2.2 Warwagons & Overlaps

[Redwilde]

Here's a possible rules interpretation I raised a few days ago in the big Warwagon thread that's been overlooked so far -- so I'll ask it again here with a bit more explanation.

This is not an intuitive interpretation, but I think it improves the technical problems of WWg in 2.2.

Given that if a Warwagon is treating a long edge as its 'front', it has already been ruled that only one enemy element can count as being in legal combat contact with that 'front edge' at a time, if a second element is in full front edge contact with the WWg it does not take part in the combat or provide overlap support against that WWg.

Therefore, I would propose that the second enemy element counts as "not in close combat to its front"

And the rule "An element not in close combat to its front but in mutual r-r or l-l corner contact with an enemy element overlaps it," could be rightfully applied to allow it to overlap the next unit adjacent to the WWg.


WWWWWWWWYYYY
111122223333

In this lineup, W is a single long-wise WWg, Y another element from the same army; opposed by elements 1,2, and 3. Unit 1 attacks the WWg. 2 is not in close combat with the WWg (It may look like it is, but it in actuality it is not rolling a combat die nor providing overlap support to 1's attack), so therefore it may provide overlap support to unit 3 against Y.


In a line of WWg:

WWWWWWWWYYYYYYYYZZZZZZZZ
1111222233334444555566667777

W, Y, and Z are long-wise WWg.
1 may attack W. 3 may attack Y, with overlap support from 2 and 5. 6 may attack Z, with overlap support from 4 and 7.
Or:
1 may attack W, with overlap support from 3. 4 may attack Y, with overlap support from 2 and 5. 6 may attack Z, with overlap support from 7.


Its a little convuluted, but allows all attacking units to actually participate in the fighting.

What do folks think?

If we like this interpretation, please do not ask Phil about it! This is the sort of complication he will give a quick answer to without much thought, influenced more by what he had for breakfast that day than anything else.

[xeswop]

I want to follow your discussion but I am a little confused. Maybe the diagrams are shown off a bit due to the ascii text. Can we use all numbers. 5 is the WWg and 6 its friend. 4-3-2 are other side. The front of the wagon is on the left, so 4 is engaged front corner to front corner with the wagon, 2 fights 6.

555555556666
444433332222

The question, can 3 give overlap for 2 vs. 6?

At first thought it seems awkward as 3 is in contact to its front but that does not prevent giving an overlap. This occurs when a line contacts spaced elements that are not a base width apart. One attacker is in combat and its neighbor is in partial contact to its front but can give an overlap.

Strange but true. I'll study more and look forward to others comments.

Your second diagram also has problems but I think some of the elements can overlap the attack next to it. I do not see how 1 gets an overlap from 3 when 3 is fighting to its front?

Originally posted by Redwilde:
[Here's a possible rules interpretation I raised a few days ago in the big Warwagon thread that's been overlooked so far -- so I'll ask it again here with a bit more explanation.

This is not an intuitive interpretation, but I think it improves the technical problems of WWg in 2.2.

Given that if a Warwagon is treating a long edge as its 'front', it has already been ruled that only one enemy element can count as being in legal combat contact with that 'front edge' at a time, if a second element is in full front edge contact with the WWg it does not take part in the combat or provide overlap support against that WWg.

Therefore, I would propose that the second enemy element counts as "not in close combat to its front"

And the rule "An element not in close combat to its front but in mutual r-r or l-l corner contact with an enemy element overlaps it," could be rightfully applied to allow it to overlap the next unit adjacent to the WWg.


WWWWWWWWYYYY
111122223333

In this lineup, W is a single long-wise WWg, Y another element from the same army; opposed by elements 1,2, and 3. Unit 1 attacks the WWg. 2 is not in close combat with the WWg (It may look like it is, but it in actuality it is not rolling a combat die nor providing overlap support to 1's attack), so therefore it may provide overlap support to unit 3 against Y.


In a line of WWg:

WWWWWWWWYYYYYYYYZZZZZZZZ
1111222233334444555566667777

W, Y, and Z are long-wise WWg.
1 may attack W. 3 may attack Y, with overlap support from 2 and 5. 6 may attack Z, with overlap support from 4 and 7.
Or:
1 may attack W, with overlap support from 3. 4 may attack Y, with overlap support from 2 and 5. 6 may attack Z, with overlap support from 7.


Its a little convuluted, but allows all attacking units to actually participate in the fighting.

What do folks think?

If we like this interpretation, please do not ask Phil about it! This is the sort of complication he will give a quick answer to without much thought, influenced more by what he had for breakfast that day than anything else. [/QB]

[Redwilde]

Ah that will teach me to look at the post after its done, there didn't appear to be an ascii problem during the typing phase of the game turn.

Here are the same illustrations with numbers used all around:


888888889999
111122223333

In this lineup, 8 is a single long-wise WWg, 9 another element from the same army; opposed by elements 1,2, and 3. Unit 1 attacks the WWg (8). 2 is not in close combat with the WWg, (it may look like it is, but it in actuality it is not rolling a combat die nor providing overlap support to 1's attack), so therefore it may provide overlap support to unit 3 against 9.


In a line of WWg:

888888889999999900000000
1111222233334444555566667777

8, 9, and 0 are long-wise WWg.
1 may attack 8. 3 may attack 9, with overlap support from 2 and 5. 6 may attack 0, with overlap support from 4 and 7.
Or:
1 may attack 8, with overlap support from 3. 4 may attack 9, with overlap support from 2 and 5. 6 may attack 0, with overlap support from 7.

[ June 15, 2004, 21:29: Message edited by: Redwilde ]

[imported_adsarf]

My first impressions are that on a strict reading of the rules, you are entirely correct. The element is not in combat, so it is eligible to provide overlap. Well spotted!

Truly bizarre.

Andrew

[Bill Hawkes]

Redwilde wrote:

*snip*
In a line of WWg:

888888889999999900000000
1111222233334444555566667777

8, 9, and 0 are long-wise WWg.
1 may attack 8. 3 may attack 9, with overlap support from 2 and 5. 6 may attack 0, with overlap support from 4 and 7.
*snip*

Bill here:
If 8 9 and 0 are facing to the reader's left I am not sure how (in your example here) 6 may attack 0. Wouldn't 5 be the attacker, with 4 and perhaps 7 as overlaps?

Puzzled,

Bill H

[Redwilde]

Originally posted by Bill Hawkes:
If 8 9 and 0 are facing to the reader's left I am not sure how (in your example here) 6 may attack 0. Wouldn't 5 be the attacker, with 4 and perhaps 7 as overlaps?I'm not aware of any stricture that the unit attacking the long side of a warwagon needs to be the one touching the forward-facing corner. Whichever way the model is facing in no way affects determining "front" for combat purposes.

Oddly, a single attacking unit can only move into contact with the long side of a warwagon if both front corners touch (MOVING INTO CONTACT WITH ENEMY). However, a unit may move into contact with just the rear half of a warwagon if it makes its move as part of a group which makes legal contact with some other enemy unit. In this case, the warwagon now counts its long edge as front, and the unit in contact with the rear half may attack. Also, if two units are in contact with the long edge of a warwagon and one is destroyed, recoils, or just withdraws, the remaining one may attack the WWg in the following round.

[xeswop]

The initial flank contact on the WWg must be a legal contact. Then the flank counts as a front edge.

8. The 2.1 Amendments gave War Wagons an exemption from turning to face a legal contact. Instead, the WWg "counts" the first edge legally contacted as the front edge for close combat. The first contact must be a legal contact such as attacker front to WWg flank and both front corners touching. Once the first legal contact has been made, then that side counts (acts as) the front and other elements can contact at the corners to be legal overlappers. An element can even then contact with its front corner touching the WWg rear corner as the flank is now counting as a front.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~beattie/dba/bobcmts04_files/image018.jpg


While not explicitly in the rules nor excluded, I would allow B in the diagram above, to count as an attacker in a bound after C were forced away from contact as a combat result. So, while B cannot be an initial legal contactor, I would allow it to be such if an original legal attacker were removed from contact. It can be considered to be in contact with an edge counting as the front.

In case anyone wonders I did ask Phil about this when he was answering DBA questions and he said this is what he intended. Not the part about B being legal after C but that the initial contact must be legal.

ps. A single element can move into legal contact with just one corner touching, front to front corner

"Other troops can move into contact with enemy elements only if a single element or at least one element of a group ends in both front edge and front corner-to-front corner, or full front edge to rear edge, contact with an enemy element or overlaps enemy already in close combat. "

Note the the phrase "in both front edge and front corner-to-front corner (contact). No mention of "full front edge contact" as is the case with a rear contact. So a single element can make a legal side contact with WWg but only front corner to front corner. WWg have a front. Close combat is only with front corner to front corner contact so if a group of 4 elements hit a two WWg facing left, only the first and third attackers are in combat contact, initially. I agree that the second attacker can overlap the second WWg.

[ June 16, 2004, 18:00: Message edited by: Bob. ]

[El' Jocko]

Originally posted by Bob.:
The initial flank contact on the WWg must be a legal contact. Then the flank counts as a front edge.
My take is a little bit different. I'd allow element B to make the initial contact (see diagram). The key part is that the move must end with the elements in a legal position. Since the war wagon's long edge is treated as the front edge once contact occurs, element B does end its move in legal contact.

It's the same logic as for conforming elements. A group can make contact with the corner of an element of Psiloi because the Psiloi conforms and the move ends in legal contact.

- Jack

[David Schlanger]

Originally posted by El' Jocko:
My take is a little bit different. I'd allow element B to make the initial contact (see diagram). The key part is that the move must end with the elements in a legal position. Since the war wagon's long edge is treated as the front edge once contact occurs, element B does end its move in legal contact.

It's the same logic as for conforming elements. A group can make contact with the corner of an element of Psiloi because the Psiloi conforms and the move ends in legal contact.

- Jack I'm with you Jack, and the logic comparison to the Psiloi is a good one.

DS

[xeswop]

The Psiloi is contacted on a front corner prior to its turn, yes? The WWg is contacted on a front corner prior to its side "counting" as a front.

The rules do not state when the contacted edge "counts" as the front edge but we can infer it takes place as soon as the legal contact is made. "they count the first edge in contact as their front edge..." Thus other attacking element can make corner contact to be overlappers after the intitial contact.

The rules for contact are very explicit as to what constitutes a legal contact. The contact must be legal at the time of the contact. Would you allow an element to contact the WWg in the center. That is no different than allowing the element to make rear coner contact.

Perhaps I missed the implication for the Ps. An element cannot be contacted on a corner in anticipation of that element turning to face by a single element.

XXXX22
XXXX22
XXXX22
XXXX22
3333
3333
2 faces left, 3 up. X is space.
3 cannot contact the front corner of 2 in anticipation of another element later making legal flank contact because when 2 turns to face the second attacker, 3 then becomes a legal overlap.

At the end of each element's move, all contacts on the table must be legal.

A group including 3 with an element in legal contact with 2 can move to contact the flank
XXXX22
XXXX22
XXXX22
XXXX22
33334444
33334444

4 with 3 can make contact with 2 as a group.

[El' Jocko]

My Psiloi reference is for a group making contact with a single element of psiloi or light horse. The group can make any kind of contact with the psiloi or light horse, including moving the group's front edge into contact with the psiloi's corner. Because the contacted element conforms, any contact becomes legal before the end of the move.

As for the war wagon, I'm not saying that arbitrary contact is allowed, just contact that is legal at the end of the move. So element B must make edge-to-edge and corner-to-corner contact with the war wagon, but it can be any edge and any corner.

- Jack

[xeswop]

Good point that I missed regarding the Ps and LH conforming. I was thinking of only single element contact

However, there is nothing in the rules to suggest that a non legal contact can be made on the WWg. There is no exemption, they are subject to the same contact limits as others (except Ps and LH contacted by a group). Contact must be front cornter to front corner, or full rear contact.

Why is there any reason, based on the rules, to thinik that elements can make initial contact on WWg side edges in a way other than all oher elemens are contacted -- front corner to front corner? The only change is that the WWg does not turn to face the legal contact, but counts the first side contacted as the front for close combat.

[El' Jocko]

Originally posted by Bob.:
Why is there any reason, based on the rules, to thinik that elements can make initial contact on WWg side edges in a way other than all oher elemens are contacted -- front corner to front corner? The only change is that the WWg does not turn to face the legal contact, but counts the first side contacted as the front for close combat. I guess that in general I take a somewhat liberal interpretation of the movement rules. As long as everybody ends up in a legal position and no other rules were violated (such as crossing the front), I'd tend to consider the move legal. And in this situation, since I can make a plausible case for why this move is legal, I lean toward allowing it.

On the other hand, I can also see why you might disallow it. If you consider the long edge as only being the front edge for combat, then element B (from the diagram) cannot make legal contact front corner-to-rear corner. The war wagon's long edge is still a side edge for movement, it's only a front edge for combat :confused: .

This is just another one of those areas where the rules weren't designed to handle all possible situations that might arise. Fortunately, it's not likely to have much impact on real play...

- Jack

[ June 18, 2004, 10:22: Message edited by: El' Jocko ]