Storming Fortifications

[landmeister]

Ok. So you fight against the fortification but don't fight against the element defending it? 

[william]

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.

Yes this is all correct, but does not answer the questions

1. Is attacking the empty fortifications CLOSE COMBAT?

2. Do the Warwagon or the Bw(x) have to conform to each other because of corner to corner contact?

Also, page 34 states that you cannot shoot over TF, PF or troops manning them unless from a higher PF.

[/b][/b] And yes this is also correct in as far as it goes, no you may not shoot over the TF, PF or troops manning them except I think you can shoot at troops manning fortifications. On the top of page 37 tactical Factors most troops get +3 when shot at from enemy outside the fortifications, now I think this means any troops manning fortifications can be shot at ( if of course the are valid targets ) but any elements behind these ( or indeed within the fortified perimeter and not manning fortifications ) can not be shot unless from within said perimeter or on a high tower over looking the fortifications.

Sorry still can not get a handle on bold print

William

[william]

Two other things occoured to me in pondering this question, ( probably am so interested in this question as I have some lovely WWg(S) myself -the Persians- I think Marcel's are probably the new book 3 Italians and would love to hear how you play with them ).

The first thought is about this conforming issue, if corner to corner means that on or other ( the Bw(X) or WWg(S) ) have to conform could Marcel choose to conform with his 80p slide against the Bw(X)? If this is so would this automatically destroy the Art(O) Y ( which looks to me to deployed in a dodgy manner to begin with ) as it has to move back to allow legal contact, or would it pivot into front edge to side edge contact with the sliding WWg(S) ( there by providing an overlap and second combat against the WWg(S) or lastly would it pivot to side edge to side edge contact with th WWg(S) just providing an overlap? Will have to wait until corner to corner contacts get resolved to get an answer to this what if query.

Secondly if  WWg(S) wins a combat ( not yet confirmed as close combat ) against an undefended section of wall and the Sp(O) enters the confines of the fortifications will the WWg(S) { if it survives the shooting } continue to fight the undefended section in every combat even if it has no other supporting infantry in following bounds ?

William

PS Marcel what do actually think should happen after all this input and what do you think would be the correct historical outcomes?

[landmeister]

I agree. This question cannot be definitely answered until a final solution to corner-to-corner contact is found.   

[Marcel Bos]

( probably am so interested in this question as I have some lovely WWg(S) myself -the Persians- I think Marcel's are probably the new book 3 Italians and would love to hear how you play with them ).

I have a Alexandrian Macedonian Army and tried last time to overrun the Greek/Persians at Hallikarnasos.

Art(O) Y ( which looks to me to deployed in a dodgy manner to begin with )

Great somebody noticed!  Art in a tower can shoot from all side-edges, but this doesn't mean that they can shoot at anybody in a 480p circle around them. There are still area's within reach where enemy can be save, so I allowed my opponent to turn his Art. We thought it should be possible, otherwise the enemy can line-up his siege-artillery at a place where the defending-artillery can't shoot back.

Will have to wait until corner to corner contacts get resolved to get an answer to this what if query.

Indeed we have to.

Secondly if  WWg(S) wins a combat ( not yet confirmed as close combat ) against an undefended section of wall and the Sp(O) enters the confines of the fortifications will the WWg(S) { if it survives the shooting } continue to fight the undefended section in every combat even if it has no other supporting

I think you are right and it isn't Close Combat. (You had very good arguments, I am impressed.) So you just have to dice when you want to get men into the stronghold.

PS Marcel what do actually think should happen after all this input and what do you think would be the correct historical outcomes?

Historically, I should say, a besieger would breach the wall or try to attack the wall at an much less defended/undefended part to get men into the stronghold. (Alexander at Tyros.) So in this case the masterplan works when the WWg reaches an empty part of the wall with men follow on behind it. So the WWg should never conform to the Bw, not even to prefend that are being shot at (these are only rules). Of course I can imagine that the Bw would conform to the WWg, if allowed by the rules, trying to defend the wall, but I am not in favour of that, they just defended the wrong part of the wall.

Marcel

[andrew]

Sorry for my earlier post stating the obvious - I hadn't read the full thread.  Having read the full thread, a few things come to mind:

WWg (except S) cannot contact a fortification - no problem there, the WWg is S (p33 - note the WWg cannot contact the tower)
WWg (except S) cannot shoot from front edge if they moved - no problem there (yet) - page 34
Art can shoot from any edge when manning a PF so the Art does not need to turn (if it shoots at all)
Art and single rank of Bw can shoot from a PF (p 34)
You cannot move a group into corner contact with an element defending a fortification (p33) - have you moved into corner contact?  If so, the WWg must use up to 80 paces of free slide (p33) to end in front edge combat with the Bw otherwise this is an illegal move.  The single Bw element doesn't conform to the group in this situation (p33).  If this is not in contact (a corner is not an edge - commentary p29) then no slide is necessary because the elements are not 'not lined up' nor TZ-ing eachother and the WWg assaults the PF, and the Bw does not provide overlap support to the PF.
In any case, the Bw cannot slide 80 paces to get into combat when defending a fortification (must be less than 80 paces - see page 42) so the whole corner to corner question requires no clarification.
Now the WWg is in front edge combat (see below), nothing shoots at either the WWg or Sp (p34).

If the Bw was not there, is the WWg in close combat?  Some say yes, some say no.  The PF has a combat factor so by deduction the answer is yes, despite the rules saying you move into front edge contact with an enemy element (which a fortification is not - p11).  Consider then this scenario : you move your single elements front edge into a full legal flank contact with an enemy single element.  The enemy conforms after shooting and you have a Bw that could shoot at that enemy.  Can your Bw shoot at that enemy before he turns to face?  It has nothing in contact with its front edge (nor did it move its front edge into contact) so the enemy element isn't in close combat is it?  But if your opponent also has a Bw such that the element you just moved is in his range, he cannot shoot at you given you are in close combat.  But against what?  By deduction your element is in combat with the element that has not yet turned to face, so is shooting allowed from either Bw in this case?  Consider the can of worms it will open if your Bw can shoot at the enemy element where you are in flank contact.  In other words, shooting is not allowed in this situation.  I believe the same logic / deduction can be used when assaulting fortifications - just my opinion!!

Cheers
Andrew

[Marcel Bos]

WWg (except S) cannot contact a fortification - no problem there, the WWg is S (p33 - note the WWg cannot contact the tower)
WWg (except S) cannot shoot from front edge if they moved - no problem there (yet) - page 34

Ok?

Art can shoot from any edge when manning a PF so the Art does not need to turn (if it shoots at all)

Sometimes Art need to turn in a PF-tower, see the example (.GIF). That Art can shoot from any side-edge doesn't mean it can target any element within 480p. It can't target elements in the white area's. Some turning in a PF-tower prefends enemy to approach freely in the white area's.

Art and single rank of Bw can shoot from a PF (p 34)

Ok?

You cannot move a group into corner contact with an element defending a fortification (p33) - have you moved into corner contact?  If so, the WWg must use up to 80 paces of free slide (p33) to end in front edge combat with the Bw otherwise this is an illegal move.

You cannot move a group's front-edge into contact with an element defending a fortification. 
It's not an illegal move.

If the Bw was not there, is the WWg in close combat?  Some say yes, some say no.  The PF has a combat factor so by deduction the answer is yes, despite the rules saying you move into front edge contact with an enemy element (which a fortification is not - p11).  Consider then this scenario : you move your single elements front edge into a full legal flank contact with an enemy single element.  The enemy conforms after shooting and you have a Bw that could shoot at that enemy.  Can your Bw shoot at that enemy before he turns to face?  It has nothing in contact with its front edge (nor did it move its front edge into contact) so the enemy element isn't in close combat is it?  But if your opponent also has a Bw such that the element you just moved is in his range, he cannot shoot at you given you are in close combat.  But against what?  By deduction your element is in combat with the element that has not yet turned to face, so is shooting allowed from either Bw in this case?  Consider the can of worms it will open if your Bw can shoot at the enemy element where you are in flank contact.  In other words, shooting is not allowed in this situation.  I believe the same logic / deduction can be used when assaulting fortifications - just my opinion!!

I believe your logic is totaly right for the two Bw-elements because it definitely becomes a close combat, but I think that the Combat Factor for the PF-wall is just there to simulate the difficulties to pass the wall if there is no enemy to defend it. Why should the WWg(S) attack if it has no foot-elements in contact behind it? They will just shoot at every enemy they notice.
In your logic a WWG(S) will be save from all shooting just because it reached the wall. 
Just an other opinion. 

Greetings,

Marcel

[andrew]

Understood regarding the Art and the shooting alleys, but if you don't have the room to pivot then I don't think you can......I haven't got the rules to hand though.....

So are we clear that there is no sliding from either element?

In the absence of an official ruling you could argue the element (which represents many many fighting units) isn't actually attacking the wall, but they are attacking the very small number of defenders on/behind the fortification that are not actually depicted with elements in DBMM (given the scale used).  Hence the *fortification* has a CF but cannot kill an element assaulting the fortification, although the defenders can make the attacker recoil.  If the attacker was purely attacking the wall then I wouldn't expect to see any attackers recoiling at all - but they do.

Andrew

[Marcel Bos]

Understood regarding the Art and the shooting alleys, but if you don't have the room to pivot then I don't think you can......I haven't got the rules to hand though.....

Probably your right that Art need to have room, but in a playing session I would allow my opponent to turn his Art even if there isn't enough room in the tower. Otherwise the defender will be greatly disadvantaged. The besieger can otherwise shoot at the PF without the defending Art ever shooting back.

So are we clear that there is no sliding from either element?

Totaly clear. 

If the attacker was purely attacking the wall then I wouldn't expect to see any attackers recoiling at all - but they do.

If beaten.... War Wagons.... Otherwise stand unless (S) in close combat against troops manning PF.
If doubled.... recoil if assaulting an undefended fortification section.

I think that a WWg(S) only assault an undefended PF section when it has elements of foot in contact behind it.
In the rules there is a difference between 'fighting or in close combat against an element' and 'assaulting an undefended fortification'. Maybe that is the key.
I sure like an official outcome.

Marcel

[william]

  Consider then this scenario : you move your single elements front edge into a full legal flank contact with an enemy single element.  The enemy conforms after shooting and you have a Bw that could shoot at that enemy.  Can your Bw shoot at that enemy before he turns to face?  It has nothing in contact with its front edge (nor did it move its front edge into contact) so the enemy element isn't in close combat is in?

Cheers
Andrew

Even before the enemy the enemy conforms it ( the element ) is in front edge combat, The top of page 33 does not differentiate between the contacted or contacting element so they are both in front edge contact and therefore can not shoot or be shot at. I think front edge contact only has to be the front edge of one of the elements involved.

William

[MikeCampbell]

"Shooting is not permitted at an element that is in close combat..."

The element is in close combat even if it hasn't yet turned.

[andrew]

Even before the enemy the enemy conforms it ( the element ) is in front edge combat, The top of page 33 does not differentiate between the contacted or contacting element so they are both in front edge contact and therefore can not shoot or be shot at. I think front edge contact only has to be the front edge of one of the elements involved.

William

Hi William

I think you missed my point - it was an illustrative point to indicate the folly of claiming a WWg in contact with the fortification was not in combat, using the same set of words applied to my Bow example.  Had you continued reading, or quoted the rest of my post, you will see that I stated that by deduction the element hit in the flank is deemed to be in contact.  However, if you read the wording of the rules, the element hit in the flank does not meet the definition of "having moved into, or remained in, front edge combat" so a deduction is necessary.

Andrew

[william]

Hi William

I think you missed my point - it was an illustrative point to indicate the folly of claiming a WWg in contact with the fortification was not in combat, using the same set of words applied to my Bow example.  Had you continued reading, or quoted the rest of my post, you will see that I stated that by deduction the element hit in the flank is deemed to be in contact.  However, if you read the wording of the rules, the element hit in the flank does not meet the definition of "having moved into, or remained in, front edge combat" so a deduction is necessary.

Andrew

Sorry Andrew if I missed anything in your post, I do believe that any element in contact with undefended fortifications is not in close combat for to be in close combat an element has to be in legal contact with another element or defended fortifications, as I have already said in other posts tis may have or may not have been intended by the author but seems clear to me. I do not see as being a regular occourance in games but I find it interseting as I do have some WWg(S) which have never got any where near fortifications. I am also trying to put together a book three Italian list with WWg(S) and WWg(X) possibly as train commands ( one wonders would they be worth it ), the persians do work quite well with Bw(X) but will have to wait and see if we are still going to be allowed them in the new book 1 if book 2 ever gets finished and the rules get a quick rehash.

William

[Marcel Bos]

Understood regarding the Art and the shooting alleys, but if you don't have the room to pivot then I don't think you can......I haven't got the rules to hand though.....

It seems in real (Roman/Greek) times you couldn't turn your Art if placed in a rectangular tower, so the shooting alleys existed, see the .jpeg. So your were right about this Andrew. 

Greetings,

Marcel