Column flank attack clarification

A place to ask specific rules questions about TRIUMPH!
Rod
Sergeant
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2016 3:29 pm

Re: Column flank attack clarification

Post by Rod » Fri Apr 19, 2019 9:15 pm

Kontos,
That is correct the fight is always to the front if there is front contact, so in this case the skirmisher is not the fight. So the pike gets rear support to the front, unless the active player chooses to fight with the skirmisher first to attack the rear rank first to peel them off, but he has to win the fight to do it.


So in reality the fight to the front is the same in either case. You will see that while these two situations look different the effects are very similar, and this is intentional.
User avatar
ferrency
Levy
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 9:50 pm

Re: Column flank attack clarification

Post by ferrency » Fri Apr 19, 2019 11:56 pm

Okay, this may be ambiguous.

This applies:
64.2 If a stand starts the close combat phase with an enemy stand in flank contact or rear contact with it, the stand is said to be fighting to its flank or fighting to its rear. That stand and the contacting enemy stand are eligible for close combat.
The next paragraph says that front combat takes precedence, but it is not clear that the condition “fighting to its flank” or “fighting to its rear” is removed from the stand when fighting to the front.
64.3 Front contact has priority over flank contact or rear contact for close combat. Therefore, stands that start and remain in front contact during the close combat phase must participate in close combat against each other even if one or both stands are otherwise eligible to fight to their flank or rear.
The interpretation I described in my initial message was that in my example, the front rank of pike was both fighting to its front and fighting to its rear. This does not seem to be correct, in retrospect, but it hinges on interpretation of 64.1 through 64.3.

If a flanked element continues to get support, we’ve been doing that wrong. I don’t see any clarifying diagrams that apply to rear support with flank contact.

Thanks,
Alan
Rod
Sergeant
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2016 3:29 pm

Re: Column flank attack clarification

Post by Rod » Sat Apr 20, 2019 12:06 am

Those are the relevant rules and the intent in you situation is that the rear support would apply to the front combat. I realize flank combat in Triumph is quite different from DBA and other DBM style games which could confuse people familiar with the other systems.

There is no appedix diagram representing that specific situation, but it is not a bad suggestion.
User avatar
Bill Hupp
Companion-at-Arms
Posts: 229
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2016 3:55 pm
Location: Glen Ellyn, Illinois
Contact:

Re: Column flank attack clarification

Post by Bill Hupp » Mon Apr 22, 2019 12:02 am

All of these are great ideas for diagrams. We are visual hobby after all.

A picture is worth 1000 words!
Bill Hupp
Thistle & Rose Miniatures
User avatar
Bill Hupp
Companion-at-Arms
Posts: 229
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2016 3:55 pm
Location: Glen Ellyn, Illinois
Contact:

Re: Column flank attack clarification

Post by Bill Hupp » Mon Apr 22, 2019 12:19 am

Alan,

And I agree as to your point about it being ambiguous. I wasn’t sure we’d been playing it right, nor am I sure we’ve played it consistently.
Bill Hupp
Thistle & Rose Miniatures
User avatar
Bill Hupp
Companion-at-Arms
Posts: 229
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2016 3:55 pm
Location: Glen Ellyn, Illinois
Contact:

Re: Column flank attack clarification

Post by Bill Hupp » Mon Apr 22, 2019 12:22 am

The questions and rules you consult vary with the armies being played.

I need to take some notes and make some tactical reminder lists.
Bill Hupp
Thistle & Rose Miniatures
El' Jocko
Grand Master WGC
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 4:38 pm

Re: Column flank attack clarification

Post by El' Jocko » Mon Apr 22, 2019 8:42 pm

ferrency wrote:
Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:34 pm
Hello! Long time listener, first time caller.
Hi Alan, glad to see you on the forum.

As some of you know, I played a bunch of DBA several years ago; and now I'm finally transitioning to Triumph!

We've been playing a lot of Classic games recently: Alexander, LA Persians, Later Hoplites, and Thracians. The rule book is excellent, so I only have one situation that I am not sure we're handling correctly. (Note to the future: we're using the Triumph v1.0 rules here.)

In the first image, a line of Heavy Foot contacted two ranks of Pike, and a Skirmisher on the right flank has closed the door in the old-school way.

Here's my excruciatingly detailed interpretation of what happens, according to our interpretation of the rules:
- The HF is in front contact with the pike (17.1) and the Sk is in flank contact with both ranks of pike (17.3).
- The Pk in the first rank is fighting to its front (64.1) and its flank (64.2)
The Pike in the first rank has an enemy stand in front contact (Heavy Foot) and an enemy stand in flank contact (Skirmisher). Front contact and flank contact are intended to describe the state of the stands, regardless of which stands are actually paired up for close combat. However, the phrases "fighting to its front" and "fighting to its flank" are intended to describe the pair of stands that are actually engaged in close combat. Since the Pike must fight the Heavy Foot, the intention is that the Pike is "fighting to its front" and is not "fighting to its flank".

Looking at 64.2, I can see how you came to your interpretation. The definition of when a stand is "fighting to its flank" could be made more precise.
- The Pk in the first rank and the HF must fight each other (64.3)
- The combat factors before rolling are Pk: 2 (+3 vs foot, no rear support because of flank contact, -1 for flank contact) vs HF: 4 (+4 vs foot)
I think it's already been pointed out that the Pk receives rear support, despite the flank contact. This is where the exact meaning of "fighting to its flank" come into play. Since the Pike isn't "fighting to its flank", 65.1 doesn't apply.
- If the Pk in the first rank loses the combat but is not doubled, it is destroyed when it attempts to fall back, because it has flank contact (79.2a)
- The Pk in the second rank is fighting to its flank against the Sk (64.2)
- The question: This close combat can still happen, even though the Sk has already provided a flank contact penalty to the other Pk and may have caused it to be destroyed when it fell back?
- That combat is Pk: 2 (+3 vs foot, -1 for flank contact) vs. Sk: 2 (+2 vs foot)
- If the Pk loses but is not doubled, it conforms by pivoting and falls back, because there is room to do so (65.4).

Are all of these correct? As noted, the only part we aren't sure of is whether the Skirmisher gets to fight as well as providing all of its other benefits. I haven't found any rules suggesting this combat won't happen, but it seems really powerful so I wanted to be sure.

IMG_1691.JPG

When we rolled the combat, the HF doubled the first rank of Pk. This destroys the Pk, and the HF must follow up because it doubled the enemy.

As seen in the second image, this leaves the HF in front contact with the 2nd rank of Pk, and the Sk is still in flank contact with that Pk. This seems to change the situation: while before the Pk was able to fight the Sk to its side because it had no front contact, now the frontal combat takes precedence; but the HF has already fought, so no further combat happens this turn. Is that correct?
No, the Skirmisher does get to fight. Because the second Pike stand and the pursuing Heavy Foot stand didn't start the close combat phase in this position, 64.3 doesn't come into play here. The intention is to make sure that combat occurs front-to-front whenever that is possible. But if fighting front-to-front isn't possible (in this case, because the Heavy Foot has already fought in close combat) then fighting to the flank or rear is allowed.


If that's the case, the choice here seems to be between:
- Fight HF vs Pk1 first, risking doubling them and not being able to fight the second combat
- Fight Sk vs. Pk2 first, risking falling back and losing the flank contact on Pk1

Thanks for the clarification! I'm sorry for the verbosity, but it feels so good to have a modern rulebook with specific paragraphs to refer to, I just couldn't help myself.

IMG_1690.JPG


The final outcome of this battle between my son's Alexandrian Macedonians and my Later Hoplite Thebans was that my son destroyed me in only 3 rounds of combat, killing my general and winning 21-7.


-Alan
User avatar
ferrency
Levy
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 9:50 pm

Re: Column flank attack clarification

Post by ferrency » Tue Apr 23, 2019 1:19 pm

Thanks for the clarification, Jack! That's two things we did wrong, but I'm glad to learn how to do them correctly next time.

We were playing a lot of pike battles for a while, and this situation came up a lot in a few variations.

Thanks,
Alan
Post Reply