Flank Contacts

[andrew]

Hello again

I use Macedonian fast Knights in a compulsory single based wedge.  The way we read the rules was that overlaps do not count against these elements but flank contacts do.  So a standard overlap on the fast Knight (in a compulsory single based wedge) has no effect but a full flank or rear edge contact (with the front edge of the enemy element) inflicts a -1 factor.  Have we got this right?  I certainly hope so because what I have found is the fast Knight wedges cut through the opposition like a hot knife through butter!  Especially in my bound without the worry of overlaps, they get the job done!

Also, if an element cannot quite make a legal flank contact on an enemy element (who is already in full frontal contact with another of my elements - a legal contact being front corner to front corner and front edge to side edge), but can instead contact the full flank edge of the enemy element, I think it is still a flank contact which inflicts a -1 in the combat factors and provides a quick kill in a recoil situation.  Have we got this right?  Can the element contacting the flank get a free slide to make a legal contact, if there is room to do so?  Even if the final move is longer than the elements permitted move?

Lastly (this is not related to flank contacts but what the hey), lets say you have a sea on the short table edge, and there is a road that meets the sea but only has one intervening corner (in which case there is a minimum distance the road must be from that corner).  Is the minimum distance from the corner (on the short table edge) measured from the table corner to the shoreline?  Or is it measured from the corner up the short edge of the table?  I'm thinking it is measured to the shoreline because that is the battlefield edge, isn't it?

Thanks again!
Andrew

[Hammy]

I use Macedonian fast Knights in a compulsory single based wedge.  The way we read the rules was that overlaps do not count against these elements but flank contacts do.  So a standard overlap on the fast Knight (in a compulsory single based wedge) has no effect but a full flank or rear edge contact (with the front edge of the enemy element) inflicts a -1 factor.  Have we got this right?  I certainly hope so because what I have found is the fast Knight wedges cut through the opposition like a hot knife through butter!  Especially in my bound without the worry of overlaps, they get the job done!

Yup you need to hit them in the flank or rear with your front and then they take a -1 and die if forced to recoil.

They are IMO very powerful but not so hot against Cv(S) (no quick kill) which feels odd to me

Also, if an element cannot quite make a legal flank contact on an enemy element (who is already in full frontal contact with another of my elements - a legal contact being front corner to front corner and front edge to side edge), but can instead contact the full flank edge of the enemy element, I think it is still a flank contact which inflicts a -1 in the combat factors and provides a quick kill in a recoil situation.  Have we got this right?  Can the element contacting the flank get a free slide to make a legal contact, if there is room to do so?  Even if the final move is longer than the elements permitted move?

Yup. My understanding (actually a question from Roll Call that is still open) is that in this case if you can't make a front corner to front corner contact but can contact the whole of the side edge then that is fine and puts the -1 and death if beaten result on the enemy. I think that even something like an enemy TZ preventing 'proper' alignment could allow a full side contact.

Lastly (this is not related to flank contacts but what the hey), lets say you have a sea on the short table edge, and there is a road that meets the sea but only has one intervening corner (in which case there is a minimum distance the road must be from that corner).  Is the minimum distance from the corner (on the short table edge) measured from the table corner to the shoreline?  Or is it measured from the corner up the short edge of the table?  I'm thinking it is measured to the shoreline because that is the battlefield edge, isn't it?

You got me there.

Hammy

[andrew]

They are IMO very powerful but not so hot against Cv(S) (no quick kill) which feels odd to me

I don't see too many Cv(S) (yet) so no worries, but yes they are very powerful!

Yup. My understanding (actually a question from Roll Call that is still open) is that in this case if you can't make a front corner to front corner contact but can contact the whole of the side edge then that is fine and puts the -1 and death if beaten result on the enemy.

Agreed -that's how we were played it so thanks!

I think that even something like an enemy TZ preventing 'proper' alignment could allow a full side contact.

Hmmm - page 33 states "a contacting ... element ... that is not lined up moves up to an extra base width to do so if the extra movement is used only to line up with an enemy ... flank by a sideway shift...."  So yes an element contacting the flank can slide to make a legal contact.  I think I should have read the rules a little more closely.

Re : sliding to line up in the TZ of another element : I'm not sure if you can.  Page 32 states : "any move that will reach ... an enemy TZ must be only to : blah blah blah" - there is no exception for making a slide (inside a TZ) into a legal contact with a flank edge.  But you raise an interesting point.  What say a TZ prevents a legal flank contact but cannot prevent a full flank contact?  In other words, if you can only partially reach the flank but can make a full flank contact whilst staying outside of an enemy TZ (which you would enter if you made a legal contact) are you obliged to make a full legal contact (via a sideways shift) thereby preventing the flank contact?  The flank edge contact rule states "it must end in mutual corner contact if possible".  Does anyone have any thoughts on that?

Cheers
Andrew

[andrew]

Are there any opinions on a TZ preventing a full flank contact (front corner to front corner) but not preventing a full side contact?  So the flank edge has been fully contacted by the front edge but the front corner of the element contacting the flank is in contact with the rear corner of the contacted element.  Allowed?  Or do you have to (attempt to) make a legal contact if able via a slide?  Which would then not be allowed under the TZ rules.

Cheers, Andrew

[Hammy]

Are there any opinions on a TZ preventing a full flank contact (front corner to front corner) but not preventing a full side contact?  So the flank edge has been fully contacted by the front edge but the front corner of the element contacting the flank is in contact with the rear corner of the contacted element.  Allowed?  Or do you have to (attempt to) make a legal contact if able via a slide?  Which would then not be allowed under the TZ rules.

Cheers, Andrew

I asked this after Roll Call on the DBMM list. There had been no answer when I unsubbed. There might have been an answer since but from the letter of the rules if a TZ prevents front corner to front corner contact but not full side edge contact then full side edge contact is allowed.

Of course I may well have missinterpreted the phrase "or if this is not possible"

Hammy

[Hammy]

I was thinking about this again today and I really hope that the rules don't actually mean what they say. If "if this is not possible" means "if this is not possible for any reason" rather than "if this is not possible because other bases (not enemy TZ's) are preventing a full alignment" then it is almost impossible to protect the flank of a line of irregular close order foot.

The DBM trick of simply dropping a file back and relying on the ZoC to cover the flank won't work as in DBMM close order foot have a move of 80mm so the flank cover from the TZ of a dropped back element is right on the limit. If a full edge contact can be made where a front corner to front corner contact would touch the TZ then to protect a the flank of close order foot is going to be a bit of a problem.

[Doug M.]

Sorry - Hammy - can you clarify what you mean by this? surely it means that an element can move into overlap (side edge to side edge) but not make a full front edge to side edge contact f a TZ covers it?

cheers

[Hammy]

Sorry - Hammy - can you clarify what you mean by this? surely it means that an element can move into overlap (side edge to side edge) but not make a full front edge to side edge contact f a TZ covers it?

cheers

This is the issue I picked up at Roll Call about flank contacts.

The rules state that an element initiating a flank contact should line up in front corner to front corner and front edge to side edge with the element it has contacted but "if this is not possible" it can instead line up in full front edge to side edge contact i.e. removing the need for front corner to front corner.

If an enemy TZ prevents a corner to corner line up then I presume that as this is not possible a full side contact should instead be allowed.

I strongly suspect that this is not what Phil intended but who am I to guess if this is actually the case.

As the rules are written if I was umpiring a DBMM comp I would allow a full edge contact if a TZ prevented a front corner to front corner one.

[andrew]

Hi Hammy

Yes that is exactly what I was asking.  You have clarified the point better than I did.  I too suspect that wasn't Phil's intention but if you apply the letter of the law then it can be almost impossible to protect a flank without the protecting element being well forward because per the rules you can have front edge to side edge without being front corner to corner "if this is not possible".

Andrew