlapping file fights with the same net POA's and same number of ranks as if it were in front edge contact with the overlapped enemy base"
If it were in front edge contact it would be in the terrain in my example so no plus for 4th rank of pike.

On the same logic why is it that you have assumed that to would be RED that shits, why not assume that it is BLUE that has to shift (i.e. into open terrain, since it is not "Wholely" in the rough going) to clculate the POAs?

philqw78 wrote:But it can certainly read as that and would make some sense.

"I'm in the rough, come in and get me" sort of thing.

Again BLUE not in a "come in and get me" since it is no wholely in the terrain. On top of which it could have been BLUE that initiated this combat.

This is not to say you interpritation is wrong, but IMO in this case since it can be arqued that either RED or BLUE has to have an imaginary to slide to calculate the POAs an the rules don't state under what circumstatnces you would do the imagionagy slide for either BG) the only conclusion you can come to is that you calculate the POAs for each BG as if it was in front edge contact with the other element but in it's current position, and therefore BLUE calculates POAs as if it is in rough going and RED in good going and RED calculates POAs as if it is in good going and RED in rough going


BTW phil have read you quiz questions, etc. I have found the increably enlightening!

It does say which base does your 'imaginary' slide. P86. The overlapping base, which fights as if in frontal contact with the base it overlaps. Blue overlaps a base that is in terrain. So fights as if in frontal contact with it. Evens. Red overlaps a base in terrain and fights as if in frontal contact with it. Evens

It the role was reversed, i.e. Blue had a base in terrain overlapping a red base not in terrain, it would fight as not in terrain.

Oh, and thanks for the compliment. I enjoy making life difficult.

philqw78 wrote:But bases in overlap count POAs as if in frontal contact?

That would put them in the same situation as the base in terrain, so POA's for pike and spear should be evens

"As if in frontal contact" does not imply that the base in question is assumed to move to a position to be in frontal contact. It merely means that the overlapping base considers itself to be in frontal contact with the enemy base. Each base in the equation still treats itself as in the terrain it occupies.

Consider what is being modeled by an overlap. A line of troops is being attacked by a line of troops which extends beyond its end. It must notionally extend to avoid being flanked. The overlapping troops are not superimposed on the troops already fighting to their front.

gozerius wrote:

philqw78 wrote:But bases in overlap count POAs as if in frontal contact?

That would put them in the same situation as the base in terrain, so POA's for pike and spear should be evens

"As if in frontal contact" does not imply that the base in question is assumed to move to a position to be in frontal contact. .

No it doesn't. It means it is treated as if it is.

Consider what is being modeled by an overlap. A line of troops is being attacked by a line of troops which extends beyond its end. It must notionally extend to avoid being flanked

And why don't you consider that a BG consists of a number of smaller units as stated in the rules. Some of these defend the flank in situ, they don't spread out, they don't need to, that would be suicidal.
If the BG being overlapped is in terrain why would it come out to fight at a disadvantage when it could have disadvantaged overlapper come in.
You appear to be assuming a lot about what happens at the micro level that is not in the wording of the rules.

Just because that is the way it always seems to have been played doesn't mean it is right, because it is not what the rules say.

I do not have access to the rulebook here, but I will review the pertinent rules and come back with a snappy retort.

Greg Boeser

I look forward to it.

Also as further fuel to the fire.

If the overlapping base counts as in open terrain for POA it also implies the MF must take -1 for their cohesion test if they lose, as they are losing to HF in open terrain. The same would be true against a cavalry overlap. Is this the way it is played?

If the overlapping base counts as in open terrain for POA it also implies the MF must take -1 for their cohesion test if they lose, as they are losing to HF in open terrain. The same would be true against a cavalry overlap. Is this the way it is played?

Not if you read the definition of 'Open Terrain' on page 135. In your example the HI (or Cav) have their base in contact partly in terrain. So it can't claim the -1 CT modifier. Now, bring the MI forward so the front edge of their base is entirely out of the terrain, then the -1 CT for fighting HI/Cav in the open would apply.

Yes, you can claim that the wording needs to be tightened up a bit. .

Read them. The base causing the modifier (the overlap) is not even partly in rough etc, so causes the modifier as it is rolling dice against the MF.

As for the MF having to come out of the terrain, consider


------------------


Above the line is rough with MF
Below is HF in open

If the MF were right on the line, but still in, and the HF could contact them at the line, but not enter, the MF would take the -1 CT as the HF causing the modifier are in open terrain, having just come to the line. A mistake DBM(M) players often make.