Columnar Kebab

[Orcoteuthis]

A situation that came up in today's game that we weren't sure how to resolve:



All elements are LH except the topmost two, who are respectively a Ps and a Cv subbie. It's green's bound, and all the elements have just moved into contact (the top- and bottommost ones before the ones on the flank).

The upper of the two green LH to the right isn't in legal contact, but how should it conform? Slide upwards into front corner to front corner with the third red element (counting from below)? (In the situation on the table, that would been very bad for green, as the rear of the element would then end up in woods) If so, how would that element conform? Pushing the general and the Ps back? Could the green element instead slide behind its partner to decrease group frontage instead? Or can two green element conform downwards, leaving the lower one still flanking the lowermost red element and the upper now forcing the 2nd red element to conform, pushing back the rest of the column and the Ps?

Something else that I'm missing? I do realize the Ps could have moved last removing any concerns about pushing it around.

I may note that the green elements started so close to the red ones that the lower green LH couldn't have contacted if it's group-mate stayed put (and PIPs were insufficient to move all four elements separately).


In the event, we played it the green elements aligned downwars, turning the 2nd red to face, and moving the rest of the column back, but we don't feel at all confident this is right. Opinions?


(FYI, the encounter worked out pretty nicely for red, with one LH on each side dying, and the general killing the Ps after having turned around after surviving the first round of combat.)

[william]

Hi,

I think the side contact is a legal contact if the 2 green light horse there moved as a group and the group has made legal contact. If the combat is a green win it would be after this that any additional sliding would occour (though then I feel then it would be optional).

Which might not be so bad for green.

I suppose no green Lh could reach the generals flank! And just asking which combat did the green player fight first.

William

[LawrenceG]

I think the upper right hand green LH is not in a legal end position so this move is not allowed.

There is an argument that it can't EMTLU with the third red LH as this is not the minimum needed to line up with an element, and the minimum is blocked by friends in close combat (which gives an exemption from the "real life" rule. However, I would marginally tend to the view that the "absolute requirement" overrules that and  the upward slide is now the minimum as the downward slide is not feasible. (coincidentally this question of does "minimum" mean "minimum feasible" also arises in FOG). In real life there is nothing to stop both elements charging out and attacking the flank of the column.

3rd Red would then tun to face green and green would move back into the woods to make room as you say. 4th red would never be pushed around.


If upper green did not move as a group with lower and it would prevent the lower right hand green LH from lining up with the first red then it could be moved out of the way PIP-free to allow that contact if you move only the lower one in.

This would also happen if you moved in as a group and the umpire (or dice) took the "theoretical minimum" view .

Lower green LH cannot use the "cover the whole flank" rule because this does not apply when blocked by friends, so the move you did is definitely wrong.


I suspect that any end state in which something is fighting something would be applying the spirit of the rules "as Barker intended". If that view is accepted, less strict wording on lining up would probably have given us less angst than what we have now.

[Orcoteuthis]

Thanks for the replies.

3rd Red would then tun to face green and green would move back into the woods to make room as you say. 4th red would never be pushed around.

I don't undertand this, and I think I may have been a little unclear myself. Just EMTLU'ing into corner-to-corner contact with 3rd red would put the upper green into woods. Are you saying that 3rd red should be moved out of the column to allow 4th red to stay put? If so, both elements would end up among the trees, which would suck much less for green.

If upper green did not move as a group with lower and it would prevent the lower right hand green LH from lining up with the first red then it could be moved out of the way PIP-free to allow that contact if you move only the lower one in.

Ah. I had forgotten that friends only block you if they start in front of you (the two righthand green elements started in line).

[LawrenceG]

Thanks for the replies.

3rd Red would then tun to face green and green would move back into the woods to make room as you say. 4th red would never be pushed around.

I don't undertand this, and I think I may have been a little unclear myself. Just EMTLU'ing into corner-to-corner contact with 3rd red would put the upper green into woods. Are you saying that 3rd red should be moved out of the column to allow 4th red to stay put? If so, both elements would end up among the trees, which would suck much less for green.

Ah, I had assumed that the woods were behind the green elements.

Yes, I am saying that 3rd red should be moved out of the column and the green attacker moves back to allow this. See the second paragraph in "Turning to face flank or rear contact" on p.35.

If both are in the woods then that is not too bad for green because red will also have -1 for unable to start a recoil and if it is destroyed, green can pursue into the flank of the 4th red.

[Orcoteuthis]

Thanks again. 

[william]

  Ok lads I know I am as thick as I am cabbage looking but

'I think the upper right hand green LH is not in a legal end position so this move is not allowed. ' Is in my mind a little odd.

Take every other green elements away and have a group of 2 attack the front flank of a column, as they move in as a group the front of the column has been contacted legally and no further EMTLU is allowed as the contacting group has lined up. If the head of the red Column was not then contacted in the front the first two red elements would then turn to face the bottom green element.

Now if this is a legal contact if the front of the column is not contacted then how can it be illegal if it is contacted?

Bemused a little

William

[Orcoteuthis]

Missed this question before:

I suppose no green Lh could reach the generals flank! And just asking which combat did the green player fight first.

Green fought the combat against 1st red first.

[Orcoteuthis]

Now if this is a legal contact if the front of the column is not contacted then how can it be illegal if it is contacted?

It's not legal contact till the enemy has turned (which they don't if contacted in the front too).

(And we just hope that the "must end in legal contact" requirement is satisfied with legal contact resulting before combat. If it has to happen in the movement phase, we're in deep trouble.)

[LawrenceG]

I should have said that the endstate was not legal, rather than that the move was not allowed.

The move is allowed, but upper green would then have to EMTLU to make the end state legal. This is before any turn to face.

Otherwise upper green is not in a legal contact with anything, and in illegal contact with both 2nd red and 3rd red (the latter even after red 1 and 2 turned to face). Turning to face occurs after movement including EMTLU anyway, so can't be taken into account.

This is a consequence of the absolute requirement to move into close combat in the game. Upper green is not in close combat until it EMTLUs, therefore it must do so. This is different from DBM in which as long as one element was in legal contact, other elements of the group could remain not lined up and therefore not in combat.  In DBMM all elements must either EMTLU to be in close combat or be moved out of the way.

[william]

  Remind me to stay out of rules arguements.

We are agreed that the side contact is a legal contact so therefore can not emtlu as it is already lined up (well kind of agreed).

So 'Any element that has been so contacted on it's flank edge by enemy elements' front edges ..............'  Which for the front element does not apply as it is in frontal combat.

If an element contacts the flanks of two or more elements and the front turns to face .........   is where I feel that there does not have to be turns to face.

There has been a legal contact, the front element legally contacted by the upper of the 2 Greens does not turn to face (as it has been contacted already by another) so there fore stays in place. The second green element may even be counting as a flank contacting the front element (as some LH can provide rear support) so is in combat even though it's -1 is ignored as one can only get one minus for each flank.

Ok so I am rambling and am very confusing, it maybe a absolute priority for elements to fight in close combat but I really think the upper green is but it's minus on is ignored.

And if this is not allowed then there maybe ramifications in contacting long based elements on the side edge.

William

[LawrenceG]

Remind me to stay out of rules arguements.

We are agreed that the side contact is a legal contact so therefore can not emtlu as it is already lined up (well kind of agreed).

The lower right green is lined up in close combat with 1st red.

The upper right hand green is not lined up with anything. It is not in any of the "must end" positions defined in the section on moving into close combat. Therefore it can EMTLU (in fact it must, due to the absolute requirement to move into close combat).

upper right green EMTLUS so its front corner lines up with the front corner of 3rd Red (this is the only one it can line up with). Incidentally it will contact the flank of 4th red.

1st and 2nd red are contacted in the flank by lower right green but as 1st red is in frontal close combat it does not turn, and as 1st red is the one in front, neither does 2nd red.

3rd and 4th red are contacted in the flank by upper right green. 4th red is in contact on its rear edge so does not turn to face. 3rd red is the front one of the two elements and its front edge is not in contact with an enemy front edge, so it must turn to face. As 4th red obstructs this, upper right green must move back to make room.

So 'Any element that has been so contacted on it's flank edge by enemy elements' front edges ..............'  Which for the front element does not apply as it is in frontal combat.

If an element contacts the flanks of two or more elements and the front turns to face .........   is where I feel that there does not have to be turns to face.

There has been a legal contact, the front element legally contacted by the upper of the 2 Greens does not turn to face (as it has been contacted already by another) so there fore stays in place. The second green element may even be counting as a flank contacting the front element (as some LH can provide rear support) so is in combat even though it's -1 is ignored as one can only get one minus for each flank.

Ok so I am rambling and am very confusing, it maybe a absolute priority for elements to fight in close combat but I really think the upper green is but it's minus on is ignored.

And if this is not allowed then there maybe ramifications in contacting long based elements on the side edge.

William

You only inflict a -1 for being in close combat with a flank, not merely in contact. In the position depicted in the original post, the upper right hand green is not in close combat (because it is not lined up) so if for some reason it did not EMTLU it would still not give a -1.

With long based elements:
Warwagons etc are 2 base widths long, so the first element would line up front corner to front corner. The second would have its whole front edge in contact. Technically this is only permitted if lining up with the front corner is obstructed by terrain, enemy or a table edge. This is a flaw in the wording that was not detected in playtest. We can tell from the discussion on long elements with two enemy fighting against the long edge that this kind of contact is intended to be legal.

In 25 mm, chariots etc can have  80 mm deep bases, which is 1 and a bit base widths. In this case the second element attacking the flank would have to EMTLU with anything else in contact, so a contact on a column would end up with the attackers spaced out fighting one element each.  IF nothing else was in contact then it could stay where it is as it is not obstructing the other element from lining up with the front corner.

[william]

  Ok hit me over the head with a hammer

And of course we may have mostly be playing it wrongly 

Under Combat outcomes

Destroyed if a mounted or foot element with an enemy front edge in contact with its flank..........

should that read with an enemy in front edge combat with its flank........

as otherwise this clearly implies other flank edge contact is allowed.

Implies don't you hate that word.

As back to this group, the group has formed a legal contact and indeed may have already EMTLUed to do so, it would not/could not have to again, this is boiling down to the fact that the column has also been contacted in the front requires some 'extra' EMTLU to form up into a worse tactical situation (no longer a group). This is surely is not supposed to be the way.

This may also lead (going down another garden path) making some pursuits illegal (if they can not end in corner to corner and flank contact with an emtlu) but this can not be taken back as it is not a move but a pursuit.

It is a little ridiculous that a rule that has allowed a legal contact in one situation, disallows it in another and breaks up a group of attackers (that are supposed to be favoured) when groups are so important to the game.


If the defenders had been pike fast, legal contacts would be made with out breaking up groups or indeed depending on the enemy no turns at all.

Well thats another fine mess Phil has got DBMM into.


William

[LawrenceG]

Ok hit me over the head with a hammer

And of course we may have mostly be playing it wrongly 

Under Combat outcomes

Destroyed if a mounted or foot element with an enemy front edge in contact with its flank..........

should that read with an enemy in front edge combat with its flank........

as otherwise this clearly implies other flank edge contact is allowed.

Implies don't you hate that word.

If two LH were back to back and both in combat to their front, an element could contact the flank and line up with one of them. It would still be in contact with the flank of the other, but not in close combat with it.

As back to this group, the group has formed a legal contact and indeed may have already EMTLUed to do so, it would not/could not have to again, this is boiling down to the fact that the column has also been contacted in the front requires some 'extra' EMTLU to form up into a worse tactical situation (no longer a group). This is surely is not supposed to be the way.

The discussion has been as if they were in this position before EMTLU. However, if originally none of the elements was lined up then each would EMTLU directly to their respective close combat positions instead of into the (IMO incorrect) position shown on the picture.

Whether splitting up the attacking group is supposed to be the way or not, IMO it is what the rules imply.

This may also lead (going down another garden path) making some pursuits illegal (if they can not end in corner to corner and flank contact with an emtlu) but this can not be taken back as it is not a move but a pursuit.


William

A pursuit is a move. It's an outcome move. See p.28.

[Orcoteuthis]

The discussion has been as if they were in this position before EMTLU.

The picture indeed depicts the positions before EMTLU. That's basically the problem - despite looking sensible, the postion is not a legal end position for upper green, so some unlikely-looking EMTLU has to happen. We (wrongly) went for the slide downwards partly because it seemed less strange than breaking up the green group.