Storming Fortifications

[Marcel Bos]

Hi all,

My WWG(S) wants to storm my opponents fortification, which has in my examples 3 wall-sections and 2 towers. It reaches an empty part of the wall, where the resistance should be low. But how could my opponent react.

In example 1 my opponents desides to shoot at WWG A with Art Z supported by Art Y and Bw X.
But is this possible because the WWG is already in contact (close combat) with the empty wall section? 

In example 2 my opponent desides to defend the wall with Bw X, in which case only Art Y is allowed to shoot Sp B. Bw X uses the extra 80p movement to line-up opposite WWG A, which has contacted Bw X front-corner-to-front-corner. But is this possible because there is no real front-corner-to-front-corner contact and if there was front-corner-to-front-corner do you think it is a legal move? 

Greetings,

Marcel

[landmeister]

In example 1 your WWg can't be shot at because it's in close combat against a fortification. No matter it is undefended, it must be defeated if you want your Sp goes on! 

In example 2 the Bw (X) can't use the 80 p free move. You must contact your enemy with your front edge, not with your front corner only. I believed it was a possible contact, but I was taught it is not ! 

Hope it helps

[william]

 :)Hi Marcel,
               Have asked about attacking fortifications and still not sure of the answers to most of your questions but definitly in your second example the element of spear can not be shot at as it is the next contiguous element behind an element in close combat. Then again the Bw(x) may not be able to line up with the warwagon as it can only shift less than 80 paces when defending fortifications ( could be wrong about this ).

             In your first example I do not think the warwagon is in close combat, yes it is assaulting the wall but I think it has to be in contact with an enemy element or fortification or PO that the enemy is defending to count as being in close combat, therefore it may be a valid target for your opponent's massed fire, ( again could be wrong about this as well ), very strange.

William

PS as I was writing this some one else also responded so feel free to discount my thoughts

[Marcel Bos]

Thanks, both of you.

but definitly in your second example the element of spear can not be shot at as it is the next contiguous element behind an element in close combat

Here you are, of course, totaly right 

So we just need a(n official) clarification if contacting an empty wall section is close combat or not! 
Has the wise men of DBMM something to say about this.

Greetings,

Marcel
 

[Valentinian Victor]

Even if a section of wall is not defended by elements behind it, your element that is in contact with the enemy wall section is considered to be in close combat as the wall has a combat factor and fights back!

[landmeister]

Even if a section of wall is not defended by elements behind it, your element that is in contact with the enemy wall section is considered to be in close combat as the wall has a combat factor and fights back!

This is why empty fortifications have combat factor! 

[Marcel Bos]

Thanks,

So contacting an empty enemy wall section IS close combat.
This makes it official for me.   

Marcel

[william]

Even if a section of wall is not defended by elements behind it, your element that is in contact with the enemy wall section is considered to be in close combat as the wall has a combat factor and fights back!

Not wishing to cause any arguements but is this correct?

IMHO it may be not, ( please bear in mind I could be completely wrong ).

On the top of page 35 in close combat
'Close combat occours when an element has moved into, or remains in, front edge contact with an enemy element ( or an intervening fortification or PO it is defending behind ) in any of the ways described in MOVING INTO CLOSE COMBAT on page 33.'

This may be deliberatly excluding undefended fortifications for just this shooting query.

My strange logic is that shooting maybe prohibited at elements in CLOSE COMBAT for fear of friendly fire incidents in the maelstrom that was ancient melee. Now it maybe that CF of undefended fortifications assumes that there are some defenders ( even if not an element ) that could get hurt by friendly fire or that the fortifications themselves might get damaged by poorly aiming shooters but then again maybe not.

Just because something has a CF does not mean that the CF is intended for CLOSE COMBAT Eg cavalry have a CF of 3 against bow shooting this is not for CLOSE COMBAT.

In Marcel's example of the warwagon stroming an undefended section of wall, would the artillery not sweep the wall with fire especially if there were no defending troops meleeing with the attackers or in the arc of fire.

My final point is that fortifications are not themselves elements so IMHO can not CLOSE COMBAT.

Again I do not intend to put the cat amongst the pidgeons and this will not come up in many games so thank you for your patience.

William

ps sorry about the bold print could not figure out how to turn it off.

[Marcel Bos]

These are really good arguments William! Thanks. 
So I have to reconsider my earlier point of view.

Marcel

[william]

  Now the problems starts if I am correct

If the Warwagon is not in CLOSE COMBAT does it also get to shoot? In your first example as it is the attackers bound I would imagine the warwagon would elect to shoot at the Bw(X) ( to stop the quick kill ), the Bw(X) would then have to be the main shooting element back with at least the artillery from the right of your diagram ( net factors 2 for the warwagon 2 for the bowman ) , would you also use the left hand artillery on the warwagon or on the sp(O) ( if the warwagon survives this shot and the spear recalls then even if the warwagon wins against the undefended wall there is no foot element behind it to pursue ), of course in the defenders bound your warwagon may be lucky to survive on a 6-2 with the defender selecting the artillery as the main shooting element for a quick kill.

More unwanted trivia that may not even apply if I am wrong.

William

[Marcel Bos]

If the Warwagon is not in CLOSE COMBAT does it also get to shoot?

This should be reasonable.

would you also use the left hand artillery on the warwagon or on the sp(O)

In this case Art Y can indeed choose. Shooting with his front edge it has to shoot Bw X, because it is the most directly in front,  but it can also shoot with its side edge at WWg A.

Thank for those most wanted trivia. 

Marcel

[Valentinian Victor]

Just mulling over here, but in the first diagram could the Wwg use 80p of free movement to move into contact with the section of wall where the Bw(X) is in the first diagram?

[Marcel Bos]

Just mulling over here, but in the first diagram could the Wwg use 80p of free movement to move into contact with the section of wall where the Bw(X) is in the first diagram?

Sorry at this moment I am very, very confused when or when not corner-to-corner contacting of contacted or in-contact (tactical or spontanious moved) elements, which are not in each others TZ, may or must use exactly 80p to line-up (= shifting sideways). There is a lot of discussion going on in other topics.   
And is it even corner-to-corner contact, with a wall in between?
I hope there comes some clarity. 

Marcel

[landmeister]

I vote for a clarification from Phil himself.

[andrew]

The element in contact with the undefended fortification assaults the undefended fortification.  Page 42 gives the combat factor for the undefended fortification and page 38 gives the combat outcomes when assaulting an undefended fortification.  Also, page 34 states that you cannot shoot over TF, PF or troops manning them unless from a higher PF.