Rear Support Factors

[additz]

P.36 - CLOSE COMBAT REAR SUPPORT FACTORS:

 ... assuming that all preconditions for r.s. are fullfilled and they are fighting the correct opponents...
+ 1 in own bound only if:
A) - 2nd dot:
Wb that have a supporting 2nd rank of Warband ...
Does that mean any Wb of any grade may be supported by Wb of any grade?
(f.i. Wb(F) by Wb(O))

+ 1 in enemy bound only if:
B - 3rd dot:
Wb and Reg Ax(S) supported by a 2nd rank of the same type ...
Reg Ax(S) may be supported by any Ax (f.i. by Irr Ax(I)) ?
Wb here is the same as A !?

C - 3rd dot:
Sp, Pk, Bd, and Ax supported by ... if the 2nd rank is the same type as the 1st a single 3rd rank of Ps with bows
Does that mean even if the 2nd rank may not support the front rank the Ps may - assuming that all other preconditions are fullfilled ?


B und C mention the same type, which is defined on p.4 as Wb, Ax, Sp, ...

Thank you
Axel

[landmeister]

Yes to all, but I think there is a special case in which C is not applicable, but I can't remember it right now. 

[Orcoteuthis]

Re: B, the intent was that Reg Ax (S) can be supported only by other Reg Ax (S). Unfortunately, the rule as written fails to state this clearly.

[additz]

Re: B, the intent was that Reg Ax (S) can be supported only by other Reg Ax (S). Unfortunately, the rule as written fails to state this clearly.

Thank you for the answers.
Landmeister wrote about a special case - does somebody know more about this?

There's no entry in the commentaries sofar - shouldn't that be mentioned there?

Axel

[Orcoteuthis]

I don't recall any special case wrt C (which doesn't necessarily mean there isn't one).

Yes, there probably ought be an entry in the Commentary. Unfortunately, the Commentariat have day jobs and the like, so the document isn't updated as often and thoroughly as one might wish.

[toby]

Yes - Warband can support other warband, unless specifically prohibited (for example in Early German some Wb(S) cannot be supported by Wb(O) of a different tribe).

The Ax(S) thing should only be Ax(S), but if Phil has forgotten to say 'same type and grade' then they can be supported by Ax(I) I guess. There won't be anything in the Commentary on this because there is no ambiguity - the Commentary is not an errata - if Phil wants to change the rule he needs to issue an official errata. We try to restrict ourselves to just areas of ambiguity and confusion (and there are enough of those).

I can't think of any exceptions to C. So yes, a formation of Pk/Pk/Ps would be factor 5 defending against Cv - 4 for the front rank and +1 for the Ps, even though the middle Pk doesn't fight.

[additz]

The Ax(S) thing should only be Ax(S), but if Phil has forgotten to say 'same type and grade' then they can be supported by Ax(I) I guess. There won't be anything in the Commentary on this because there is no ambiguity

OK - thank you

[Orcoteuthis]

The Ax (S) support thing has popped up often enough that I think it might qualify under the confusion heading.