Warwagon overlap

[Sarduri II]

The following situation arose during play today, (I have slightly simplified it for easier presentation)

wwww
wwww - warwagon(persians)
wwww
wwww
wwwwcccc - cavalry (persians facing down)
.........cccc
.........kkkk
.........kkkk - knights (Urartu facing up)


The knights (Heavy chariot actually) win he combat recoiling the Persian cavalry and then pursue impetuosly back into contact, thus...

wwww
wwww
wwwwcccc
wwwwcccc
wwwwkkkk
.........kkkk

Question; does the warwagon now count as an overlap against the knight?

Case for:- mutual flank edge contact clear overlap.

but,

Case against:- War wagon counts first edge in contact as their "front" so it is not mutual flank contact, but also is not in front corner to front corner contact, so no overlap.

The subsequent 6-1 roll made the point academic, but I like to hear what others think.

[xeswop]

This shows again the problems of a quick rewrite of rules. Maybe loppy on the part of Phil. I am sure he means -

"Since they could fight all-around, they count the first edge contacted _by enemy front edge_ as their front edge when in close combat."

Phil might say no, what he has is good because that "in close combat" precludes side edge contact. So maybe my extra text is not needed. Note the defintion of close combat:

" It (close combat) occurs when elements move into, or remain in, both front edge and front corner-to-corner contact with an enemy element or front edge contact with a camp or BUA. "

Phil is better than we might first think.

The Kn below is not in close combat with the WWg, so WWg overlaps it.

This brings to mind another problem. WWg cannot move into edge or corner contact with enemy. Once in such contact, can they move to be more or less. Can the WWg back up so that it ends in corner to corner contact with the Kn? Can it move forward?

[Sarduri II]

There is one further factor here which I have not displayed.
In the same bound as the origonal Knight/Cavalry melee, an Urarturian Auxilia had also contacted the War wagon on the same edge but at the rear corner, thus...

wwwwaa
wwwwaa-auxilia facing left
wwwwaa
wwww
wwwwcccc
.........cccc
.........kkkk
.........kkkk

The overlap between the cavalry and warwagon was slighter than shown here, so there was room to recoil (30cm).

The Auxilia were themselves recoiled by the war wagon in the same round as the knights recoiled the cavalry.
The auxilia were not moved back into contact.
So the war wagon "Front edge" had been defined in the immediately preceeding bound as being its Left hand side (as we view the situation).
At what point does this "front" cease to be the front edge and become a flank, and which edge is then the "front" ?

Note in passing that it is arguably worse for the knight if the warwagon front edge is in contact since it will die on a recoil even though there would be no -1.

[xeswop]

I do not see which way the War Wagon is facing. If it is facing down then the Aux contact is not legal as attackers must attack a front corner. If facing up, then ok.

Look at the WWg contact rule:
"Since they could fight all-around, they count the first edge contacted as their front edge when in close combat."

The WWg is not in close combat with the Kn no matter what some other part of the wagon is doing. The rule says the edge contacted COUNTS as the front edge for close combat, with that contacting element. The contacted edge does not BECOME the front edge. Thus for all other purposes, that side edge is still a side edge. For example, consider a WWg in side contact with an enemy at the front corners; if a friendly Ps element were to recoil into the other part of the wagon the Ps is destroyed because it is recoiling into the side of the WWg, not the front.

The contacted side of the WWg just does the close combat so it does not need to turn itself sideways or around. The side edge does not count as a front edge for other functions.

One place where I see a problem with this rule is the Break Off.
If the WWg is in close combat to its side, which direction does the break off go. Toward the rear or away from the combat?

This needs to be asked of Phil for the definitive answer. I would say the logical answer, for this almost illogical situation in the first place, is that that break off must be direcly back, away from the combat, toward the opposite side from the combat. The breakoff is still part of the close combat situation with the attacking element so the side edge is still counting as the front.

[ December 16, 2004, 09:42: Message edited by: Bob. ]

[Sarduri II]

Quote: "I do not see which way the War Wagon is facing. If it is facing down then the Aux contact is not legal as attackers must attack a front corner. If facing up, then ok".

The war wagon was facing "down", however I do not accept the interpretation that forbids a unit to make contact with the "rear half" of a long side - I understand that I may be in a minority in this.

Quote: "The contacted edge does not BECOME the front edge. Thus for all other purposes, that side edge is still a side edge."

If I understand you correctly, you would consider that even had the Auxilia remained in contact with the edge of the war wagon behind the cavalry, then that portion of the same edge which was in side contact with the knights would be a "flank" and not "front".
The knights in turn would also overlap the warwagon!
My understanding of the current interp is that a second unit in frontal contact with the long edge is not an overlapper, but a unit in side contact would be?

quote: "for this almost illogical situation"

I am unsure if this is a comment aimed at my outre example? I can only say that it came up in play in a friendly game (If the Persians were mine it would have been a 40mm square base for the wagon!). It may indeed be a highly unusual example, but that it is to such situations that we often must go to find out how rules work (or don't).

Quote: break off must be direcly back, away from the combat, toward the opposite side from the combat. The breakoff is still part of the close combat situation with the attacking element so the side edge is still counting as the front.

I am assuming here that you are refering to the War wagon attempting to break-off from contact with the knight. This seems to contradict your earlier point. Either it is a front edge only at the moment of close combat (else a flank) or it is de-facto front edge unitll a new edge is determined as the front.

I agree this break off question is the issue most likely to arise in future, but in fact this is most easilly (not necessarilly correctly) resolved by taking the side edge as being "the front" while " any kind of contact is in existance.

[xeswop]

Good points for discussion.
My "illogical" term was directed at the rules for War-Wagons that by being double deep end up in all sorts of strange situations. Dave Schlanger's empassioned plea in the previous thread, notwithstanding.


The war wagon was facing "down", however I do not accept the interpretation that forbids a unit to make contact with the "rear half" of a long side - I understand that I may be in a minority in this.


Do you accept the rules for what constitutes a legal contact as given on page 9? There is an explicit statement that a legal contact must be front corner to front corner. Before the change to the WWg rule on contact, if an element had contacted a WWg on its rear corner, would you have allowed that as a legal contact and made the WWg then turn to face. Would you now allow an element back corner to be contated by enemy front corner? The new rule on contacting WWg does not obviate the rule for legal contact. Do you allow an element to contact a WWg in the middle?

If I understand you correctly, you would consider that even had the Auxilia remained in contact with the edge of the war wagon behind the cavalry, then that portion of the same edge which was in side contact with the knights would be a "flank" and not "front".
The knights in turn would also overlap the warwagon!
My understanding of the current interp is that a second unit in frontal contact with the long edge is not an overlapper, but a unit in side contact would be?


Here we again get into what I meant by the illogical aspect of the WWg contact rule. The side edge of the WWg counts as a front edge for close combat. The Knight is not in close combat with the WWg so the side edge does not count as a front edge in that case. I am dicsussing now the case of the Aux still being in frontal contact with the WWg. (assuming that the elements are reveresed and the Aux is in legal contact as described on page 9).

Is the Knight now overlapping the WWg. By strict definition of what is an overlap, it is. It meets the defintion of edge to edge contact overlap. I have never considered this situation before and am just taking the rules literally. Phil does not say the side edge "BECOMES" a front edge, only that it counts as such for close combat. The WWg is not in close combat with the Knight. The two elements are in mutual side edge contact. I believe if Phil had know of all the possibilities that could occur he would have made the situation clearer. Like saying, the side edge is a front edge for the duration of the combat. THis is too much like a debate over the eucharist in a Christian church. Does the wine become the blood of Christ or does it act like it.

I am curious how Phil would answer this quesiton of an element in side edge contact with a WWg that is fighing with its side edge.

My process is to define a situation and then follow through with the consequences. The side edge is not a front edge for things other than close combat. What happens to a Ps that recoils into the side of a WWg that is fighting on that same side? I think it is destroyed because it is hitting a side edge. The "historical" wagon has not turned to face the attacker, it its crew is just focusing on the side contact as if it were a front contact. Thus the Ps hits a side. The Kn is riding a long the side of the wagon, this has the same impact as if the fight were to the front -- overlap.

I agree this break off question is the issue most likely to arise in future, but in fact this is most easilly (not necessarilly correctly) resolved by taking the side edge as being "the front" while " any kind of contact is in existance.


The break off is a trick issue. The WWg is still in close combat at the point it wants to break off, so the side edge is still counting as the front edge and they the break goes away from the enemy. I think it important to differentiate between contact and combat so would only allow the back away if there is combat. Then we run into the problem of a group move against the WWg that brought two elements into full side contact. The one in contact with the front WWg corner is the one in close combat. It if loses, what is the status of the other element, now in front to rear corner contant with the WWg?

[ December 16, 2004, 17:35: Message edited by: Bob. ]

[El' Jocko]

Originally posted by Sarduri II:
The war wagon was facing "down", however I do not accept the interpretation that forbids a unit to make contact with the "rear half" of a long side - I understand that I may be in a minority in this. You're certainly not alone in this. The WADBAG playing conventions explicitly allow this kind of attack on a war wagon.

On the general question of war wagons and overlaps, I don't think that we (WADBAG) have reached a consensus yet. It's clear that Phil didn't think this through when he made the change, and there are a lot of wierd situations to take into account. It's going to take a lot of thinking and a lot of play testing to get it right.

- Jack

[Sarduri II]

Quote: "Do you accept the rules for what constitutes a legal contact as given on page 9? There is an explicit statement that a legal contact must be front corner to front corner."

I have no problem with this definition, I simply do not hold that the Warwagon facing rule was intended to be as restrictive in combat as the current favoured interp makes it. I would consider that the "side edge" becomes the front instantly on contact and "legitimises" the front corner contact.

This is indeed not what Mr Barker has written (scant though that is), but, I believe is in the spirit of his intent.

I would not permit a combat in the middle of a long side (though this is also restrictive), and would not permit a contact with the rear corner of a "normal" unit.

Personaly I would consider that the double depth bases create most of the problems. As I noted earlier, had I a war wagon army I would certainly base it on 40mm square for friendly play (potentially having a second 40mm base of horses,oxen whatever to double up for more formal play.

[xeswop]

I agree fully about the WWg size. On the small DBA battlefield, a double deep element, and 5 for the Hussites is extreme. Phil was over come by his desire to make DBA a stepping stone to DBM. Better that this double size was optional.

I should mention that in messages from him during the time of the amemdments discussion, Phil did write that he intended the standard contact rules to apply to the new WWg rule. A major problem occurs if a group of two attackers hits the side. The one in legal contact fights and is destroyed. The one on the other side adds nothing to the combat as it does not meet the overlap definition. It is then stuck there. The WWg cannot break off as it is not in close combat, and neither can the attacker. All that can happen is the attacker can slide into a legal combat position. Can the WWg move into such a position? The attacker is already in contact with the WWg so the WWg is not "moving into contact."

[David Schlanger]

Originally posted by Bob.:
One place where I see a problem with this rule is the Break Off.
If the WWg is in close combat to its side, which direction does the break off go. Toward the rear or away from the combat?

This needs to be asked of Phil for the definitive answer. I would say the logical answer, for this almost illogical situation in the first place, is that that break off must be direcly back, away from the combat, toward the opposite side from the combat. The breakoff is still part of the close combat situation with the attacking element so the side edge is still counting as the front. The most simple resolution is to not allow War Wagons a breakoff move. If they can't move into contact with an enemy, why would the be able to break off from such contact? I might argue the same thing for Artilley.

The WADBAG War Wagon rules do not allow War Wagon to move when in enemy ZOC. As a result, War Wagons can not break off from combat.

DS

[ December 17, 2004, 10:21: Message edited by: David Schlanger ]

[konstantinius]

Now I'm thouroughly confused. Consider an element that has contacted the Wwg on one of the two side edges, constituting a legal contact (front corner to front corner), and is currently in combat with the Wwg. How can this element get help (i.e. overlap)?
A second element on the long side contributes nothing (rather illogical in itself, just sit there and get showered with projectiles).
Does a second element contacting what would normally be the front of the Wwg (narrow edge) and, therefore, making front corner to front corner contact with the Wwg as well as the element in combat, overlap the Wwg? What if this second element is lined up and facing the same way as the element in combat but to its right, therefore looking out across the front of the Wwg, but making what I think is legal contact for an overlap (element's left front corner with what now is the Wwg's left front corner)?
I agree that Wwg's shouldn't be allowed to brake off. If they're assumed to be so static (and they largely were in reality) as to not recoil, how can they brake off from, say, cavalry (of course why anyone would attack Wwg's with mounted is another story)?
I personally like the all-round shooting capability and the non-recoil rule. I also think that Wwg's should have "no front" and be able to carry out multiple combats just like a BUA. I've been meaning to playtest this but my gaming time has been scant lately
There's definetely a need for clarification (one that doesn't lead to a 2.3 version) on certain aspects of the Wwg rule (base size, braking off, overlaps). In the meantime we could arrive to a consensus on this forum and follow its directive (consensus? here? yeah, right ;) ).

[<Bob.>]

The trick is to apply all individual rules to the WWg situation to arrive at a full understanding. Here is a diagrm showing the overlap optons, according to the overlap rules.

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

If a first enemy hit the WWg on a legal side contact and then another enemy hit the original front or rear, these would be flank attacks, not overlaps. An attack on the opposite side would be a rear attack.

There is no rule for what the element that is to the right of the fighing element is able to do. According to the rules, even if that element is left when the combat element is destroryed, it cannot fight. It is nothing according to the rules. Apply the rules as written and see what you get.

Treating a WWg like a BUA would be very good. No overlaps but can fight 3 elements per bound. That gets rid of lots of problems. Also, any element that recoils into any part of a WWg is destroyed is helpful too.

konstantinius, draft up text that works on this premis to send to Phil.

Originally posted by konstantinius:
] Now I'm thouroughly confused. Consider an element that has contacted the Wwg on one of the two side edges, constituting a legal contact (front corner to front corner), and is currently in combat with the Wwg. How can this element get help (i.e. overlap)?
A second element on the long side contributes nothing (rather illogical in itself, just sit there and get showered with projectiles).
Does a second element contacting what would normally be the front of the Wwg (narrow edge) and, therefore, making front corner to front corner contact with the Wwg as well as the element in combat, overlap the Wwg? What if this second element is lined up and facing the same way as the element in combat but to its right, therefore looking out across the front of the Wwg, but making what I think is legal contact for an overlap (element's left front corner with what now is the Wwg's left front corner)?
I agree that Wwg's shouldn't be allowed to brake off. If they're assumed to be so static (and they largely were in reality) as to not recoil, how can they brake off from, say, cavalry (of course why anyone would attack Wwg's with mounted is another story)?
I personally like the all-round shooting capability and the non-recoil rule. I also think that Wwg's should have "no front" and be able to carry out multiple combats just like a BUA. I've been meaning to playtest this but my gaming time has been scant lately
There's definetely a need for clarification (one that doesn't lead to a 2.3 version) on certain aspects of the Wwg rule (base size, braking off, overlaps). In the meantime we could arrive to a consensus on this forum and follow its directive (consensus? here? yeah, right ;) ).

[<Bob.>]

I could not edit my text so here is a correction. In the first sentence below, I meant to say the ELEMENT THAT IS TO THE LEFT OF THE FIGHTING ELEMENT.

Originally posted by &lt;Bob.&gt;:

There is no rule for what the element that is to the right of the fighing element is able to do. According to the rules, even if that element is left when the combat element is destroryed, it cannot fight. It is nothing according to the rules. Apply the rules as written and see what you get.

[Dave Crowell]

It seems to me that if the Warwagon counts the first edge contcated as being a "front" edge for purposes of combat, then element B in the diagram should "count" as being in front edge contact.

Unfortunately camps and BUAs are the only situations in which DBA gives us rules for multiple elements in front edge combat contact with the same thing. We really need a rule for Warwagons.

I will agree absolutely that a contact in the middle of a long side is not a legal (combat) contact, as those are all defined as including a corner-to-corner contact.

I have yet to use a Warwagon in a game, and these discussions make me less likely to.

[<Bob..>]

Not just corner to corner, but front corner to front corner

[yettie]

Say Bob is the idea of eliminating the 80mm depth WWg base and having a max depth of 40mm (40x40), getting any traction?

[<Bob.>]

I think a 40mm wwg would solve many problems but I do not think Phil would go for it as he wants the elements, but not the rules of DBA and DBM to be related.

Has anyone kept up with the WWg discussions with DBMM. I am sure Phil will want DBA to be insync with DBMM to help promote it. Especially if the rift between Phil and RBS over the need for a DBMM vs a revised DBM increases.

[Roland Fricke]

Originally posted by &lt;Bob.&gt;:
Has anyone kept up with the WWg discussions with DBMM. I am sure Phil will want DBA to be insync with DBMM to help promote it. Especially if the rift between Phil and RBS over the need for a DBMM vs a revised DBM increases. I'm afraid to look. Maybe someone could summarize.

[Cyrus the Ringmaster]

As it was MY war-wagon that prompted this thread, and having just registered, I feel I have not only a moral obligation to chip in, but also the moral high ground!! (sort of, and rather shaky, on top of this tower!!)

I must concur with Dave Crowell and Sarduri II that the first side contacted acts as the front edge (as in the rules), and furthermore that it now has 2 front corners, as it is acting as a front edge. Therefore, 2 enemy elements can be in contact on a side edge. In the absence of any ruling on this, one element must be considered as the prime attacker, and the other a modifier of some sort, probably best considered as another overlap, thus it would be possible to have 3 overlaps in one attack on the side of a wagon! And so it goes on...........

I suggest we cut the Gordian Knot (securing the team to the wagon), and make wagons a 40 x 40 base. Funnily enough, my wagon is constructed on a split base, and with a detachable team, which allows for this exact measure. (Funny that!!)

Next time it rumbles into action it will be propelled by invisible oxen.

[ March 13, 2005, 08:07: Message edited by: Cyrus the Ringmaster ]

[<Bob..>]

No reason to create a Gordian Knot in the first place. Just follow all the rules as written and apply to the situation of the War Wagon.

Bob

[Cyrus the Ringmaster]

I don't have a rule book here, so forgive me if my memory fails. In Bob's diagram below, element C is considered the prime attacker in the group, as it moves to a legal combat contact, so the WWG "left" edge becomes the "front" for combat purposes. Element D is an overlap. Element A is now clearly stated as also being a valid overlap. In order for it to be so, surely it must (as per the rules) be in FRONT corner to FRONT corner contact? If this is so, then element B is ALSO in FRONT corner to FRONT corner contact, and is therefor in a legal combat contact. This means that B and C are both attacking, or at least that B is an overlap. No?

It just feels really wrong that B just sits there in dubious contact and stares at the WWG without fighting or contributing to the fight.

If A, C and D depart, and B is left not fighting, is it really in contact, or does it become "in contact", without sliding across the edge of the WWG even if it has not "moved to contact"? Or must it slide across to contact the actual front corner of the WWG? If it is left not in proper contact, can the WWG shoot at it?

[ March 14, 2005, 06:14: Message edited by: Cyrus the Ringmaster ]

[El' Jocko]

Originally posted by &lt;Bob..&gt;:
No reason to create a Gordian Knot in the first place. Just follow all the rules as written and apply to the situation of the War Wagon.

Bob That works sometimes. But not in this case. Phil didn't think things through when he made the change to warwagons. He didn't playtest the changes. He just tossed them in and went back to the rules that actually have his attention.

As written, warwagons are broken.

- Jack

[<Bob..>]

Jack is correct that the WarWagon rules are hodgepodgy.

Nevertheless, it is possilbe to tease sufficient meaning to get on with the game. An element must be in legal contact in order to do close combat. If an element ends up touching a Warwagon but not in leagal contact for combat, it is just like one element in partial contact with an enemy due to a group move contacting elements that are less than a base width apart. The element in partial contact must move to proper contact. It can just sit there or move away.

[konstantinius]

Apparently B fights only when C recoils or is destroyed (B doesn't move or slide, it fights from where it's at). Now, why A is an overlap and B isn't I can't answer; I just obey smile.gif
This 40mm base seems to have screwed the whole Wwg thing...

[konstantinius]

Alas, the wine...I mean 80mm.

[Cyrus the Ringmaster]

OK, I think I understand how (and why) the rules should be interpreted for this issue. House rules may well be applied within my own circle, but it's good to have an understanding of how the real rules should be applied for "serious" play. Outside of the friendly house-rule environment, like Konstantinius says, "I just obey"!!

[ March 15, 2005, 00:30: Message edited by: Cyrus the Ringmaster ]

[Redwilde]

Originally posted by Cyrus the Ringmaster:
but it's good to have an understanding of how the real rules should be applied for "serious" play. Outside of the friendly house-rule environment, like Konstantinius says, "I just obey"!! Well, there is legal leeway for beneficial anarchy in "serious" tournament play too. The letter of the law is: "Base size is not critical provided that all bases have the same frontage and both armies use the same conventions." So its perfectly OK to bring your two-part warwagon bases to a tourney and politely ask your opponent before each round if they mind if you just use a 40x40 base, but if they'd rather go with the recommended depth you can do the 40x80. If the opposing army also has warwagons, then you could only shorten yours if theirs were also in two-parts since you both need to follow the same conventions. (Twould be kind of hard to play in the tournament if you were at different conventions :D ) But when you face someone who has also based theirs this way (not that uncommon), its pretty likely they'll want to use the more sane basing too.

Democracy in action is great, vote with your bases! Actually, it may be helpful to arrange for a bunch of warwagon with square bases games at Historicon. It helped the BUA situation a little bit when Phil saw the swelling mass revolt against allowing them in games. That approach hasn't swayed him on big boards yet, but we're still revolting. tongue.gif

[ March 15, 2005, 10:08: Message edited by: Redwilde ]

[<bob..>]

Allowing B to fight if it made a legal contact as part of a group move and is then left alone was just an interpretation I made to allow tournament games to get along without the WWg creating too many slowups. Many have suggested that I should change that and not allow B to fight without it moving in to proper contact.

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

The reason why A is an overlap and B is not, is in the rules. Read the definition of overlap to see that corner or side edge contact is needed, not front edge contact. Thus A and D are in legal overlap positions. C is in legal combat position and B is just hanging out.

Bob

Originally posted by konstantinius:
Apparently B fights only when C recoils or is destroyed (B doesn't move or slide, it fights from where it's at). Now, why A is an overlap and B isn't I can't answer; I just obey smile.gif
This 40mm base seems to have screwed the whole Wwg thing...

[Redwilde]

Originally posted by &lt;bob..&gt;:
Thus A and D are in legal overlap positions. C is in legal combat position and B is just hanging out.Yes, but since B is technically not in close combat, it should be able to provide an overlap for any enemy unit in front of A.

[Cyrus the Ringmaster]

There must be a standard accepted interpretation for "serious" play. The middle of a battle in a tournament is not a convenient place to start or attempt to resolve an argument. (I guess that is a function of this forum.) So, for purposes of tournament play, I bow to Bob's interpretation.

However, I am not completetly anarchy-free, and do not necessarily agree, particularly with the famous "Element B" dispute, so following some discussion, my own group use the following house rules;

1. Leave bases at 40 x 80.
2. Front for movement remains fixed.
3. Allow contact without restriction in all 6 areas (front, rear, 2 per flank), 1 element (first to contact; attackers choice if 2 moving simultaneously) is primary fighter, the rest are overlaps.
4. War wagon may not move if within 1 base width of any enemy (oxen must remain unhitched and wagons deployed).
5. Enemy movement not restricted by War wagons within 1 base width (no risk of the unhitched WWGs charging them). WWG may shoot at them of course, causing them problems.

Perhaps the rules and/or standard interpretation of them will change in the future. If so, I hope the above will be taken into account.

Redwilde has made a significant observation:

since B is technically not in close combat, it should be able to provide an overlap for any enemy unit in front of A. This has me scratching my brain. Under "my" house rules, element "B" would be involved in the attack on the WWG, and so not available as an overlap for A, but under the standard interpretation............

On the historical side, sadly it seems there is scant reliable evidence to include WWGs in the game anyway! (At least as depicted in the rules), but I DO like them!!! Never let the truth stand in the way of a good historical scenario!!

[ March 16, 2005, 03:30: Message edited by: Cyrus the Ringmaster ]

[DBAse]

DS wrote: "The most simple resolution is to not allow War Wagons a breakoff move."

In three less words: "The most simple resolution is to not allow War Wagons..."

DBase

[Cyrus the Ringmaster]

That would be a solution. Not to allow DBA would be another solution. I like my War Wagons.

"They can have my War Wagon when they prise it from my cold dead fingers!" (As has happened to me several times!)

[David Kuijt]

Originally posted by Cyrus the Ringmaster:
following some discussion, my own group use the following house rules;
Excellent house rules! They seem to be nearly exactly the WADBAG house rules for WWg (used at Fall In last fall) -- did you see them somewhere, or develop them independently?

[Cyrus the Ringmaster]

The rule set (much as below) came from an experienced member of our group, following much discussion, grumblings and rumblins, (mostly from me). Where he got them, I have no idea (but will ask). May well have been heavily influenced by WADBAG. Anyway, as they fit the bill very well indeed, that's what we follow now.

[ March 16, 2005, 09:56: Message edited by: Cyrus the Ringmaster ]

[Sarduri II]

Guilty, Guilty Guilty.

When I listed the rules in my email to Cyrus I did note them as;

"the most complete WarWagon variant"

- meaning "the best I'd seen" . They are indeed the WADBAG rules, as far as I could recall, which have appeared here several times.

Personally I'd just have gone for 40mm bases

[ March 16, 2005, 13:44: Message edited by: Sarduri II ]

[David Kuijt]

Originally posted by Sarduri II:

Personally I'd just have gone for 40mm bases 40mm bases would solve some problems (turning to face, extra overlaps on the wide side, etc. etc.) but I think you should still go with "no moving while in ZOC" and "no exerting a ZOC" for WWg elements.

And the 80mm deep elements sure look nice.

[Sarduri II]

I agree entirely with the rational for the Wadbag war wagon rules, but - untill someone I know develops an overwhelming passion to have a Husite army - I don't have the pressing need for the extra accuracy.

Square bases solves all the rules questions, without creating any exceptions to keep reminding people of.

...and yes, Cyrus' (40 x 80) Wagon does look impressive - especially when its burning....

[ March 16, 2005, 15:57: Message edited by: Sarduri II ]

[konstantinius]

My 2 cents:
--Wwg are based on 40x40 bases.
--Wwg fight all around, like BUA's: they could be assaulted by 4 different enemy elements, one on each side, and the combats are resolved separately. Wwg cannot be overlaped, do not recoil, do not turn to face when contacted in flank/rear, shoot all around, cannot be shot in the rear, cannot move into contact but if they somehow end up in right-to right or left-to-left front corner contact or any side edge contact they overlap said enemy.
--2 PIPs for movement (single elements or groups containing Wwg's)
--Still debating whether Wwg exert ZOC; perhaps their shooting capability is their ZOC. Could there be supporting infantry that could "sortie" ahead and harass the enemy (thus enforcing ZOC)? They are certainly subject to enemy ZOC since I assume that moving, stopping, unhitching, and getting into position could not be performed under enemy pressure.

[Cyrus the Ringmaster]

The "cannot be shot in the rear" fits in nicely with the all-edge fighting characteristic of the Wwg.

Regarding ZoCs, Wwgs in different armies would have a different rationale for having or not having ZoCs. Ask yourself "What is a ZoC?" Is it light troops exerting or disputing control over an area; or is it longer range interdictive shooting/missile fire. Or either. Or both. Or just the threat of the main troops type in the element attacking, causing an enemy in their ZoC to act defensively. (Would any missile troops really try to rush the enemy??!) Or something else.

Light troop ZoC-ing can be 360 degree capable, though classically only deployed towards the enemy (i.e. from the front of an element). DBA ZoCs seem to apply to enemy passing in FRONT of the element only, and there is no specific ZoC rule for missile troops, so it would seem that a DBA ZoC is caused by either;

a)The threat of the element rushing forwards. (Which missile troops are unlikely to do and Wwgs can't do; = no Wwg ZoC.)

or

b) Light troops only being deployed to the front. (Where is the "front" of a Wwg, and how many light troops would it take to effectively skirmish all round a 40x80 cluster of Wwgs??? = No Wwg ZoC)

If a ZoC CAN be applied purely by long range missile fire only, then a Wwg ZoC would exist, and be 360 degree in effect. (But I don’t see it.)

As far as my 1/60b Wwgs go, I imagine that most of the time the archers would be understandably reluctant to dismount as light infantry, and the few supporting infantry included in the Wwg element I do not see as being free to, or capable of, exerting a ZoC by themselves. Shooting forms an alternative to a ZoC quite adequately. (If only they had 2 shots! Sigh!) As for other and non-shooting Wwgs, any opinions?

No doubt that the 40x40 base Wwg do make life a lot easier, but 40x80 is the required size, and is what players have, unless they have built a convertible. The WADBAG rules take care of the problems, and, as noted by David and Sarduri, they DO look good.

"Burning" huh? You hear that rumbling in the distance, Sarduri??

[Nils Kullinger]

Hi, all WWg-fans out there!

I am part of the small but growing DBA-community in Sweden. We are trying to translate and clarify part of the rules to make them available for Swedish players. (Of course, we will solve any copyright problems first.)

In the process we are discussing many rules issues, one of them being WWg. We very strongly lean towards the following interpretation (I am referring to Bobs diagram below):

1. The first element to contact a side edge and a corner of the WWg with its own front edge and front corner is the attacker. This can either be B or C. If they contact simultaneously, it is up to the active player. (Since the side edge now counts as the front edge, both corners are now front corners.)

2. Only one overlap can be counted on each flank. If B is the attacker, A is the overlapper on one flank. C or D (active players choice) is overlapper on the other flank, but not both.

These rules are the same as Cyrus' rules 1-3 (except perhaps that only 2 overlaps are allowed). In my opinion they are an interpretaion that requires virtually no stretching of the rules (only allowing C as overlap) and make a lot of sence.

Our approach to interpretaion is somewhat different from Bob's. We basically agree to do the following, in this order:

1. Follow the rules as written.
2a. When unclear, go for the most playable option.
2b. Follow international concensus if playable.
3. Follow authors intent, but only if very clear.

Since Phil does not seem to be the person most devoted to DBA these days, we see no reason to put his intent (rather than written rules) before the opinions of the DBA-community.

very best,
Nils Kullinger, Sweden

[Cyrus the Ringmaster]

Hi Nils,

I admire your tackling the interpretation of these rules in a foreign language. When you get your rule-book done in Swedish, send me a copy; it might make more sense!! But seriously folks, there seems to be a fair number of Wwg rules adjustments in use that are similar, and it's always good to hear how others play them. Like I said below, I hope that if there is ever a 2.3 the opinions on this forum are taken into account. By the way, I must divert any credit for the rules I listed to WADBAG, as that is who they were derived from.

[Redwilde]

Originally posted by Nils Kullinger:
Since Phil does not seem to be the person most devoted to DBA these days, we see no reason to put his intent (rather than written rules) before the opinions of the DBA-community.
Good call. DBA is definitely the unwanted stepchild in the WRG house. Phil's made it pretty clear that he doesn't want to spend any more time than is absolutely necessary (and then, not even that much) thinking about updates and clarifications for it.

[<Bob.>]

Read the rules on
MOVING INTO CONTACT WITH ENEMY

B cannot legally contact the War Wagon because

"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. "

It is very clear that a single element can legally contact an enemy element only if it ends in front edge AND front corner-to-corner contact.

When Phil writes of WarWagons,
"Since they could fight all-round, they count the first edge in contact as their front edge when in close combat"

He does not imply the first illegal contact but the first legal contact.

[Redwilde]

Originally posted by &lt;Bob.&gt;:

"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. "

It is very clear that a single element can legally contact an enemy element only if it ends in front edge AND front corner-to-corner contact.

When Phil writes of WarWagons,
"Since they could fight all-round, they count the first edge in contact as their front edge when in close combat"

He does not imply the first illegal contact but the first legal contact. That's actually open to a lot of interpretation. When does the act of 'ending' take place? To me, you can move into contact along the rear half, because after you finish calculating what becomes the front edge, it is legal. The whole process is not 'ended' if there are still unresolved calculations.

[konstantinius]

Regarding Wwg ZOC: we should have one rule, not variations according to what type the particular Wwg might be. Try to keep it simple.
IF there is ZOC, then I too think it should be 360 around.

To Nils from Sweden: well said in all but one; however vague the rules might be on other things, they are pretty clear on this: B does not constitute legal combat contact.

The problem with B arose only after the conversion to 80mm bases. The existing Wwg rules can be applied very nicely to 40x40 elements. This, to me, is the simplest and easiest way to fix it.
On the other hand the modeler part in me wants to keep 80mm becaue they make visually attractive elements, almost dioramas in 15.

...and as far as sticking to 80 because most players already have them, I know that there's folks out there who, just like me, simply position their 40 Wwg on an 80 piece of balsa for the needs of the particular battle while they wait and pray for the hour of liberation smile.gif tongue.gif

[<Bob.>]

Originally posted by Redwilde:
That's actually open to a lot of interpretation. When does the act of 'ending' take place? To me, you can move into contact along the rear half, because after you finish calculating what becomes the front edge, it is legal. The whole process is not 'ended' if there are still unresolved calculations.I do not know what space-time continuum others play in but in mine an element's move ends when it ends moving. It cannot end the moving in an illegal contact and then call the contact legal after, after the end of moving. If at the immediate point of contact the move will be illegal, then the move cannot be made in the first place.

[David Kuijt]

Originally posted by &lt;Bob.&gt;:
It cannot end the moving in an illegal contact and then call the contact legal after, after the end of moving. If at the immediate point of contact the move will be illegal, then the move cannot be made in the first place. That's not correct, Bob. There are examples where the move is illegal at the point of contact, and the element finishes the move, and then after the move is finished the move becomes legal. A group contacting a single LH, or a single Ps in good going, is one such example.

[Nils Kullinger]

Hello again,

I'm feeling this discussion getting a little tense. Can't we agree that this rule is somewhat open to interpretation. The rewriting of the WWg rule opens for an 80 mm front edge, something that just isn't covered in the rules.

I'm not saying that either WADBAGS or Bob's interpretations are wrong, but they are both interpretations.

I do not agree that the rule is clear on when one should start considering the side edge the front edge. At contact is a perfectly valid interpretation in my opinion.

I'd like to go for the most playable option, or the one that changes game dynamics the least. That would of course require playtesting that I have note done, so I might well change my mind in the future. But I can see a lot of possiblities for cheesy play with Bob's interpretation. A Hussite army could cover 40 cm (ie two thirds) of the table with warwagons at setup, which could then only be attacked by five enemy elements (+ two overlaps). The end result just seems so silly.

I would agree with Bob if the rules were clear on this matter, but they are not.

However, I do feel that the rules are clear on basing and ZOC for WWg. Basing is 80 mm, WWg only have ZOC to their front. Anything else is clearly changing the rules, not filling gaps in them.

By the way. I must express my deepest respect for the enormous work Bob (and others?) have put in to "the commentary". I/we agree wholeheartedly with most of it, even if not everything.

[xeswop]

I went into my archives for Phil's view on this. Here is a message sent by Mike Stelzer to Phil asking about the two side contacts
"Original Message -----

From: Stelzone@aol.com

To: pc.barker@blueyonder.co.uk

Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 5:31 PM

Subject: War-wagon overlaps and more


Mr. Barker,

I have met you at Historicon and love DBA. I had questions about the new Wwg rules and Bob has asked me to forward them to you.

1) When two units contact a Wwg on its long side, does one act as an overlap and one the attacker or are they two separate attacks?

Phil
One*does not fight that bound. There is no provision in DBA (as there is in DBM) for one to count as an overlap, nor for an element not in a BUA to fight twice.

*---
In a followup message I wrote:
"The only other problem area is the WWg counting the first side contacted as the front. Players want to get overlaps if they attack the flank or rear but the overlap rules refer to mutual right-to-right and left-to-left corner contact. This is not the case when the attack is at the flank or rear. I said I thought that there could not be overlaps if flank or rear attacks. Others thought this make the WWg to strong if no overlaps allowed with flank and rear attacks. You told Mike Stelzone that there were not overlaps allowed. No one thinks there should be two flank attacks allowed. Overlaps seem reasonable. Not request to change the rules on this, only to know your intent on how to handle elements to the side of the attackers on a flank or rear."


Phil
"As for the long flank, when the enemy contact it, it is still a flank and they line up with it as if it is a flank. It is then treated as a front."
---------

So it is a flank when contacted and attacker lines up as if a flank, a legal flank contact. One the legal contact is made, the flank counts as if the front.

[xeswop]

Yes, thank you for mentioning this as this proves my point for in the case of LH and Ps there is an explicit override of the general contact rule. There is no such explicit override of the contact rule for War Wagons. The first contact must be a legal flank contact, front corner to front corner.

Originally posted by David Kuijt:
Originally posted by &lt;Bob.&gt;:
It cannot end the moving in an illegal contact and then call the contact legal after, after the end of moving. If at the immediate point of contact the move will be illegal, then the move cannot be made in the first place.

That's not correct, Bob. There are examples where the move is illegal at the point of contact, and the element finishes the move, and then after the move is finished the move becomes legal. A group contacting a single LH, or a single Ps in good going, is one such example.

[xeswop]

Some good comments by Nils but I do want to clarify one point. The WADBAG folks are presenting a set of rules different from what is in DBA. Local variations/home rules are great and my group has some too. What I am doing with my Commentary is trying to show people what the rules actually mean.

So these two are not different interpretations as Nils suggests. Rather, WADBAG presenets alternative and even clearer rules for using WWg in a game. I am trying to help people understand what Phil intends for WWg in a game and set up a standard based as closely to the rules as possible for play among those who come from different backgrounds.

Originally posted by Nils Kullinger:
Hello again,

I'm feeling this discussion getting a little tense. Can't we agree that this rule is somewhat open to interpretation. The rewriting of the WWg rule opens for an 80 mm front edge, something that just isn't covered in the rules.

I'm not saying that either WADBAGS or Bob's interpretations are wrong, but they are both interpretations.

[David Kuijt]

Originally posted by Bob.:

So these two are not different interpretations as Nils suggests. Rather, WADBAG presenets alternative and even clearer rules for using WWg in a game. I am trying to help people understand what Phil intends for WWg in a game and set up a standard based as closely to the rules as possible for play among those who come from different backgrounds.
Good point, Bob. The WADBAG rules are house rules. Even if lots of people use them, they are still a change from the listed WWg rules (especially in the parts where WWg doesn't exert ZOC and can't move in ZOC -- those are modifications I feel are VERY important to the right feel for WWg, but they are also clearly NOT in the rules as written).

[Redwilde]

Hi Bob,

Phil's answer definitely provides clarification, thanks for digging that up. But for the commentary, its worth noting that this is not an obvious answer based on the text of the rules.

The unclarity in the book comes from piecing together:

MOVING INTO CONTACT WITH ENEMY p.9 "only if a single element or at least one element of a group ends in both front edge..."

and:

CLOSE COMBAT p.10 "contacted to flank or rearby an enemy front edgeturn to face the first to so contact at the end of the movement phase."

The confusion arises from whether or not the use of 'end' on p.9 refers to the end of the individual unit's move or to the end of the movement phase when facing adjustments are made as described on p.10.

Its also worth noting that as part of a group move that ends in legal contact with another enemy unit, an attacking unit can contact the rear half of a warwagon and then have a legal combat if it was the first contact against the warwagon.

[<Bob..>]

Good question by "Redwilde." The second rule about turning at the end of movement still depends on a legal flank contact at the end of the element's move. The only exception as stated in the rules to the frontedge and front corner contact is when contact is on any part of a Ps or a LH by an element in a group.

So when an element makes front edge and front corner contact on the flank an enemy element, then they stay in that configuration until the end of all movement. Then the enemy turns to face.

In the War Wagon situation
"Since they could fight all-round, they count the first edge in contact as their front edge when in close combat"

At the end of all movement, when the active player picks the WWg and its enemy to do close combat, the first enemy element moving into legal contact then fights the WWg. The WWg counts the first edge in legal contact as a front edge only "when in close combat."

When is "in close combat?" Starting with the first combat in a bound until all combats are done or only during the time the players resolve and make outcomes for the specific WWg combat.

[Redwilde]

Originally posted by &lt;Bob..&gt;:
When is "in close combat?" Starting with the first combat in a bound until all combats are done or only during the time the players resolve and make outcomes for the specific WWg combat. Are you sure about that? If so, then a warwagon in base-to-base contact but not yet in close combat could engage in missile fire. Distant Shooting p.10 is limited to units "not in close combat"

Which also adds confusion back to War Wagons p.4 "they count the first edge in contact as their front edge when in close combat."

Defining the 'when' of 'when in close combat' is a pretty nice muddle. I think the tidiest definition -- not supported by any text in the book -- is it starts at the end of the movement phase when units turn to face.

[konstantinius]

Distant Shooting is not considered Close Combat. It is a separate phase. Close Combat requires actual edge or corner-to-corner contact and is defined in the rules as well as Bob's Commmentary. Is this were the misunderstanding is coming from, Redwilde, or am I understanding your question wrong?

[Redwilde]

You're misunderstanding. I wasn't raising a question so much as pointing out a problem with Bob's definition of 'when is a unit in close combat'.

He was just putting forth that a unit isn't 'in close combat' until the start of its first bound of combat. That's highly problematical since then units that are in contact with the enemy would not yet be considered 'in close combat' during the firing phase, and consequently newly contacted units would be eligable to fire.

I've always considered opposing units to be in close combat from the moment they make contact. however, that definition doesn't work well with Phil's opinion about moving directly into contact with the rear half of a warwagon. (If a unit were 'in close combat' at the moment of contact, there would be no problem with moving up to the rear half of a wagon -- at the end of the move you would be in legal contact with a front corner since warwagons' front edge is redefined 'when they are in close combat')

Therefore, I think it is probably best to consider there to be a Adjusting Facing Phase between movement and shooting. During this phase, units are turned to face if necessary, new front edges are adjudicated for warwagons, and newly contacted units become 'in close combat'.

[<Bob.>]

Good points by Redwilde. When does close combat occur? He points out the rule in the Distant Shooting section is that

"These can shoot at any 1 enemy ... but not if either shooters or target are in close combat or currently providing rear support or counting as an overlap, "

In the Moving into Contact section, there is
"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. "

Further in the Close Combat section the text says that :
"It occurs when elements move into, or remain in, both front edge and front corner-to-corner contact with an enemy element or front edge contact with a camp or BUA. "

But in reality, Close Combat occurs when the players roll dice for the outcome, Phil has not tried to be so subtle to differentiate between elements in position for close combat and the resolution of close contact. The rules are just not that sophisticated. Phil, I suspect , thinks of the units represented by elements in the game as actually fighing from the time they are in legal contact to do so. The outcome is only known when the players roll roll the dice.

So we reallly have a condition of "Close Combat Contact." This is contact that permits an outcome to be determined. Thus in the 2nd quote about moving into contact, the phrase "close combat" should be "close combat contact." The same is true for the Distant Shooting section. Elements cannot shoot or be shot at if they are in Close Combat Contact. Can elements be shot at if they are in a legal partial contact situation? When a group hits a number of elements less than a base width apart?

AAAAxxBBBB
CCCCDDDDxxSSSS

A and B face down, C,D and S(shooter) face up, x is space. Can S shoot at B which is in contact but not close comat contact?

Bact to the WWg question. An element cannot make an illegal contact on a WWg, such as contact a side and a rear corner in the first place as a single element or a part of a group unless some other member of the group makes a legal contact. Thus there is never a question of making an illegal contact and then claiming it is then legal. This can be done only in the specificlly stated situation of a group contacting a Ps and LH.

My concern about when does "Close Combat" occur had to do with the status of the WWg when an enemy is in a legal close combat contact with the front corner. What happens if a friendly Psiloi recoils into the "real" front of the WWg while a side counts as the front edge when in close combat.

[Redwilde]

Originally posted by &lt;Bob.&gt;:
Can elements be shot at if they are in a legal partial contact situation? When a group hits a number of elements less than a base width apart?

AAAAxxBBBB
CCCCDDDDxxSSSS

A and B face down, C,D and S(shooter) face up, x is space. Can S shoot at B which is in contact but not close comat contact?The simplest way around this problem, rather than introducing the complexity of a phrase such as "close combat contact", or gods forbid, suggesting such a phrase to Phil -- would be to interpret the Distant Shooting language from "but not if either shooters or target are in close combat" to "but not if either shooters or target are in enemy contact".

As you've said Bob, its unlikely Phil has thought hard about using "in close combat" as a precise technical phrase. This interpretation would seem to be in the spirit of his intent, without risking asking him and then having him provide an off-the-cuff loopy answer.

[<Bob..>]

Folks should note that I do not make up all this stuff.

I was looking at HOTT for something today, getting ready for the Big HOTT tournament at Cold Wars. I noticed in the distant shooting section a reference to "close combat contact." I looked in the glossary and there was the whole discussion I gave below. I do not remember but maybe I brought up the same issue back when HOTT was being revised, or at least it was in the back of my mind when I wrote the text below. CCC does make the situations more clear. If DBA gets revised again, I will bring it up.

I see DBM3.1 is released with some of the same wording as HOTT for some things and some useful implications for DBA.