Simon, all very straightforward and simple but just grates slightly in that wehave a unit standing outside a wood all formed up and ready being attacked by a pike unit emerging from it. Is the commander of the unit saying to his guys " Now steady lads let us let them form up for a fair fight. Or Leonidas backing down the pass at Thermopylae to give the Persians some fighting room. Sorry but just me.

Well three thoughts:
1) need it simple and clear
2) pike real depth of whole lot is about 1/2 a base
3) if you want to stop them just step inside ...

Si

Wasn't it simple before, if you're in, you're in, if you're out, you're out? It seems pretty strange that a pike phalanx coming out of marsh/woods etc to contact troops is no worse off than the chaps sitting on dry ground waiting for them... 

On a separate topic, a discussion is taking place about defending a river bank. Adopting a similar logic to above then no bonus should be allowed for defending a river bank as the defenders would no doubt step back to allow them equal footing to the attacker.
I can see the logic of attackers assaulting a wood counting as being in the rough but the opposite of troops emerging from difficult terrain to fight troops on good ground just does not sit well with me.

Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on February 20, 2019, 10:27:50 AM

Quote from: craig.w on February 20, 2019, 05:03:16 AM
Ok, I've been doing this wrong for a year. To be honest I thought it was straightforward in the rules:

p. 90. "3. You can claim the factors for this [effects of terrain in combat] if the base your file is in contact with, or any base it is claiming for support to the rear (pikes, spears etc.) is even partly in terrain that causes such effects."

If a base is half out of terrain that affects it, fighting a base wholly in the open, then the base in the open should get the bonus. Or so I thought.

So unless there is a clarification or rule change, I'm confused.

Yes I issued a clarry about line of combat.
I'll have to find it though.

Si

??
Like Craig, I thought this was one of the clearest rules in the book. Now you are saying it doesn't apply. You can't clarify around this you would have to remove the rule completely. I think that would be a real mistake. Most gamers have no trouble with a bit of abstraction but having a pike block 90% in bad terrain and suffer no combat effects is too much.
Disclaimer -  I primarily use pike armies

Or possibly if a base is completely clear of terrain then any rear ranks are considered clear for combat purposes? (So a change to the rule as written but mitigating to a degree the scale factor of base depths)

Hmm well the clarry was at players request previously.
So let me mull over.
Personally I find it fine as it is.

In and out of terrain has no impact on defending and edge by the way.
Independent entirely.

I need to reread the pike bit as its actually how the ine of combat interacts with the ranks bonuses.
So I may be a bit hasty on the implication.

Facing a few challenges on a personal front so bear with me.

Si

Quote from: marshalney2000 on February 21, 2019, 10:32:52 AM
On a separate topic, a discussion is taking place about defending a river bank. Adopting a similar logic to above then no bonus should be allowed for defending a river bank as the defenders would no doubt step back to allow them equal footing to the attacker.
I can see the logic of attackers assaulting a wood counting as being in the rough but the opposite of troops emerging from difficult terrain to fight troops on good ground just does not sit well with me.

Actually I cannot think of any account where the actual bank of a river is defended.  The aim was usually to attack the enemy as they were crossing such that a fraction of the force had already crossed.  You then drove them back into the river where they drowned.   The reason is quite simple, if you are stationary on the bank of the river you are easy to bypass.   If you are back from the river edge you retain manouvreability and can react to where they will cross.   Also river banks are irregular shapes so difficult to maintain a cohesive line in front of them.

Richard

Quote from: lionheartrjc on February 21, 2019, 07:10:08 PM

Quote from: marshalney2000 on February 21, 2019, 10:32:52 AM
On a separate topic, a discussion is taking place about defending a river bank. Adopting a similar logic to above then no bonus should be allowed for defending a river bank as the defenders would no doubt step back to allow them equal footing to the attacker.
I can see the logic of attackers assaulting a wood counting as being in the rough but the opposite of troops emerging from difficult terrain to fight troops on good ground just does not sit well with me.

Actually I cannot think of any account where the actual bank of a river is defended.  The aim was usually to attack the enemy as they were crossing such that a fraction of the force had already crossed.  You then drove them back into the river where they drowned.   The reason is quite simple, if you are stationary on the bank of the river you are easy to bypass.   If you are back from the river edge you retain manouvreability and can react to where they will cross.   Also river banks are irregular shapes so difficult to maintain a cohesive line in front of them.

Richard

Issus, off the top of my head.

Quote from: RobAustin on February 21, 2019, 10:51:39 PM

Quote from: lionheartrjc on February 21, 2019, 07:10:08 PM

Quote from: marshalney2000 on February 21, 2019, 10:32:52 AM
On a separate topic, a discussion is taking place about defending a river bank. Adopting a similar logic to above then no bonus should be allowed for defending a river bank as the defenders would no doubt step back to allow them equal footing to the attacker.
I can see the logic of attackers assaulting a wood counting as being in the rough but the opposite of troops emerging from difficult terrain to fight troops on good ground just does not sit well with me.

Actually I cannot think of any account where the actual bank of a river is defended.  The aim was usually to attack the enemy as they were crossing such that a fraction of the force had already crossed.  You then drove them back into the river where they drowned.   The reason is quite simple, if you are stationary on the bank of the river you are easy to bypass.   If you are back from the river edge you retain manouvreability and can react to where they will cross.   Also river banks are irregular shapes so difficult to maintain a cohesive line in front of them.

Richard

Issus, off the top of my head.

Indeed.

To say not many armies defended river banks is missing the point a bit. There are countless occasions where armies defended a river bank. No battle happened because the opposition didn't try and cross, knowing they would be at a disadvantage. The battles where they got across and were then hit certainly happened but were a mix of clever generals trying to cut an army in two or the defending generals didn't get to the spot where their opponents crossed in time.

I perhaps didn't quite explain myself clearly enough. 

Read the account. (Arrian II 10-11).  Arrian says the steep banks that broke up the phalanx formation, but the implication is the phalanx was attacked after its formation was broken.
(Note it also appears to have had no effect on the cavalry, so the banks cannot have been steep everywhere). 

The thing is the effect you want from a river bank is to attack the enemy when they haven't had a chance to reform after the crossing.  So for a stream/river crossing, there is an argument that the UG should have to clear the entire feature, but you don't need to be sitting right on the edge of the river to get benefit from defeinding the bank.

I am not however in favour of this for woods or other terrain features  They mostly did not have regular clearly defined edges with the exception of cultivated fields.  Also from a game perspective it has a very negative effect on the game, resulting in stalemates where neither side can attack the other.

Richard

Quote from: lionheartrjc on February 22, 2019, 06:58:56 AM

I am not however in favour of this for woods or other terrain features  They mostly did not have regular clearly defined edges with the exception of cultivated fields.  Also from a game perspective it has a very negative effect on the game, resulting in stalemates where neither side can attack the other.

Richard

Was this a theoretical negative effect or an actual one? I've played in 4 comps, one in the UK and three in Oz, using the rules as written. I've never had this problem of opponents hiding in terrain causing a stalemate. I've used predominantly cavalry armies and opponents have utilised terrain if they could. What's wrong with that? To be honest, I have more of a problem with pikes emerging out of woods or ploughed fields none the worse for it, than someone skulking in woods.

Quote from: craig.w on February 22, 2019, 02:23:52 PM

Was this a theoretical negative effect or an actual one? I've played in 4 comps, one in the UK and three in Oz, using the rules as written. I've never had this problem of opponents hiding in terrain causing a stalemate. I've used predominantly cavalry armies and opponents have utilised terrain if they could. What's wrong with that? To be honest, I have more of a problem with pikes emerging out of woods or ploughed fields none the worse for it, than someone skulking in woods.

In the game that prompted this, the Romans had managed to cover both their flanks with woods and fit their entire army in between. Now, in a tournament game, I likely would have just sit back and played for a draw, but since we wanted a battle we pressed forward.

We moved the xystophoroi through one of the woods come around the flank. The Roman player moved his cavalry to sit right on the edge of the woods, but with his unit entirely outside. A good move under the old interpretation. But under the new interpretation, the Xystophoroi would also be out of the woods. So, in this case, he decided to defend within the woods so that both would be disordered (and the Xystophoroi would lose the charging lancer bonus).

Now, as Richard said, this (the new interpretation) may not be a bad way to look at it for woods and especially for cavalry as the defender outside the terrain. After all, I think we assume that defending cavalry (as well as foot Devastating Chargers, etc.) make a short countercharge that we do not move on the table. That is why cavalry that shoot in defense suffer a +1 to the opponent in charge combat, right? So, in trying to defend the wood edge from enemy exiting, they would have to time their countercharge just right. But for a foot unit standing outside the terrain defending against units exiting, what does it mean? It all seems more complex than we thought at first blush.

We are currently in a position then that the rule as written is not being played in some places. There is no official errata or clarry for this. We have a competition in Sydney in 1 weeks time. As it stands what is written in the rules is the only "interpretation" available.

Always play it as written unless there is an official clarry....
Otherwise chaos ensues.

Alas as some know I am a little "distracted" at present.
Under normal times I would have finalised and issues a response by now.
Apologies as real life ha interfered a little.

Simon