Destroying rear ranks of psiloi is harder that it seems - posted by Vince Cholewa, 23 March 2023

Destroying rear ranks of pisloi might be harder than I first thought. In these two pictures I don't think the rear rank is destroyed. I will explain in the caption for each photo and would be grateful for your views. 

https://www.facebook.com/groups/824840264342234/posts/2317926261700286/

If the front rank is psiloi, then a second rank never dies, even if hard flanked by nasty light horse (or in any other circumstance).

That is because p.40, in the section that describes when rear ranks are also destroyed, says "When an element other than Psiloi is destroyed as a close combat outcome ...". This means if the front rank is psiloi, then the rest of the paragraph does not apply and nor do any of the bullets.

This makes deep formations of psiloi more useful to block your opponent.

Potbelly Miniatures

is the rear rank contributing to the combat?

• Like
• Reply
• Share
• 3d

• Active

  Vincent Cholewa

  Potbelly Miniatures in this case in the light horse bound the psiloi would defend in two ranks and in the psiloi's bound they fight in one rank. However, that does not matter for destroying a second rank of psiloi. You cannot do it if the first rank is psiloi.

• Andrew Bennetts

  I agree, well spotted. Its something easily missed and I think that, like many, I have been missing this and will look out for it in future. Whether its intended or an author oversight is an interesting question but I will raise it with the DBMM Commentary Team.

  

  • Wow
  • Reply
  • Share
  • 3d
  • Edited
  • Active

    Vincent Cholewa

    Hey Andrew you have a hot link to Team Messi!

• Andrew Bennetts

  Vincent Cholewa Just heard back from the Commentary Team and you are right on the money with this. It was spotted some years ago on the UK circuit and is how they have been playing it since. We're just a little late in catching up 

  

  2

  • Like
  • Reply
  • Share
  • 3d
  • Active

    Vincent Cholewa

    Andrew Bennetts wine, cheese and greybeards - good things take time.

In this case the front rank is blades so if it is destroyed another rank might also be destroyed. I and others have played that if the front was destroyed, then the psiloi are destroyed too because they are "no further" back than the blade's base depth. But now, after some discussion and thought, I think I was wrong.

It comes down to what the word "immediately" means. P.40, destroyed elements, third bullet point, says the psiloi would be destroyed if they are “immediately behind a friendly element that was destroyed while in edge contact with an enemy front edge.” I now think immediately means with no element between the psiloi and the front rank – this is not a big leap in logic or in the meaning of words. The word “immediately” is not being used as a substitute for “directly behind” and the distances required, which are covered earlier in that paragraph. Instead, “immediately” is adding a third factor to consider i.e., is there an element in between? If there is an element in between, then these psiloi are not destroyed.

• Nick Buckby

  Yes

  

  • Like
  • Reply
  • Share
  • 3d
• Potbelly Miniatures

  that was the intent in the previous versions of the rules. It doesn't make sense that the psiloi are destroyed, because they're by definition not in the fight

  

  3

  • Like
  • Reply
  • Share
  • 3d
• Andrew Bennetts

  I agree and is how I've been playing it. An interesting variation is what if the Kn in the photo were Wb, who destroy 2 ranks of foot? I believe the Ps will still survive as it would not be "immediately behind a friendly element that was destroyed while in edge contact with an enemy front edge".

  

  • Like
  • Reply
  • Share
  • 3d
  • Active

    Vincent Cholewa

    Andrew Bennetts a good point. I had not thought of that but it does not seem unreasonable if the psiloi were lobbing arrows over the top and not "immediately" involved in the carnage in front of them.

    • Like
    • Reply
    • Share
    • 3d
    • Edited
    • Potbelly Miniatures

      Vincent Cholewa to be honest, that feels like the intent of the passage, to capture that exact eventuality
    • • Peter S. Tarasov

        And, if they were behind an equal base depth to that of the element which was destroyed, then they must have been further back than that depth

        • Like
        • Reply
        • Share
        • 3d
        • Active

          Vincent Cholewa

          Peter S. Tarasov that would apply if there was no intervening element. In this case, the psiloi in the third rank is not destroyed because it is not “immediately” behind the front rank element of blades. There is another element between them.

          • Like
          • Reply
          • Share
          • 3d

        
        

        Write a public reply…
      • Russell Briant

        Agree.

        • Like
        • Reply
        • Share
        • 3d
        • Active

          Vincent Cholewa

          Russell Briant as I replied to Peter, that would apply if there was no intervening element. In this case, the psiloi in the third rank is not destroyed because it is not “immediately” behind the front rank element of blades. There is another element between them.

          • Like
          • Reply
          • Share
          • 3d
          • Russell Briant

            Vincent Cholewa apologies for my lack of specificity. That was what I was agreeing to.

            

            • Like
            • Reply
            • Share
            • 2d

          
          

          Write a public reply…
        • Alastair Duncan

          The truth is this.

          1. Hinton Hunt romans would be retired by now.

          2 even if they weren't they would not be brigades with Lamming bowmen

          3 the Minifigs cataphracts could not possibly support both frontal armour and the classic Minifigs big bum horse

          Here ends rather debate

          Ps did anyone else cringe at the latest wargames illustrate with Rick Piestly and Co dishing WrG

          Ouch!!!!

          

          2

          • Wow
          • Reply
          • Share
          • 2d
          • Active

            Vincent Cholewa

            Alastair Duncan it’s always a shame to see the wargaming press turning on parts of the hobby. I suspect it is nasty marketing to attack a competitor.

            • Like
            • Reply
            • Share
            • 2d

        
        

        Write a public reply…
      • Lawrence Greaves

        Correct, if there was a gap instead of the 2nd blade, the Ps would be destroyed.

        Also the Ps is destroyed if the 2nd Bd was destroyed in the ZOD due to enemy front edge in contact with its flank. … 

        See more

        

        5

        • Like
        • Reply
        • Share
        • 3d
        • Anthony Reardon

          Surely if the Kn have to cross a gap to get to the Ps, the Ps are not immediately behind the front element. In other words, it's not about whether there is another element between the Kn and Ps, but whether the Ps are in contact with the rear edge of the front element. If there's a gap, the Ps cannot provide support so are not in the fight.

          • Like
          • Reply
          • Share
          • 2d
        • Andrew Bennetts

          Lawrence Greaves Thanks for this. However, where the winning element is Wb, could you clarify why the 3rd rank Psiloi is also destroyed?

          • Like
          • Reply
          • Share
          • 2d
        • Anthony Reardon

          The bullets list the conditions for extra deaths in the death zone, so if any bullet is satisfied the affected element is dead. Against Wb, the first bullet applies and the Ps is in the death zone (because it is no further than the initially destroyed element's base depth from the initially destroyed element) so it dies. In other words, against Wb, the Ps would die even if there was a gap - there is no 'immediately behind' requirement.