Death zone for Train

[landmeister]

I found this situation last day in a game. My opponent had a group formed by an Art element and a Psiloi flank to flank facing the same direction. One of my elements contacted the Art element on its unprotected flank so it counted as its front. We applied that the Art element had -1 because the Psiloi was preventing recoil (as the other flank was now its rear). My element destroyed the Art and so the Psiloi element too, as it was within the Art's zone of death. Was this correct?

Thank you in advance.

[foxgom]

Hi

Calculation is incorrect:

P37
-1 if mounted or foot and ....would prevent any recoil.

Art is train, not mounted or foot, so there is no -1 for having a Ps "blocking" a recoil.


It is correct that the Ps dies if the Art dies.

neil

[landmeister]

Ooops! Good point  Thank you.

[landmeister]

Sorry, but a new point was raised up by my opponent. On page 35 is read that train elements count the first edge contacted by enemy as its front edge contact and no other side as a rear edge. Would this mean that train elements lost their death zone? 

[foxgom]

Hi

P40
"all friendly elements directly beyond are als destroyed".

There is no reference to the "rear".

I read this as meaning that, if I hit a four deep phalanx in the rear, the rear element fights witha -2 modifier and if it dies, so does the element in front of it.

neil fox

[landmeister]

Very interesting. I hadn't noticed it says "beyond" not and not "directly behind" as in version 1.0. I read it like you, but this raises a ew question in my example. According to p40, Ps dies if "...the element immediately in front is destroyed while in edge contact...". As the Art element was not technically in front of it, Ps survives. This means that Ps, Hd and Art can always survive if beyond another Hd or Art dying on their flank. I'll have to think about it.

[LAP1964]

P40
"all friendly elements directly beyond are als destroyed".

Which means enemy can be  inbetween and won't be destroyed.
LES

[landmeister]

Which means enemy can  inbetween and won't be destroyed.
LES

You're right! 

[foxgom]

Hi

P40, third "."

"They are Ps, Hd or Art and the element immediately in front is destroyed...."

If there is anything in between the dying element and the Ps, the Ps survives.

 

[landmeister]

I have two new questions here.

1. Rear foot die if their front foot friends are destroyed by Warband at their front. But now that troops can kill whatever is beyond their opponents, and not just behid as before, is this applicable here? I mean, what happens is a 2 deep Bd column is contacted on its rear by a Wb. Are both Bd destroyed or not? According to p. 40 on?y warband at front can apply killing two foot elements.

2. Could someone clarify the difference between "...being less (or if Psiloi no further) that the destroyed elements base depth...? I can see what is exactly tyong to say. 

Thank you very much in advance.

[Orcoteuthis]

1. Rear foot die if their front foot friends are destroyed by Warband at their front. But now that troops can kill whatever is beyond their opponents, and not just behid as before, is this applicable here? I mean, what happens is a 2 deep Bd column is contacted on its rear by a Wb. Are both Bd destroyed or not? According to p. 40 on?y warband at front can apply killing two foot elements.

By RAW, you're right - only the rear Bd would be destroyed. This might be a mistake.

2. Could someone clarify the difference between "...being less (or if Psiloi no further) that the destroyed elements base depth...? I can see what is exactly tyong to say. 

The practical upshot is that, if the first two ranks are the same depth, a 3rd rank of psiloi dies if the two ranks in front are destroyed, but a third rank of anything else lives.

The reason is that Phil does not want supporting psiloi to survive the destruction of the heavies in front, but does want a third rank of spear or pike or the like to survive if the front is swept away by warband.

[landmeister]

Thank you for your explanation Orcotheutis.  . Just curious. Why changing "behind" for "beyond" if you cannot kill anyone other than behind the destroyed element? What was Phil trying to modify?  

Thank you in advance

[foxgom]

Hi

it does make a difference if you attack the enemy in the rear.

In this case...
"Behind" the dead element is where your attacked element is. (you attack from behind).
"Beyond" the dead element is on the other side of it, heading away from the attacking element.



neil

[landmeister]

it does make a difference if you attack the enemy in the rear.

In this case...
"Behind" the dead element is where your attacked element is. (you attack from behind).
"Beyond" the dead element is on the other side of it, heading away from the attacking element.

I see, but, as Orcotheuthis has pointed out, you cannot kill an element beyond the attacked one on its rear. Finally, nothing seems to be changed from version 1.0. A Kn cannot kill two Bw by attacking on its rear. Why this distinction then?

Thank you in advance.

[Orcoteuthis]

I see, but, as Orcotheuthis has pointed out, you cannot kill an element beyond the attacked one on its rear. Finally, nothing seems to be changed from version 1.0. A Kn cannot kill two Bw by attacking on its rear. Why this distinction then?

It makes a difference if the rear-ended element is El or Exp (as that condition does not specify "frontal opponent"). It also makes a difference for Exp contacted to its flank only.

And as indicated above, I suspect that the warband only killing one element if attacking from behind is an unintended consequence.