Page 1 of 1
Orbs
Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 10:17 pm
by Scrumpy
From a game today....
Bg of 8 spearmen in orb are charged along their long edge by some knights.
In impact the knights fight 1 base v the 2 bases of spear allowed to fight ( 1/4 of the unit )
In melee how many bases of the knights get to fight ?
Do they just count one base as that is technically all the bases turned to fight them, or do they count both bases in contact with the 60mm deep unit ?
Cheers
Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:19 am
by SirGarnet
Orbs have a front and rear for movement purposes but long or short edge does not matter since it's 1 front and 1 rear rank base in each direction. No overlaps on Orbs - so still just the one Knight base.
Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:56 pm
by hazelbark
MikeK wrote:Orbs have a front and rear for movement purposes but long or short edge does not matter since it's 1 front and 1 rear rank base in each direction. No overlaps on Orbs - so still just the one Knight base.
What if the BG is 12 bases? Still one in each direction?
What do you base this on? The rules specifically state they are depicted 2 bases wide. That you fight with 1/4 of your bases rounded up.
I am not saying you are wrong, I am asking where through the rules you draw this conclusion?
Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 8:13 pm
by rtaylor
OK, the question is: How many enemy
files fight on each side of a BG in orb? In hazelbark's example, a 12-base BG in orb looks like this:
Always two files wide to its front or rear, no matter how many bases. If only one enemy file fights on a side, then the 10-12 base orb fights with 3 bases to two enemy bases (or dice, in the case of knights). That doesn't seem right. If it's two enemy files on a side, then orb is somewhat survivable vs. mounted (for a while) because it will fight an impact combat with even dice (and probably 0 POA), then sweat a disadvantageous melee, but if it maintains good order then the mounted will break off. Orb vs. foot would likely be toast.
Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 9:37 pm
by philqw78
One quarter fight in each direction. Half of these, rounded up count front rank.
So orb always fights counting 1 front rank base if up to 8 base BG. So two dice at impact. And only ever 2 dice against them. If 8 to 16 bases they would count 2 bases in front rank and between 1 and 2 bases behind so only ever 2 base frontage fighting larger than 8.
The rules state one dice per base in first two ranks for orb capable types. Do you need 8 bases to get a dice for the second rank, and 16 bases to get 2 dice?
Or does any BG with more than 4 bases, (since a 4 or less base BG has only up to 1 base facing each direction), get a full dice for the fraction.
And what happens if contacted on more than 1 face (possibly up to 4), especially if less than 4 base BG.
I have confused myself trying to answer this.
Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 3:45 pm
by hazelbark
philqw78 wrote:One quarter fight in each direction. Half of these, rounded up count front rank.
OK I would accept this if it was ruled that way, however your second sentence is your common sense supposition and not actually in the rules, correct?
I don't have my rules with me, but when i looked i don't recall the half of these count front rank. Although I do note from a search of the fora that was proposed language at one time. If there a simple answer is clear then.
Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 4:02 pm
by ars_belli
Phil is indeed citing the rules. See p. 122, bullet 7, sub-bullet 5.
Cheers,
Scott
Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 4:34 pm
by Scrumpy
So the easy answer is don't form orb with troops ?
Seriously, thanks for clearing this up.
Do orbs have to test not to charge if shock troops and the enemy is within their 1" movement range ?
Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 5:51 pm
by ars_belli
As troops in orb formation cannot charge or intercept (see p. 122 again), it follows that there would be no need for them to test to prevent doing so.
Cheers,
Scott
Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 9:18 pm
by Scrumpy
Phew, could see some nasty LF dancing in front of the Orb teasing them into a charge.
Posted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 4:32 am
by hazelbark
ars_belli wrote:Phil is indeed citing the rules. See p. 122, bullet 7, sub-bullet 5.

Rather obvious once read.