Art De La Guerre
Bienvenue sur le forum de discussion de la règle de jeu l'Art De La Guerre
 
FAQFAQ RechercherRechercher Liste des MembresListe des Membres Groupes d'utilisateursGroupes d'utilisateurs S'enregistrerS'enregistrer
ProfilProfil Se connecter pour vérifier ses messages privésSe connecter pour vérifier ses messages privés ConnexionConnexion
Unit 'fighting' in 2 directions at the same time?
Page 3 sur 3 Aller à la page Précédente  1, 2, 3
Poster un nouveau sujet   Répondre au sujet
 Art De La Guerre Index du Forum > Rules question V4
Auteur Message
madaxeman
Magister Militum


Inscrit le: 01 Nov 2014
Messages: 1462
Localisation: Londres Centraal.
MessagePosté le: Ven Mai 26, 2023 11:58 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
[quote="Mark G Fry"]
Mark G Fry a écrit:
madaxeman a écrit:


On page 63, in the section about Flank Attacks, the rules state that if an unit is in melee and has an enemy on its flank or rear, its combat factor is reduced to zero.
What this rules do not say is the combat factor is reduced to zero is if it has a unit counting as being in melee support on its flank.

Your Theoretical Bowmen are still "on the flank" of the initial enemy, even when they have been engaged in combat by a new opponent and so are not providing "melee support".

This is the situation as described in the rules, and this is intentional.


So, I am still confused Tim. Are you suggesting that what happens in this situation is that the Knights - having charged into the Bowman unit (A) to its front, but at the same time having the other Bowman unit (B) on its flank, which is not providing melee support to Bowmen (A) because it is itself attacked in the flank by enemy LC - fights on a '0' with no impact & no furious charge?

If so, then I am still not sure what the purpose of your statement above is?

Thankyou
Mark


Does the Theoretical Knight have an enemy on its flank? 
Yes
It’s factor is therefore zero and it’s magic abilities and bonuses do not apply, as this is what the rules say.

Is the Theoretical Bowman on the flank of the Theoretical Knight also engaged by another unit?
Yes
The Theoretical Bowman does not therefore count as being in “melee support†and so does not add +1 to the Bowman fighting the Knight, as this is what the rules say. 

Melee Support and Being on someone’s flank are two different things.
You can be one (on the flank) without having to be the other (In melee support) 
_________________
www.madaxeman.com
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé Visiter le site web de l'utilisateur
Ramses II
Magister Militum


Inscrit le: 17 Juil 2015
Messages: 1160
Localisation: London
MessagePosté le: Sam Mai 27, 2023 12:24 am    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
 . . . . B1
 . . . . .v
 . . . . .^
 . B2>Kn
 . .^
 . Lc

So the above is the situation after “Red†charged the Lc against B2, and the Kn against B1 - where B1 & B2 are bowmen (arrows indicate facing). The order of movement is immaterial in this case and the melees  are resolved after the Red movement phase. 

Tim is correct that there are two melees, where B2 and the Kn are both deemed to be fighting multiple opponents. However, the individual melee calculations are relatively poor; 
  • The Lc are +2 against B2.
  • Because it is fighting multiple opponents, the Kn are only evens against B1 (who are -1 cohesion loss, +1 against mounted frontally)



========
 However, if Red uses the Kn to support the Lc charge against B2, the LC are now +3 against B2, with 10/36 chances of killing B2 outright (higher if the LC or another unit have furious charge), which then allows the pair of units to pursue into B1.

In the following (opposing) turn the Kn would start this new melee at +4 and would almost certainly kill B1 as well. 

I think we can sympathise with Mark’s concern over the disparity between the two different approaches, where the former may take several turns to kill off the lowly bowmen, while the latter approach has a reasonable chance of killing both units in successive turns - but thems the rules as Tim, Hazelbark and others have pointed out. 
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
Mark G Fry
Signifer


Inscrit le: 15 Juin 2017
Messages: 319
Localisation: Bristol, UK
MessagePosté le: Sam Mai 27, 2023 12:13 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Ramses II a écrit:
 . . . . B1
 . . . . .v
 . . . . .^
 . B2>Kn
 . .^
 . Lc

So the above is the situation after “Red†charged the Lc against B2, and the Kn against B1 - where B1 & B2 are bowmen (arrows indicate facing). The order of movement is immaterial in this case and the melees  are resolved after the Red movement phase. 

Tim is correct that there are two melees, where B2 and the Kn are both deemed to be fighting multiple opponents. However, the individual melee calculations are relatively poor; 
  • The Lc are +2 against B2.
  • Because it is fighting multiple opponents, the Kn are only evens against B1 (who are -1 cohesion loss, +1 against mounted frontally)



========
 However, if Red uses the Kn to support the Lc charge against B2, the LC are now +3 against B2, with 10/36 chances of killing B2 outright (higher if the LC or another unit have furious charge), which then allows the pair of units to pursue into B1.

In the following (opposing) turn the Kn would start this new melee at +4 and would almost certainly kill B1 as well. 

I think we can sympathise with Mark’s concern over the disparity between the two different approaches, where the former may take several turns to kill off the lowly bowmen, while the latter approach has a reasonable chance of killing both units in successive turns - but thems the rules as Tim, Hazelbark and others have pointed out. 


Many thank Ramses

One question - why are the LC +2 against the flank of Bowman B2?
Surely - LC v Bowman is a standard '0' but +1 for fighting B2 in the flank.

Sadly (as is often the case) the reality of the actual 'incident' was more complex, in that there were 2 friendly Knights that had both moved up side-by-side - and they were facing & ZoC'd by 3 enemy Bowmen. 2 of whom were facing the Knights with the 3rd doing its right-angle maneuver on the flank. So the single knight with its flank exposed to the flanking bowman did really need to charge or its colleague would also have been overlapped.

Ultimately - the resulting melees did go in the favor of my Knights and LC - so from that perspective I am not 'complaining'.
My concern all along has been that this particular 'rule' does appear to be very odd/unnatural and whilst it is a perfectly legitimate rules mechanism, it seem to be at odds with the basic principle of the rules - no matter how Napoleonic the styles in which they are written.

Going back to Ramses's analogy with Chess - it's a bit like saying that in a specific one-off situation the Black Bishop can leap over any other piece to attack an enemy piece in the flank - if that enemy piece is about to attack the Black Queen. in every & all other situations it moves as it normally does, as do all other pieces. It's a one-off rules exception/anomaly.

This flanking situation might not occur that often in a game/competition - but it does happen (hopefully not more often in future) - and I think it has the danger of bringing the rules into "disrepute" ... but then that is just my view. As I stated back at (almost) the beginning of this thread - I understand that what is happening here is "as the author intended".
So yes ... "them's the rules" ... and I shall continue to play them & learn and will be 'mindful' of this particular tactic in future Very Happy

Thanks to all
Mark
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
madaxeman
Magister Militum


Inscrit le: 01 Nov 2014
Messages: 1462
Localisation: Londres Centraal.
MessagePosté le: Sam Mai 27, 2023 3:36 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Mark G Fry a écrit:

One question - why are the LC +2 against the flank of Bowman B2?
Mark


If you check the lists you'll see that al of the Theoretical LH that appear in the Imperial Theoretical list are either Impact or Javelin armed.

As such I suspect Ramases included these additional factors by default.

Anyways, glad we've now cleared it up for you Smile
_________________
www.madaxeman.com
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé Visiter le site web de l'utilisateur
Mark G Fry
Signifer


Inscrit le: 15 Juin 2017
Messages: 319
Localisation: Bristol, UK
MessagePosté le: Sam Mai 27, 2023 5:21 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
madaxeman a écrit:
Mark G Fry a écrit:

One question - why are the LC +2 against the flank of Bowman B2?
Mark


If you check the lists you'll see that al of the Theoretical LH that appear in the Imperial Theoretical list are either Impact or Javelin armed.

As such I suspect Ramases included these additional factors by default.

Anyways, glad we've now cleared it up for you Smile


Rather than the heroic Hungarian & Cuman Horse Archer which was the only unit I had to hand at the time Shocked

Cheers
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
Neep
Légionaire


Inscrit le: 09 Jan 2023
Messages: 124
MessagePosté le: Mar Mai 30, 2023 3:51 am    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Let me point that a careful reading of page 61 will show that the flanking Bowmen will _not_ suffer a cohesion hit if they themselves are flanked by a heavy unit. Bullet 1 on page 61 applies to units "already" in melee support. Bullet 4 applies to units contacted in the same phase which clearly applies here. When the heavies hit, the Bowmen are now in melee against the heavies, but the Kn is not in melee support against them, so there is only one attack.
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
Mark G Fry
Signifer


Inscrit le: 15 Juin 2017
Messages: 319
Localisation: Bristol, UK
MessagePosté le: Mer Mai 31, 2023 11:00 am    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Neep a écrit:
Let me point that a careful reading of page 61 will show that the flanking Bowmen will _not_ suffer a cohesion hit if they themselves are flanked by a heavy unit. Bullet 1 on page 61 applies to units "already" in melee support. Bullet 4 applies to units contacted in the same phase which clearly applies here. When the heavies hit, the Bowmen are now in melee against the heavies, but the Kn is not in melee support against them, so there is only one attack.


It has been stated above that all actions in this situation occur simultaneously - so the Bowman would count as being in combat on its front edge, if the Knights chose to charge, and so would gain a Cohesion loss, if hit in the flank by an enemy heavy unit.

Cheers
Mark
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
Neep
Légionaire


Inscrit le: 09 Jan 2023
Messages: 124
MessagePosté le: Mer Mai 31, 2023 12:12 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Bullet 4 is only concerned with whether the enemy is in melee or melee support, and the Kn's are not.
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
Mark G Fry
Signifer


Inscrit le: 15 Juin 2017
Messages: 319
Localisation: Bristol, UK
MessagePosté le: Mer Mai 31, 2023 4:53 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Neep a écrit:
Bullet 4 is only concerned with whether the enemy is in melee or melee support, and the Kn's are not.


I'll leave you to argue that one out with the 'elders' Neep, as my reading of the correspondence trail above indicates that they think that this does (most definitely) count as the Bowmen being in-combat.
Very Happy
Cheers
Mark
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
madaxeman
Magister Militum


Inscrit le: 01 Nov 2014
Messages: 1462
Localisation: Londres Centraal.
MessagePosté le: Mer Mai 31, 2023 8:15 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Mark G Fry a écrit:
Neep a écrit:
Bullet 4 is only concerned with whether the enemy is in melee or melee support, and the Kn's are not.


I'll leave you to argue that one out with the 'elders' Neep, as my reading of the correspondence trail above indicates that they think that this does (most definitely) count as the Bowmen being in-combat.
Very Happy
Cheers
Mark


I suspect you may be reading more intent and intelligence into this than there actually has been...

Once you factor into the thread many of the elders inability to actually read, comprehend, follow and then fully answer every twist, turns and wrinkle of the rather convoluted hyper-multiple choice scenario matrix which was presented in a format spread over multiple messages, my best bet is quite a few of these elders may have been a little too (ahem) elderly to even manage to get as far as spotting that sub-niche element of the question at all ..... Wink
_________________
www.madaxeman.com
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé Visiter le site web de l'utilisateur
Neep
Légionaire


Inscrit le: 09 Jan 2023
Messages: 124
MessagePosté le: Mer Mai 31, 2023 8:43 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Very Happy Shocked Cool
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
Mark G Fry
Signifer


Inscrit le: 15 Juin 2017
Messages: 319
Localisation: Bristol, UK
MessagePosté le: Jeu Juin 01, 2023 8:54 am    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
madaxeman a écrit:
Mark G Fry a écrit:
Neep a écrit:
Bullet 4 is only concerned with whether the enemy is in melee or melee support, and the Kn's are not.


I'll leave you to argue that one out with the 'elders' Neep, as my reading of the correspondence trail above indicates that they think that this does (most definitely) count as the Bowmen being in-combat.
Very Happy
Cheers
Mark


I suspect you may be reading more intent and intelligence into this than there actually has been...

Once you factor into the thread many of the elders inability to actually read, comprehend, follow and then fully answer every twist, turns and wrinkle of the rather convoluted hyper-multiple choice scenario matrix which was presented in a format spread over multiple messages, my best bet is quite a few of these elders may have been a little too (ahem) elderly to even manage to get as far as spotting that sub-niche element of the question at all ..... Wink


But I think the point still stands ... the combats are considered to be simultaneous - and therefore the pictorial example on Page 66 stands - the Bowman hit in the flank (by an enemy heavy unit) whilst its own front edge is on the flank of another enemy unit, will drop a Cohesion level.

Cheers
Mark
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
  
 Art De La Guerre Index du Forum > Rules question V4
Page 3 sur 3 Aller à la page Précédente  1, 2, 3
Poster un nouveau sujet   Répondre au sujet Toutes les heures sont au format GMT

 
Sauter vers:  
Vous ne pouvez pas poster de nouveaux sujets dans ce forum
Vous ne pouvez pas répondre aux sujets dans ce forum
Vous ne pouvez pas éditer vos messages dans ce forum
Vous ne pouvez pas supprimer vos messages dans ce forum
Vous ne pouvez pas voter dans les sondages de ce forum