Slitherine

Hi all , some questions as I was reading the book again this arvo.

Impact foot are at ++ POA vs all foot, even when they are charged ?

Whats the impact phase POA for units like slingers etc that don't have a POA rating ?
Are they at a -- ?Or do they always evade ?
I'm missing soemthing here , will do my homework and read some more

Keith wrote:Hi all , some questions as I was reading the book again this arvo.

Impact foot are at ++ POA vs all foot, even when they are charged ?

Whats the impact phase POA for units like slingers etc that don't have a POA rating ?
Are they at a -- ?Or do they always evade ?
I'm missing soemthing here , will do my homework and read some more

It depends on what they are facing, e.g. slingers vs Impact foot (who are on ++) would mean they, the slingers, are on -- but if troops with no impact POA were facing, say light spear who are on a single +, then they would be on a single -

The POA for the particular combat is the net result for each after considering their own factors and that of their opponents.

Steve

Troops that have no impact phase POA have just that, no impact POA.

If BG of warband charge say some archers then the warband will have a ++ for being impact foot and the archers no POA as archer don't get a POA at impact against anything.

The net POA is ++ to the warband so they fight at ++ and the achers at --

If instead of warband the archers are charged by a BG of heavy weapons troops then the heavy weapons get a + for heavy weapons against foot and the net POA is + to the heavy weapons and - to the archers.

Should the warband charge the heavy weapons then they have ++ while the heavy weapons have + the net POA is + to the warband and - to the heavy weapons.

Keith wrote:Impact foot are at ++ POA vs all foot, even when they are charged ?

Yes. Although they are not physically moved they are assumed to countercharge the last few yards. All troops are assumed to respond appropriately to enemy charges and the POAs are designed accordingly.

Whats the impact phase POA for units like slingers etc that don't have a POA rating ? Are they at a -- ?

Their POA is 0. However, for close combat, POAs net out and are reciprocal.

Examples of netting out:
If both sides have + POA, the net POA is 0.
If both sides have ++ POA, the net POA is 0.
If one side has ++ POA and the other has + POA, the net POA is + to the side with ++ raw POA.
If one side has ++ POA and the other has 0 POA, the net POA is ++ to the side with ++ raw POA.

Examples of reciprocity
If the net POA is 0, both sides fight on 0 POA. (whatever their raw POA). Both sides need 4s to hit.
If the net POA to one side is +, the disadvantaged side fights on -. The advantaged side needs 4s to hit, the disadvantaged side needs 5s to hit.
If the net POA to one side is ++, the disadvantaged side fights on --. The advantaged side needs 3st to hit, the disadvantage side needs 5s to hit.

In your example of impact foot vs slingers, the impact foot will be on ++ (3s to hit) and the slingers on -- (5s to hit).

Hmm, 8 minutes after the question was asked there are three answers including one from an author. This doesn't happen in the world of DBMM I can tell you

And hopefully all the answers concur!

rbodleyscott wrote:

Keith wrote:Impact foot are at ++ POA vs all foot, even when they are charged ?

Yes. Although they are not physically moved they are assumed to countercharge the last few yards. All troops are assumed to respond appropriately to enemy charges and the POAs are designed accordingly.

In some earlier wargames rules foot units gained a + factor if charging foot but not if receiving the charge stationery. In addition, foot had to received mouted charges at the halt. A favourite tactic became a combined charge with a mounted unit and a foot unit against an enemy foot unit, giving the mixed attacker an edge. Therefore the optimum way to deploy was to have alternative units of mounted and foot in the army, to force the opponents infantry to stand to received the charge.

Unfortunately, this isn't historically justified. The authors wanted to move away from this type of gamesmanship.

Therefore the rules assume an appropirate local response (including at the sub-battle group level) - e.g. foot will stand to receive a mounted charge but counter charge against other foot. No figures are moved but they are modelled in the factors.

hammy wrote:Hmm, 8 minutes after the question was asked there are three answers including one from an author. This doesn't happen in the world of DBMM I can tell you

In the world of DBMM you dread what the author will say, especially if your question was in any way critical of the rules..

I think this forum should leave the world of DBMM alone to those who appreciate it.

nikgaukroger wrote:I think this forum should leave the world of DBMM alone to those who appreciate it.

Very true, 'twas remis of me . I was just amazed that in the time it took me to notice the post (about 2 minutes) and type a reply there were two other replies including one from Richard....

Re DBMM, i think its interesting that here in New Zealand, we have our Nationals at easter and DBMM only has 3 ppl sign up for the 15 and 25mm comps, the DBM has 6 in each, and FOG has 9 so far.....

I wonder where all the ancients players went as I seem to recallback in 7th days NatCon had heaps of players....

Hope FoG can bring it back.... Hmmm I drifted off my point lol, Looks like DBMM hasnt caught on here.

cheers

FOG has 10

and I'm working on more.

This is certainly encouraging given the recent release of the rules and that some DBM players are committed to international cmps this year after which their preference will be reviewed. We even have at least one coming from across the deetch.

However, I don' think we can draw any concrete conclusions about ruleset popularity given the location of the event and the base of non-FOG players in Auckland and Wellywood (nor is it helpful to the overall ancient scene).

A big ups to the FOG team who have been very forthcoming with extra lists for NATCON which has helped bring people into the comp with existing armies not covered in the initial two army books.

Cheers,

Steve

I would have tried FOG but rules etc havent arrived yet, any day now So I committed to FoW, but I will be hanging around the FoG tables to check em out.....

Maybe con a game to learn from one night from someone

cheers

Scruff wrote:I would have tried FOG but rules etc havent arrived yet, any day now So I committed to FoW, but I will be hanging around the FoG tables to check em out.....

Maybe con a game to learn from one night from someone

cheers

There'll be a few of us keen to give an evening game. I've already promised Tim a game, but there are few of us who are dead keen.

Steve