Flank Attacks

[Jagiello]

Again, apologies if this has already been asked...

I refer you to Figure 15 on page 57 of the main DBMM rules.
"Blade A cannot contact Spear X on its flank edge".

Granted, if Blade A did not have sufficient movement then I agree.
Otherwise, why not.?
Spear X would turn to face when other movement had ended would it not.
Had Spear X been in frontal CC with, say, Blad F, there would be even more of an argument for an attack on the flank.
I just don't see the logical reason why Blade A cannot attack the flank of Spear X if it has the movement.
It could move to act as an overlap to the hypothetical Blade F (if not in a ZoC - which is another bone-of-contention of ours), so the handful of paces Blade A would 'slide' to miss the front edge of Spear X is allowed under other circumstances.

Can someone help me come to terms with this one please.?

J

[MikeCampbell]

Again, apologies if this has already been asked...

I refer you to Figure 15 on page 57 of the main DBMM rules.
"Blade A cannot contact Spear X on its flank edge".

Granted, if Blade A did not have sufficient movement then I agree.
Otherwise, why not.?

Because Bd A has to be completely outside the line prolonging sp X's flank in order to be allowed to contact it in the flank.  See page 33, "Flank Edge" for the requirements.

[Jagiello]

I read the rule,
But my question is still... "Why Not.?", what is the reasoning behind the "line proloning" rules.?
Is it simply a rule for some 'playability' reason.?

J

[Barritus]

I read the rule,
But my question is still... "Why Not.?", what is the reasoning behind the "line proloning" rules.?
Is it simply a rule for some 'playability' reason.?

J

G'day Jagiello

The rules say that in order to hit an element in the flank, you have to start your move entirely beyond the target element's flank. Why is the rule written that way? Well, the rules writers had to draw a line somewhere, and this is (to me) a reasonable place to draw it. After all, if you gave more freedom to the moving element to hit an enemy element in the flank, how much of it would you allow to be on front of the target element? Would you allow an element directly in front of the enemy element to swing around and hit it in the flank? What about in the rear if it had the movement?

The other point to consider is that the rules are intended to reflect as closely as reasonably possible what actually happened in ancient and medieval battles. How many instances are there where a body of infantry deployed in front of an enemy unit of infantry (or cavalry, seeing as your question wouldn't exclude this) was able to move around to the side of the enemy unit and attack it in the flank? Not many. Most of the time, if the unit attempted this, the enemy would either charge to pre-empt the movement, or at the very least react by turning to face the moving unit. The idea that a unit could move around an enemy and charge them in the flank while the said enemy stood dumbly by and did nothing is fairly fanciful.

[Jagiello]

I absolutely agree that the enemy would react in some way to an element trying to flank it. By turning to face for example.
As a real life situation its quite acceptable to 'promote' a frontal assault - if these were the only two elements in a confrontation.
Okay, I'll buy that from a historical viewpoint - for now.
I don't see why though, if the enemy was engaged in CC with a friend, that another element (regardless of where it started its move), could not attack the enemy in the flank if it had the necessary movement.
It is theoretically possible for a LH element which starts int he extended zone, to move round the flank and stop its move 1 pace from the flank of the enemy.
So why can't it charge into contact.? It would even suffer +1 pip if it had the move to contact but stopped short.
Tell me that;s not unrealistic.

This is assuming of course that the attacker does not start in the enemy XoC =)

J

[Barritus]

G'day Jagiello

I see your point - yes, a LH element could move from directly in front of an enemy element all the way around the flank of an enemy element and stop 1 pace from the enemy. But there's an invisible force field stopping it from moving that last pace into contact, at least until the element's next bound.

In this case, I'd suggest it's a game mechanism to give the enemy one chance to react to the threat. After all, remember that DBMM is a turn based game, where *you* get to do all your movement and combat, then *I* get to do it, and so on. However, in reality, both armies would be acting and reacting simultaneously - for example, moving up a reserve to cover the flank of the element in combat. So I think this sort of rule is designed to stop either side from being allowed to do too much in one go without giving the other side a chance to do something in response. Of course, if I don't get the PIPs to move up an element to cover the flank of my element in combat, then I just have to pucker up and watch your LH element hit me in the flank (or hope *you* don't get the PIPs to do it).

Another point to consider is that this is a rule carried over from DBM (and DBA too I think, possibly even 7th Edition), so it's a well established concept. Okay, "this is the way we've always done it" isn't necessarily a great defence, but I'd be happy to stand by what I said in the paragraph above.

[Jagiello]

Barritus.

Thanks for the reply. All valid points, and understandable - especially the opportunity to support a flank.

But that then raises another question. 

Flank support (or the chance to bring up an element in support of one which could be attacked on the flank is covered already in the rules by the ZoC rules (the supporters front edge being no further back than 160p from the targets front edge = 80p for the ZoC and 80p for base width of LH). My LH could not enter or even touch your supporting elements ZoC to contact the original target, which I am quite happy about since MikeCampbell answered my ZoC question on another thread.

Simple answer to my problem would be to waive the extended flank (and even extended rear) lines rule if an element is in CC to its front or rear. Surely you can't argue against that suggestion.. can you 

What's the chance of getting a rule amendment. 

Cheers
J

[Barritus]

Barritus.

Thanks for the reply. All valid points, and understandable - especially the opportunity to support a flank.

But that then raises another question. 

Flank support (or the chance to bring up an element in support of one which could be attacked on the flank) is covered already in the rules by the ZoC rules (the supporters front edge being no further back than 160p from the targets front edge = 80p for the ZoC and 80p for base width of LH). My LH could not enter or even touch your supporting elements ZoC to contact the original target, which I am quite happy about since MikeCampbell answered my ZoC question on another thread.

Eh? Yes, your LH element couldn't move into the supporting element's Threat Zone. But that's not the situation I described. I was talking about moving an element from somewhere else to a position where it exerts a TZ on the LH *after* the LH has moved to 1 pace from my main element's flank. In that case, your LH got close, but now they're threatened to *their* flank, and their only options are to pull back or attack the supporting element.

Simple answer to my problem would be to waive the extended flank (and even extended rear) lines rule if an element is in CC to its front or rear. Surely you can't argue against that suggestion.. can you 

Why not? I can see your smiley, but I wonder why you want to give that much freedom to moving elements. What's the problem that needs fixing?

What's the chance of getting a rule amendment. 

Heh. Snowball, meet hell. :-)

Seriously, as I mentioned before, these restrictions on hitting flanks and rears pre-date DBMM by many years, and I'm pretty sure you're the first person I've come across who finds them unsatisfactory. I suspect if the changes were made you're asking for, they'd lead to very strange situations in games, and players would use lots of LH (F) to maximise their chances of hitting open flanks. In other words, at the moment, the rule seems to work just fine.

[Jagiello]

Yeah, there's a much wider picture to this than I'm looking at.

I play Later Polish mostly and do have 5 LH force of various grades in my 125AP. They are quite "handy" as the rules currently work at present, so might become overpowered with what I'm suggestion. I will try it out anyway in a couple of test games to see.

Thanks for the comments and sorry about missing the point you were making. Note to self: must engage brain before opening mouth...

J