Pike supporting Pike-time for a change?

Anything else related to the TRIUMPH! rules
michaelguth
Levy
Posts: 21
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2016 12:14 am

Pike supporting Pike-time for a change?

Postby michaelguth » Fri Sep 29, 2017 2:56 pm

Games last evening with 4 pointy things rule, armies with 4 or more pike. Saw a whole bunch of weird stuff which was difficult to solve using the rules.

We had the pike sandwhich :

BLADE1
pike^a
pike^b
BLADE2

Blade player's turn, conclude Blade 2 fights pike b at 5-2, pike b no longer provides support, blade 1 fights pikea at 5-3;

BUT, BLADE 2 LOSES!

BLADE1
pikea^
pikeb^ formerly in contact with BLADE2 which has recoiled out of the picture...

DOES pikeb now provide rear support again~!!!! Obviously not? Prove it based on the text.

We had the open faced pike sandwhich: Simple

BLADE
pikea^B
pikeb^LADE2

Simple, pikes are3+2-1 for overlap of blade 2, with friction kill if pikes recoil.

But, then we had the half open face pike sandwhich, where blade 2 only contacts the supporting element pike b. IT DOES NOT TURN.

BLADE
pikea^
pikeb^B
LADE2

Assume pike b no longer provides support as it is now fighting blade 2. BUT, why should the pikes be worse off in this case than if Blade two hit BOTH pike elements in the flank? (They are, because now the blade player can kill both pikes instead ofjust one).

And then the real weirdness. What happens if pike b is hit on the flank as illustrated as the result of a FOLLOWUP move by BLADE2????? So, Blade 2 is not fighting pike b this turn???

We spent a ton of time trying to get that out of the rules. We still did not.

Historical Interlude: Onasander, in The General cautions against thinning out the phalanx to avoid being outflanked, but states that if attacked to the rear, 'He commands those who are encircled to turn their backs to the backs of the front ranks and fight on a double front.' I expect to find that Swiss pike and also Scots had all around defensive capability.

Proposal. A pike unit with pike support is treated as a single element. Any contact with the flank or rear of the unit is treated as an overlap. Any rear or side edge contact prevents recoil of the leading element. Any result which would cause loss of the pike is treated as destroying the front element.

michaelguth
Levy
Posts: 21
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2016 12:14 am

Re: Pike supporting Pike-time for a change?

Postby michaelguth » Fri Sep 29, 2017 3:02 pm

Let's try the half open pike diagram again.....


Blade1
pikea^
pikeb^B
xxxxxxL
xxxxxxA
xxxxxxD
xxxxxxE
xxxxxx2

The X's are place holders to make up for outlook's annoying habit of getting rid of spaces at the beginning of my diagrams.

So blade 2 has hit supporting pike b, and only supporting pike b in the flank. The two cases are 1. It moves into flank contact with hits pike b in its own bound.2. It hits pike b in the flank as a result of a follow up in an unrelated combat, don't ask how, it just did..... AND EVEN 3. What if Blade 2 moved into flank contact with pikeb and then did not cause a recoil????

Ouch.

User avatar
David Kuijt
Grand Master WGC
Posts: 575
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 4:44 pm
Location: MD suburbs of Washington DC

Re: Pike supporting Pike-time for a change?

Postby David Kuijt » Fri Sep 29, 2017 8:47 pm

michaelguth wrote:DOES pikeb now provide rear support again~!!!! Obviously not? Prove it based on the text.


Why do you say obviously not? Rules requiring a memory of what just happened are not something we like. Why shouldn't it provide rear support?
DK

michaelguth
Levy
Posts: 21
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2016 12:14 am

Re: Pike supporting Pike-time for a change?

Postby michaelguth » Sat Sep 30, 2017 1:47 am

DK, I have no objection either way. They were my pikes that were getting hit at all angles, bravely holding the end of the line. The rule about not turning to face on contact just had this as an interesting an perhaps unanticipated consequence. Just seemed strange to the 4 of us when it happened. A bit difficult to parse out from the rules, and not sure if there was an authors' intent we should be considering.

Mike

User avatar
David Kuijt
Grand Master WGC
Posts: 575
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 4:44 pm
Location: MD suburbs of Washington DC

Re: Pike supporting Pike-time for a change?

Postby David Kuijt » Sat Sep 30, 2017 11:02 am

michaelguth wrote:DK, I have no objection either way. [....] A bit difficult to parse out from the rules, and not sure if there was an authors' intent we should be considering.

Mike


Hey Mike,

Always glad to discuss the rules, and sometimes to find ways to improve them.

With that said, it is sometimes difficult to figure out how to respond -- not because of the rules, but because it can be hard to discern what the questioner wants. Queries about the rules get responses about the rules. Highly charged recommendations by upset people must necessarily be treated differently than simple questions.

In this case, I'm suffering a serious disconnect between your response above (where you say you have no particular position on the matter, and seem to be asking what our intent was) and the original post and the title of this thread, which both seem to be where you represent your confusion in a much stronger way (with triple, quadruple, and even quintuple question marks, and with all caps (shouting, online) and quadruple exclamation marks.

I hope you will not see this as an attempt to shut your question down -- this is a communication issue, not a rules issue. My initial thought when I see a post written with all caps and 12 question marks in only three questions and four exclamation marks is to assume that the player asking the question had a horrible experience, is very angry or frustrated, and so on. When that happens it is necessary to try and talk the questioner off the ledge first (calm them down, get them to breathe, etc.) before even approaching the rules question.

Perhaps we could talk about this in person when next we get together.
DK


Return to “General Rules Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest