Hordes of the Things/DBA/DBM flank-contact question

[Hobgoblin]

I've never played DBA but have played HotT a fair bit (both back when it first came out and quite a lot over the past six or seven years). HotT's a brilliant ruleset, but there's one situation that isn't explicitly covered in the rules, as far as I can see. So I thought I'd consult the hive mind, including DBA and DBM players, to see what the consensus is.

This is the situation. A column of two units (typically warband or spears with rear support) is flanked ('closing the door') while already in frontal contact with the enemy. Does the rear unit remain in support, or does it turn to face the flanker, forcing the flanker to slide down to conform to it?

Or, to put it another way, do you end up with one combat with rear support for the defenders and a 'closed door' flank contact for the attackers, or with two combats: the original one, now without rear support, and a perpendicular combat between the formerly supporting element and the flanker?

If the column was not already in combat, it would turn to face the flanker, with the support unit moving behind. That's clear enough from the rules (specifically the water-crossing example on page 33 of HotT 2.1). But if the front element is already in combat, the situation is less clear.

Now, my working assumption is that the flanking unit has only made 'legitimate' flank contact with the unit in combat, so the rear defender stays in place (and adds support if both defenders are warband or spear). That's easy, neat and makes sense: the two warband/spears are essentially one unit for the purposes of the combat, and both will be destroyed if the front attacker wins the combat with the flanking unit in place.

But let's say the column is made up of blades or hordes? What happens then? And let's assume our initial frontal combat is a draw. What if the rear unit of blades then turns to face the flanker? Is it 'peeled off' the flank of the front unit and slid down to conform to the rear unit?

This situation occurs so frequently in our games that I'm surprised it's not directly addressed in the second-edition HotT rules. But perhaps it is in DBA or DBM.

Any insight much appreciated!

[SteveBurt]

Your working assumption is correct; the flank contact is with the front element only, the supporting element remains in place. If the front element dies but the rear does not, and nobody spends PIPs to align the elements, there is no combat. In DBM, and DBMM, there is a zone of death behind an element so the rear element would die if the front one did, even if it it not providing support. Not so in HOTT or DBA, I think.

[Hobgoblin]

Thanks! Yes, only supporting warbands and spears suffer with the front element in HotT

Now, assuming the combat is a draw, can the rear element expend a PIP in its bound to turn to face the flanker? And if so, is the flanker obliged to 'slide' off the flank of the front element to fight?

Obviously, if that is allowed, it would put the front element at more risk of destruction (no room to recoil), but it would alleviate the pressure on it (by removing the -1 modifier), assuming that this wasn't a warband or spear situation.

[SteveBurt]

I think because the flanker is legally aligned, the rear element has to conform to it, if possible. So it can expend a PIP to turn and fight it, but it would not pull it away from the front element.

[Hobgoblin]

Aha - thanks! I hadn't thought of that. But going on page 21, there wouldn't be any fighting between the flanker and the rear element:

"Close combat occurs when an element has moved into, or remains, in both edge and corner to corner base contact lined up with an enemy element or in at least partial front edge contact with an enemy stronghold."

As there's only partial front-edge contact and no corner-to-corner contact and the flanker isn't a stronghold, I presume that there would be no fighting.

If that's correct, the rear unit could instead spend a PIP to retreat out of the zone of control, then, in its next bound, spend a PIP to hit the flanker in its own flank. In that scenario, the flanking unit would no longer provide a flank contact but would provide an overlap (side-to-side contact, which counts, as per p.21, even if the overlapping unit is in combat). In that scenario, both the front unit and the former flanker would suffer a -1 for an overlap, so the former rear unit would be rewarded for its patient manoeuvring with an advantageous combat situation.

[LazyStudent]

Hi Hobgoblin,

Tbh, your question is a tricky one as this has evolved over the years. But as a starting note, DBM v3.2 is free and available here, if you wanted to have that for reference: http://www.wrg.me.uk/WRG.net/History/DBM%203.2.pdf

Further DBM ammendments have occured over the years and are all noted here: https://www.jglwargames.com/

But back to your question. I have played a lot of DBA v3, and there are actually a number of diagrams at the back of the rules that deal with this situation (6 in total). The key point for turning to face is if the two elements in column are mutually supporting or not. And both will be destroyed if there is an element in contact with the side or rear edge if the front element is pushed back, flees, or is destroyed.

Best,
LS

[Hobgoblin]

Hi Hobgoblin,

Tbh, your question is a tricky one as this has evolved over the years. But as a starting note, DBM v3.2 is free and available here, if you wanted to have that for reference: http://www.wrg.me.uk/WRG.net/History/DBM%203.2.pdf

Thanks, LS - I actually downloaded that a couple of days ago, as part of the quest for an answer on this. The 'worked example' is interesting, but doesn't quite carry over to HotT because of the greater range of rear support that DBM pikes offer. I'll have a look that amendments link, though - thanks again!

But back to your question. I have played a lot of DBA v3, and there are actually a number of diagrams at the back of the rules that deal with this situation (6 in total). The key point for turning to face is if the two elements in column are mutually supporting or not. And both will be destroyed if there is an element in contact with the side or rear edge if the front element is pushed back, flees, or is destroyed.

Right - so there seems to be a difference with HotT, where unengaged two-deep groups turn to face a flank contact regardless of whether they support each other (p. 21). In HotT, only supporting elements are destroyed in the front-and-flank combat loss scenario: so a column of two blades elements would only lose the element in front contact.

So the question really comes down to what the rear element is allowed to do in its own bound. The zone of control from the front attacker doesn't apply to it because of the intervening friendly element, but the zone of control from the flanker does apply.

Now, after another glance at the HotT rules, I think that the rear element is free to retreat (whether it's supporting or not), but will need two additional moves to 'peel' the flanker away from the main element: one to shift sideways so that a flank attack is permitted; and another to actually move into combat.

So, while this is doable in three bounds, it's highly unlikely to be worth expending the PIPs on. That's especially true if the rear element is part of a group of spear or warband, because it will be negating the flanking, modifiers-wise if not in lethality. And if the friendly front unit wins the combat, the situation will clear itself up (either the front unit pursues or it will be able to turn to face next turn, with any rear support turning with it).

As far as I can figure it out, then, the only situation in which you'd want to think about the rear element separately would be if it was worth saving in its own right - if it was the general, for example, or if its destruction with the front element would ensure that you lost the game - and then only if it was a supporting element, because a non-supporting unit wouldn't die with the front element.

The answer, then, seems to be no, you can't turn to peel off, but yes, you can disengage and realign to potentially remove the flanker in three bounds' time. But that's unlikely to be worth doing.

LS - one question: what's the draw of DBM over justing upping the points for DBA? We've always found that HotT scales terrifically well to more than 24 points, whether or not the sides are broken up into separate commands. We keep the PIP roll the same; it just forces bigger groups (and looks spectacular).

Thanks again for your help!

[SteveBurt]

DBM (and DBMM) have much more complex rules for support, multiple commands, demoralisation and also troop gradings (S,F,I,O,X) and assume each element is around 256 men as opposed to about 1000 in DBA, so the rules are more granular, and also much more complex. Different style of game

[SteveBurt]

A DBM/DBMM game would probably have 60+ elements on the table, but 3 or even 4 PIP dice per side. In the past I’ve played ‘big’ DBA by putting 4 DBM elements on a sabot base - then the game really looks like a big battle.

[LazyStudent]

SteveBurt pretty much nailed it. The reason I still enjoy playing DBM and don't just play DBA is the increase in depth. There are a lot more elements on the table and a larger variation between the element types. It is a great game that always forces lots of thought.

I will admit, DBM can at times be frustrating in its requirements for millimetre measuring, but I find the majority of players today are not as extreme. At least compared to the days when it was the dominant rules everywhere for medieval and ancients tournaments.

I must admit, I've never thought of playing large base BBDBA, thanks for the idea!!

LS

[Hobgoblin]

Thanks, both! I'll have to give DBM a go. We play only fantasy games, but I'm more than happy to use historical rules for them, and DBM seems to offer plenty of options to distinguish one's orc warbands from their lizardman equivalents, and so on.

I'm intrigued by the amount of PIP dice rolled in DBM. We generally have two commands a side for 72-AP or 96-AP games (so 36 to 48 AP a player), and the game moves along at a fair old lick - most troops moving in large groups until things get fiddly once battle is joined. Presumably, with so many more PIPs, you get a lot more 'detailed' action.

Also, do either of you (or anyone else) have any opinions on how DBM compares with Field of Glory and Arte de la Guerre? I have the rules for the latter but have yet to play it, so am swithering between trying that or DBM next.

Thanks again!

[LazyStudent]

Hi Hobgoblin,

I will admit, the English in DBM is Barkerese at its worst. So I would prepare yourself for that. But if you are familiar with HOTT, then the mechanics will feel very similar and you will be able to get into it quickly. And yes, there is nothing stopping you combining the two! In fact it would be interesting to hear your thoughts. DBM allows for some interesting combinations, for example Ps(X), which act as Ps, but fight with Arty factors (representing early gunpowder/naptha weapons!) Get fun, and adds a lot more depth than the base DBA or HOTT!

As to the PiP die question, I will try to explain, I hope it is understandable. DBM is a points game, so the competions/games are based on a number of points. It is common for armies to have 3 or 4 Generals, which means 3 or 4 commands, which roll 1 Pip die per command. It is probably easier to see when looking at the army lists. You can often find them online, or PM me your email and I will be able to send the ones I have over. However there is slightly more complication, in DBM, for command and control there are two main classes of troops Regular and Irregular. These definitions are also applied to the General's elements (as it is ancient/medieval warfare, the General is an element that can fight like any other. Not a floating character) The type of CinC and  Sub generals dictates what colour of dice (all D6s) are rolled. If you have a Regular CinC and Regular Sub generals, then you roll dice of all the same colour. These dice can then be assigned to the different commands as the player wishes. Which can give Regular command structure armies a lot more flexibility and choice, but the Regular generals cost a lot more points, so you will have fewer elements compared to an Irregular command structured army. In an army with an Irregular CinC or Sub generals (and also for Allied commands), each command is assigned a different coloured dice at the start of the game. This is the Pip dice for that command, and the Pips it rolls cannot be used to move elements of another command. Which means that Irregular armies are best at going directly forwards without too much fancy maneuvering, but at times with good Pips can do some clever things.

Added to the above is the fact that Regular elements mostly cost 1 Pip to do most things, while Irregular elements cost 2+Pis to do anything except move forwards a full move or stand still (except impetuous troops, but that is a different topic!). So yes, you can get a lot more detailed action with a certain armies, but a Pip score of 1 is still a struggle if your plan is too complex! I personally really like the puzzles that come from this very simple and yet very engaging command and control style. IMHO it has never been bettered, only could have been explained in better English!

Now that was the simple question. As to the differences between DBM-FOG-ADLG....this is a big question. I will add, that there is also DBMM, out there. This is an even more complex game than DBM, and personally too far down the rabbit hole, but others do like it.

Ok...My answer is by no means fully correct or the definitive one...but here goes:

DBM
-Going to assume as you have the rules and play HOTT that this is kinda known. Add in the above answer and it is almost covered. I won't go into more detail here. 

FOG
-One of the two main successors of DBM
-Removed the Pips and allowed for universal movement.
-Elements are no longer independent, now grouped in Battle Groups that move and fight as one 
-Replaced the command and control for anything but going forwards with a Complex Manouver Test, which it rolled on 2D6, normally needing 7+ with lots of different modifiers
-Combat is now buckets of dice based on the number of elements in the Battle Group(s) fighting, lots of modifiers to work out who as a Point of Advantage or not
-Generals are not explicitly embeded in an element. Now floating characters that can join Battle Groups, and combats for extra pluses
-High amounts of granularity when looking at the differences between the elements (4 levels of amour, 2 weapons slots, and a shed load of different characteristics!). Can get a little confusing at the start.
-Each Battle Group has a cohesion level, that can drop slowly or quickly depending on the outcomes of the combat dice. Additionally elements in a Battle Group can die off, meaning it fights less well the next round. But no push backs or instant deaths.
-Was widely popular, but seems to have dropped off a bit recently with the introduction of ADLG
-Personally, I do not like it that much. I have played a few games and it felt like I was rolling a lot of dice with little outcome.

ADLG   
-Effectively a grand-nephew of DBM. It is very much related, but there are other ideas in there from rules such as Armati
-Has a similar points system to DBM/HOTT, but seems to be preffered to be played at a mid-size between a DBM and HOTT/DBA game.
-Generals are floating characters, but can also be embedded in an element to save army points. 
-Elements are independent, but the foot are 'double based' compared to DBM. So foot lines look deeper, but it is a minor change that does not require re-basing.
-There is a reliance level for each element, similar to FOG, but each type of element has a different level. For example Heavy foot (Bd, Pk, etc) have 4, while medium foot (Ax etc) have 3. So the heavier elements will likely hang around longer, but it is not a guarantee.
-The combat is back to 1D6 per element vs element combat
-Combat factors are low, with perhaps a +1 or +2, this is possibly the main draw back, but it actually is just reminiscent of the differences between the combat factors in DBM, rather than the factors themselves.
- A reasonable amount of granularity when looking at the elements and the differences between them.
-Gaining a lot of popularity, it is a slightly simpler but still engaging game compared to FOG and DBM. Seems well suited to friendly competition play, with a drink on the side.
-Personally, I like it as a game, but it does not quite topple DBM as my favorite. But it is a lot quicker, less brain numbing, and still a fun game. 

For a better look at the two different rules sets, I can recommend the Madaxeman's blog. He has a lot of ADLG, and a way back FOG-AG, battle reports, so you can get a feel of how the games play.

Hope that was a helpful answer! I realise it was a little longer than planned! 

Best,
LS 

[Hobgoblin]

Many, many thanks, LS! That's hugely helpful - and I may well take you up on the offer of army lists.

From what you say, I can probably narrow things (for now, at least) to DBM/DBMM/BBDBA. As our HotT armies tend to have a lot of warband elements, rules that allow for differentiation between those would be handy, which seems to point to DBM(M).

I like PIPs a lot, so that helps to rule out FOG, as do the buckets of dice.