Column flank attack clarification

A place to ask specific rules questions about TRIUMPH!
Rod
Sergeant
Posts: 420
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2016 3:29 pm

Re: Column flank attack clarification

Post by Rod » Fri Apr 19, 2019 11:44 am

- 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)
Bill, you are right, I skimmed this line to fast because there is rear support. The skirmisher attack has to be done first and only if it wins does it strip the rear support. Just touching the pike block does not unpack it, you have to conduct the combat. The active player decides the order and you take the results immediately for each battle.
User avatar
Bill Hupp
Companion-at-Arms
Posts: 232
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2016 3:55 pm
Location: Glen Ellyn, Illinois
Contact:

Re: Column flank attack clarification

Post by Bill Hupp » Fri Apr 19, 2019 2:23 pm

Thanks Rod. We had a lot of these situations in the all the warband battles we played in the last 3 months including Telemon and I was never totally sure that was the right answer. It makes sense because they are working together.

That would really have made the flank attacks disruptive to the charging barbarians!

I did pick up a nuance in the desription and discussion above though. Even if you have a unit who can shatter an opponent straight up in front base contact with an opponent with support, stripping the back stand off to fight the flanking stand might be worht it. So you could do the flank attack on the back stand first, and if you win you weaken the front stand it was supporting.
Bill Hupp
Thistle & Rose Miniatures
Rod
Sergeant
Posts: 420
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2016 3:29 pm

Re: Column flank attack clarification

Post by Rod » Fri Apr 19, 2019 3:19 pm

Exactly, it just depends.

In this case the trade off is that if the Skirmisher loses, it would have backed off and the front attack is not longer overlapped and the door is open for falling back.

But Skirmishers cannot take a pike block apart simply by touching it, they have to do something.
User avatar
Kontos
Companion-at-Arms
Posts: 190
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2017 8:26 pm

Re: Column flank attack clarification

Post by Kontos » Fri Apr 19, 2019 3:44 pm

Since we are on the topic of pikes, do I have this situation correct?

The Gasgan player had an unsuccessful round of attacks and they both "locked". The now active Sumerian player chooses to attack the Warband to its front with rear support.
20190419_093232_1555687787946_1555687902248.jpg
Sumerian attack
20190419_093232_1555687787946_1555687902248.jpg (1016.8 KiB) Viewed 307 times
Sadly it only pushes the Warband back and follows up. The supporting pike, not yet having fought combat, is eligible to pursue as well thus losing flank edge contact with the Gasgan Warband so no combat occurs.
20190419_093310_1555687823747_1555687877550.jpg
Pursuit
20190419_093310_1555687823747_1555687877550.jpg (1.06 MiB) Viewed 307 times
Do I have this correct? I am ok either way. I just need to know the result and why. Thanks!
Rod
Sergeant
Posts: 420
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2016 3:29 pm

Re: Column flank attack clarification

Post by Rod » Fri Apr 19, 2019 4:28 pm

not exactly, Check out 77.4b under a stand that provided rear support to a supporting stand.

Since the front stand recieved support is does pursue, but since the rear stand has an enemy in contact with it' flank either as an unresolved combat or a even a tie, it does follow.

If the pike wanted to try to keep things together, it could have chosen to fight the skirmisher first (hoping it would bugger off) and if it won, then the block would have followed up after defeating the front element.
User avatar
Kontos
Companion-at-Arms
Posts: 190
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2017 8:26 pm

Re: Column flank attack clarification

Post by Kontos » Fri Apr 19, 2019 4:39 pm

Damn eyes getting old. Missed 77.4b. And how dare you call a Gasgan Warband "skirmisher"! :D
Rod
Sergeant
Posts: 420
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2016 3:29 pm

Re: Column flank attack clarification

Post by Rod » Fri Apr 19, 2019 4:43 pm

Sorry, no insult to the Gasgan Warband meant, I was actually carrying over the Skirmisher term from the previous discussion without thinking.

Busy proofing the hardcopy version so slightly distracted :P
User avatar
Kontos
Companion-at-Arms
Posts: 190
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2017 8:26 pm

Re: Column flank attack clarification

Post by Kontos » Fri Apr 19, 2019 5:15 pm

War averted. 8-)
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 7:45 pm

Hi,

The loss of rear support is indeed in a different section: “Fighting to the Flank or Rear”, not Rear Support.
65.1 A stand that is fighting to its flank or rear may not receive rear support in this close combat phase.
The original combat factors in my example took this into account.

Unless I missed something, this does not change the Gasgan vs Sumerian result, because in that example the element receiving rear support was not contacted in the flank, even though the supporting element was.

Alan
User avatar
Kontos
Companion-at-Arms
Posts: 190
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2017 8:26 pm

Re: Column flank attack clarification

Post by Kontos » Fri Apr 19, 2019 8:10 pm

I am not sure that applies as "fighting to its flank or rear" is different than "contacted on its flank or rear". I believe that is an important distinction. A pike element fighting to its front can receive rear support even if contacted on its flank. Am I wrong here?
Post Reply