Bolt Action Test Game #1 - Envelopment

Ryan and I tried out my Axis & Allies minis-based Bolt Action lists in a game.  We used Scenario 1: Envelopment.  Both of us chose the tank option for the lists.  Ryan defended as the Americans, and I tried to bully my way across the field as a Wehrmacht platoon.  The going was rough.

Five Minute Buildings

Lacking urban terrain, I raided the recycling bin for cardboard, sketching out four buildings free hand.

Two bombed out buildings

Our Village Center

After a few minutes of work with scissors, hobby knife, and tape, we had four buildings for our village.   Using my other terrain, the dining table was transformed into a battlefield relatively quickly.

Initial American set-up

Deployment

HMG on Hill / Tank Trap nearby

The attackers entered from the south.  Ryan held his Bazooka team and M4 Sherman in reserve.  He placed a Heavy MG on a hill, and the unit ended up earning its keep.  The Sherman made it onto the field on Turn 2, but the bazooka failed its order test.  The unit finally joined the fight at the end of Turn 3, and more than earned its keep.  

US Rifle Squad and Officer in building

He also moved infantry into both the woods on his right and the building on his left. 

I deployed the mortar, Panzer IV, and sniper on my left flank. I placed the two infantry squads, MG42 MMG, and officer on the right.  My plan of attack was to move the infantry forward, using cover, try to defeat one US unit in the building, and finish the envelopment on my right flank. I intended to use the other units as pinning/distracting forces.

Game Highlights

Turn 1  - German Sniper killed by HMG, partially attributable to a misunderstanding of the rules on the Penetration bonus. We applied the bonus to the "Hit" roll, not the "Damage" roll.

Turn 2- Germans advance from building to building, with one Wehrmacht squad and the MG42 in the second intact building on the left.  The other squad and officer was in the first damaged building.  Panzer IV in position to support assault.  M4 Sherman enters the field, but stays behind hill. No kills, but one Wermacht squad suffers pin.  German Mortar shoots at HMG, but no luck.

Turn 3 - Panzer IV fires on US squad in building, causing pin with MMG.  Wehrmacht squad assaults the same unit, destroying it after two rounds of close quarters combat.  Only two Germans remains in action at end of combat.  US HMG kills one; Officer kills the other.  Second Wehrmacht squad fails order, thanks to double sixes, panics, and runs away.  German mortar dialing in HMG, but no luck with second shot.  Sherman begins moving to the American left flank.

Turn 3: Moments before Wehrmacht squad in center panics

Turn 4 - Preparing to make a run for it, German officer and MG42 move forward.  Sherman fires all weapons on panicked squad, nearly wiping it out.  German mortar destroyed by US HMG.  Panzer advances and destroys HMG.  Bazooka advances to window, successfully hits Panzer and stuns the crew.

Early Phase of Turn 4

Turn 5 - German MMG and officer advance into deployment zone to gain some victory points.  Both  are subsequently destroyed.  Panzer, with two pins, fails order test. Bazooka scores another hit on the tank, but fails to damage it.  Sherman advances past building and score massive damage on rear armor of Panzer.  Ryan rolled a five and gained eight bonus points (+6 penetration bonus and +2 rear armor), allowing him to roll two damage result die.  The first was a "stun" but the second knocked out the last German unit on the board.

Result:  

Ryan's Americans - 14 Victory Points

David's Germans - 2 VP

After Action Report

In the spirit of an AAR, we discussed positive and negative aspects of the game.  Ryan provided two pluses and one minus:

-Plus:  The skirmish/small unit aspect of the game.

-Plus:  The order dice system.

-Minus: Tanks are overpowering compared to infantry.

From my point of view, the game went quite well.  It was slow going, at probably 1 1/2 hours for set-up and play, but I know it will speed up significantly in the future. I spent quite a bit of time flipping through the rulebooks for the basics, particularly when the situation dealt with buildings or vehicles..  By Turn 4,  we were playing fairly quickly. 

I am going to reach out on the Bolt Action forum and ask about the rule when firing from a building.   If a soldier is located in the center of a building, but has line of sight through a window, is firing permissible? Or, must the soldier be standing at the window or door?

Get Playing

Although I love the aesthetics of finished armies and beautiful terrain, I definitely prefer to test out games quickly, before the investment of painting time, with material on hand.  My foam core counter test of DBN last year, like my recent play tests of Blitzkrieg Commander II and Bolt Action, have helped me move forward with projects and stay motivated.

We definitely plan some additional play tests in the future!  It will be hard to resist buying some figures if we keep the gaming going...I really want to finish painting the pile of lead that I already own...

Bolt Action Germans

For my test games, I assembled Axis & Allies miniatures to form two squads of Germans, support units, and two options for vehicles.  Even though the list is similar to the American force, I chose different support units in order to learn the different rules. 

Here's the force:

Core Platoon

Officer - 1st Lieutenant  - (R)egular - 75 points

1st Wermacht Squad - R - five men - 56 points

-Rifles - 3

-Submachine guns - 2 

2nd Wermacht Squad - R - five men - 63 points

-Rifles only - 2

-Rifles + Panzerfaust - 2

-Submachine gun - 1

MG42 MMG - R - 50 points

Sniper - R - 50 points

Option A: Panzer!

Panzer IV - (I)nexperienced - 188 points

Lt Mortar Team - I - 24 Points

Option A Total Points: 506

Option B: Armored Vehicles

SdKfz 251 with 37mm A-T gun - R - 124

SdKfz 222 - Lt Auto-cannon and MMG - R - 95

Option B Total Points: 513

Ryan and I got one test game in today.  We made some chits for the two forces since I lack enough dice of different colors to use for the order selection.  We also cranked out some buildings in short order.  Watch for the AAR tomorrow.

Bolt Action Test Run - US Army List

Salerno Invasion 1943

Using my Axis & Allies miniatures, I cobbled together American and German 500 point armies for test games of Bolt Action.  The forces are a motley mix of nationalities; I don't have that many A&A minis.  I did ensure the small arms on each figure was accurate.

Even assembling the test armies reinforced my plan to use 28mm figures for this game.  Squinting to identify a submachine gun on smaller scale figs would not add to the gaming experience!

For both lists, I created a basic group of units with two options: a tank or lighter vehicles.  I tried to keep as many units as possible at the "regular" experience level.


Here are the Americans:

Core List:

Officer - 1st Lieutenant - R - 75 Points

1st Squad - R - five men - 53 points
-4 men - rifles
-1 man - submachine gun

2nd Squad - R - five men - 53 points
-4 men - rifles
-1 man - submachine gun

Bazooka Team - R - 60 points

Heavy MG Team - R - 70 points

Option A:  Halftracks

2 x M3 Halftracks - (I)nexperienced - 158 points
-Pintle-mounted Heavy Machine Gun

1 Jeep with MMG - R - 36 points
-No transport capacity

Option A Total: 505 Points

Option B: Sherman Tank

M4 Sherman - I - 188 points

Option B Total: 499 points

The infantry squads for the Germans are the same size, but I mixed up the support units and weaponry. More on that list tomorrow.

Blitzkrieg Commander Playtest

Digging Axis & Allies figures out of the closet, we ran a test of Blitzkrieg Commander II in order to learn the rules.  I used Litko bases for the infantry, support, and command units, placing figures loosely on the bases.  With the Axis & Allies figs and my single Battefront 15mm M4A1 Sherman, we were able to play a 1500 point game, using American and German Army Lists from North West Europe, August 1944.  I used substitute vehicles for some units.

Germans defend the hill with the objective circle

The set-up and deployment took a long time because I needed to constantly check the rules. Ryan began getting bored very quickly; I probably should have tested this game solo once.  However, he wanted to try it out. Ryan played the attacking Americans using the Assault scenario, with about 1800 points of forces.  My Germans had 1500 points.  I used a marked minefield which is depicted by the white rectangle.

In Ryan's first turn, his scheduled artillery took out one transport with an MG 42 unit.  He force  of two Shermans and three half tracks on the right moved forward to the edge of woods, posing a threat to two infantry units.

After that, his command rolls failed, and he managed one command blunder, leaving most of his forces right in the concentration point for my scheduled Nebelwerfer fire.  My artillery destroyed two transports, carrying an infantry unit and an MG Browning as well as an 81mm Mortar unit.

I placed all of my armor on my right flank and began moving them toward the center during my turn.  I didn't get as far as I would have preferred before my command rolls failed.  The mobility, compared to DBA and horse and musket games that I have played, is still a big difference - I moved the force 40 cm in two command attempts.

My CO directed 81mm Mortar fire on a transport, but the firing was ineffective.  After that, I rolled high, leaving myself quite vulnerable.  In Ryan's second turn, he tried to run a Sherman right to the objective because I didn't have many forces in the area.  He only made it one move before his command roll for both his HQ and CO failed.  The daredevil move would have required him to pass by three German units, so I need to learn if such moves are legal.  I don't know if a close assault is required when you approach an enemy or not. In any case, we had been playing for 1 1/2 hours, so we decided to call it quits.  Breaking out the miniatures definitely helped me learn some of the rules better, but I need to review the rulebook more.  Ryan found the game very slow paced compared to DBA, so he doesn't like it yet.  Once I learn the rules, he might have a different view - not sure.

Paper Drill

While hurriedly packing away my miniatures and hobby desk, I recognized an opportunity to test out the DBN wargame rules during our travels: foam core.  We had a scrap of foam core board left over from a craft project, so I created 40x20mm counters.  Being in a rush, I didn't have time to cut the pieces perfectly.  DBN uses different base depths, so the practices pieces won't capture differences in movement, such as recoils, that would take place using properly based miniatures.  Nonetheless, the counters have already let me try out the rules in our hotel room.

The Battlefield, complete with IPad-hosted rulebook

Referring to French and Russian army lists that would work for the 1812 timeframe, I labeled the counters with order of battle symbols and letters to differentiate unit types.  Later, I will label additional counters with units required to make up other armies. (I might resume DBA 3.0 playtesting using the reverse side of the counters.)

Foam Core Board Counters

Force Deployments

I played a solo game to learn the rules, pitting the

Russian deployment (Yellow square is Baggage Train)

Russian as attackers against the French.  For the Russian army, I fielded an army heavy on infantry and artillery.  I formed up the main attack force in a column, planning to advance beyond the woods that line the road before deploying.  Cossacks were positioned on the right flank, and I planned to advance a secondary infantry force on the left.







For the French, the army was a balanced combined arms force that included both light and heavy cavalry and a unit of horse artillery. 

French deployment

I placed half of the French in a defensive line, keeping the other half back as a reserve.  I tried to position artillery to support clear fields of fire.  A Legere unit in open order (LI element) anchored the force on a difficult hill.











Game Results


I played through six turns.  DBN has a few rules that ensure the game gets moving, to include compulsory advances by the attacker, the option to conduct successive tactical moves when you have enough command points, and extra command points for the attacker's first turn.  In any case, the Russians rolled a 6 in the first round, so I had plenty of options.  

Birds Eye View after deployment (The shopping bag marks the battlefield edge)

I learned an important lesson during the first two turns, realizing that I bungled the order of Russian units in the main column.  I would need to use multiple turns to get the infantry, in front of the column, out of the way of the artillery once the units cleared the woods.  Meanwhile, the infantry would be under fire from the French artillery.

Turn Four - Russian infantry trying to give the artillery some room

I advanced Horse Artillery forward to ensure a clear field of fire.  By the third turn, I was able to fire on the Russians with both the Horse and Heavy Foot artillery elements, resulting in several unit recoils.  The Russians have an unusual resilience to artillery fire (the "Stoic" characteristic), so the dice had to break in the French's favor even for a recoil result. Given the massive casualties endured at Borodino, for instance, the "Stoic" advantage adds a touch of realism to the game.

I played through six turns, ending with two Russian Cossack units flanking the French position.  The French Light Cavalry advanced to protect an artillery unit from the Cossacks; it was outfought and destroyed.  

Cossacks overwhelm French Light Infantry

Overall, the DBN rules were very easy to learn.  I did ask for feedback from Yahoo Group members on the firing mechanic (I was performing it correctly) and clarification on Light Infantry unit rules.  Once we arrive in Korea and settle in, my son and I will be playing some more foam core DBN.

I'm signing off for a few days.  We depart the USA tomorrow.

Expedition to New Lands

Ryan and I had the pleasure of testing out the latest version of DBA, posted on 2 February, with two veteran gamers - Doug and Peter.  Doug hosted us.  His understanding of the rules and playing experience were a big help, clarifying several unclear game mechanics.  Peter also offered a number of recommendations on play tactics that improved our understanding of battle management. We also had the chance to drool over his 30 year plus investment in miniatures - quite a collection of Armies!

Spartans vs. Early Imperial Romans

Ryan played Doug in a Spears vs Blades slug fest.  It was a close game, but the Spartans prevailed thanks to luck on the die and the resilience of Spears against Auxilia.

The Spartans defended, using hills to protect the flanks and the camp.  The deployment resulted in a bunched up force.  However, the units in the rear were ready to counter flanking attacks.

The Romans deployed a combined arms force, placing Auxilia and Light Horse on the wings.  Cavalry deployed in the center with the Legionnaires.  A horse-drawn ballista was also fielded; our first encounter as DBA newbies with any shooting force.

Ryan advanced his Spartans forward of the hills in order to deploy in line.  This placed two spear elements in artillery range, but Spartan dice luck prevailed.  Only one or two artillery shots find its mark throughout the game.

Most of the action centered on the flanks.  Doug moved two Auxilia on the Spartan right flank toward the camp.  Auxilia and Light Horse also threatened the Spartan left flank.

Fortunately, a number of high PIP rolls allows Ryan to maneuver his reserve to confront the detachments.

The Spartans managed to chase off the Light Horse and destroy one Auxilia element on the left.  On the right, the outcome was long in question.  One Roman Auxilia attacked the camp, destroying the camp followers.  Another Auxilia faced Spartan elements trying to move uphill.

A key rules question emerged at this point - does the Auxilia automatically advance into a camp once the camp followers are destroyed?  We interpreted the following rule...

".... or a camp whose defenders have been destroyed, can be occupied without combat by moving a troop element into it."

...to mean that the Romans would need to expend another PIP to move the Auxilia into the camp.  This delay gave the Spartans time to confront the Auxilia element. After several bounds, the Auxilia was pushed off the board in a recoil.

The Spartan Spears trying to attack uphill were eventually destroyed by Auxilia, right before the Blades and Spear lines clashed.  After a few bounds of to-and-fro recoiling, the Spears finally destroyed two more Roman elements, including at least one Blade, to win the game, 4-to-3.

Feudal Fuss - French vs. 100 Year War English

I played a second game against Doug, that ended quickly. We fought two 15mm armies featuring bows and Knights.  Doug played the English, dismounting some knights, including the General, at the beginning of the game.

My French were defending, and I deployed three Knights on the Right Wing with a Cavalry element on the Far Right.  My Blades and Bowmen were deployed in a line, with a number of elements in Woods.

I quickly learned why a conservative deployment and patience is needed as a defender.  English bow faced off my Knights and Cavalry.  English Knights formed a reserve.  I rolled three PIPs for the first bound, limiting my options to deploy my blades and bows, stuck in the Woods, without losing the form of the line.  We had a friendly chat on my options.  With mounted forces, I had the opportunity to charge in, limiting the shots taken by Bow.  Unlike the Spartan defensive line in the first night, I didn't need to be a static target for long range artillery shots.  I opted to be aggressive, moving the mounted forces forward.  Doug adjusted his force deployment to prepare for battle and ensure the Cavalry did not turn his flank.

In my second bound, the Knights and Cavalry charged the Bow line, with the three Knights aligned with the Bow.  The Cavalry element provided an overlap.  The die didn't favor me, and my one successful combat resulted in my rash General pursuing the destroyed Bow, resulting in overlap and isolation.

In Doug's second bound, it was all over.  He flanked my General Knight, destroying it and two other mounted troops with his Bow, winning 4-to-1.

Post Mortem - Fuedal French Gen Kn, Kn, and Cav destroyed.

After Action  Review

I was happy to see that Ryan and I have a general grasp on the rules. After the game, I spent time comparing the last two beta versions of DBA 3.0 and the playing results.  Questions from the playtest:

• We may not have played the distant shooting combat correctly.  I don't recall that the English bow fired at the French Knights during the French turn.  If so, this was an omission on our part, not a problem with the rules.
• We were unsure of the camp occupation rule when camp followers were destroyed, as described above.
• Doug explained the meaning of the second sentence in the Moving into Contact With Enemy section (pg 9) to us, which reads, "Only a group can move into edge contact with a single element's or group's corner." Without his explanation, I was at a loss as to the necessity of this rule.  Why couldn't a single element contact a corner, I wondered.  Recommend review of this section for improved clarity.
• In my post-game review, I have noticed several other points in the latest version that could benefit from re-ordering. Rules that have dependencies are explained in different sections.  I won't belabor these points in the blog, but I may recommend changes in the Yahoo Group discussion.

I recommend the following rules changes:

• Allow positioning of terrain up to the battlefield edge.  As noted in previous playtests, the rule requiring terrain placement at least 1 BW from the edge further constricts the deployment area.  This affected both of our games.  I think the deployment restriction that encourages use of the flanks for light force deployments is helpful and historically accurate.  The requirement to leave a 1BW open area along the edge is not.  Any commander worth their salt would seek out terrain that made encirclement more difficult and allowed easy movement in the center of the battlefield.

• As a new player, I found it odd that groups can move to form a column using a single PIP but not move from a column to a line with a single PIP.  I thought I had missed a rule somewhere. Doug and Peter confirmed that moving from column to another formation requires multiple PIPs.  I recommend a formation change rule be added to address this oddity unless the rationale relates to the difficulty of commanding and controlling troops in this era. I haven't read any cases where armies were slow to deploy into line in Greek or Macedonian battles at least.

• Reintroduce Psiloi rear support, but limit the support to the element directly in front of the Psiloi.  I certainly would have deployed my Feudal French Psiloi as support if this had been an option.  I question the idea that slingers or bowmen could support a line three elements wide in one bound, but, if I were a Psiloi behind infantry in melee with the opponent, I would be lobbing stones or arrows into the bad guys.

I must thank Doug and Peter.  It was great to meet fellow wargamers for the first time.  They were gracious and patient hosts.

Cheers,

Dave

Battle of Broken Stick - DBA 3.0 Play Test

Ryan and I completed our third test of the DBA 3.0 rules.  The Kappadokians faced the Galatians.

Kappadokian Light Horse

Unlike the first two tests, these armies represent historical foes.  I played the Kappadokians (II/14), and Ryan commanded the Galatians (II/30b).  In terms of army element options, we both chose Cavalry Generals.

Kappadokian General Element

In this game, the Kappadokians played as defender in hilly terrain.  This was the first playtest game that involved terrain without a road.  I chose relatively small pieces of terrain, including hills, woods, and a patch of rough (rocky ground).

Terrain and Deployment Rules
Ryan and I agree after three games that the new terrain placement rules work fine.  However, the only drawback is the constraints placed on terrain distance from the end of the board edge, when combined with the limited deployment area for the armies. 

In all three games, I have found myself stymied by the deployment area rules.  Terrain must be placed at last one base width from the board edge.  If rough going terrain ends up in your deployment area, it can force choices that do not appear to represent historical situations - either bunch your forces in a narrow area or deploy forces that extend into bad going.

As a newby, I have struggled with the logic on the terrain placement rules regarding the board edges.  My review of ancient battles shows examples of generals using hills and other rough terrain to protect a flank.  Rough terrain often define the battle side edges, so I don't appreciate why DBA requires positioning of terrain away from the edge.  I can only surmise that this rule is meant to address practices observed in competitions.  I struggle to find a good reason for the restriction, particularly considering the constrained deployment area.

On to the battle!

Given the terrain constraints, I decided to try a Light Horse run toward the Galatian Camp, understanding the risks related to being cut off.  Taking the risk paid off.  Not only did the Light Horse advance quickly to the camp, the move pulled Galatian Warband units off the main group in a futile attempt to counter these light forces.

Two turns in, the Galatian general plans his next move - dealing with a LH run at his camp.

Light Horse elements move fast, but they lack punch.  Once the two LH elements reached the camp, one element protected the rear of the attack.  The Galatian camp followers were resilient; the camp didn't fall for four turns.

While A few Galatian Warbands tried to address theKappadokian Light Horse charge on their camp, the main battle developed with a cavalry duel - Three on Three.


Galatian Psiloi later moved out of the rough to provide support in the form of an overlap. The Galatians gained the upper hand, flanking and destroying a Kappadokian cavalry unit. 

Kappadokian Auxilia support Cavalry

Kappadokian auxilia moved forward to fill the gap on the cavalry's left flank.

On the Galatian left flank, the dice gods favored the Light Horse, resulting in a lost warband unit.


The main Kappadokian auxilia force engaged the Galatian Warband main body, defeating one

In a nice change from the norm, I actually won a game; 4 to 1.  The Galatians lost their camp and three elements.


Hot Wash

Overall, we have made the transition to 3.0 with few problems.  My main concern is the limited deployment area, in terms of the limitations to use the sides of the board for deployment.  I am tempted to use a larger board instead of the 24 inch board if this rule stays the same.

Following the discussion on the Yahoo Group, we have not tested aspects of the 3.0 rules that appear most controversial - namely the introduction of double elements and Blades-vs-Warband face-offs.

As a new player, I still wrestle with the terse, complex sentences in the rules.  DBA rates at the top of the scale in terms of potential to encourage the next generation of wargamers to get involved in historical games.  However, the rules rank at the very bottom in terms of clarity and utility.  I would have never considered DBA if I hadn't stumbled upon the Unofficial Guide on the Fanaticus webpage.  The structure and editing of the rules is a major barrier of entry.  When my son demonstrates DBA to his 11-to-12 year old friends, they unequivocally are fascinated by the game and love playing.  I hope that the Barker family works with the DBA community, and a good editor, to address shortcomings of the writing of these rules.

One of my goals for this blog is to review wargames rules with my kids, and their friends, to understand why game design features are valued by young gamers.  DBA features that appeal to younger people include the rapid play, balance between unit types, and the impressive list of Army options.  The low figure count needed to assemble an Army is a huge plus.  However, the rule's dense writing style is a major entry barrier.  Using tables and examples would make the rules more accessible.

After my business trip, I'll return to painting my Hellenistic Morph Army, so we will try out 3.0 with a Pike-heavy force later this month.

The Battle's Name

With the change in pace measurement from inches to base width, I made a measuring stick that marked off 40mm paces and 1/2 BW measurements before our Game 2 test.  The stick was a casualty of the game, proving too weak to be sat on.  A little blue masking tape held it together!

Writing from Waikiki...

The Spartan's Prevail - DBA 3.0 Playtest

Today, we tried out DBA 3.0, pitting the early Spartans (1/52b) against Galatians (II/30b). Ryan played the Spartans, choosing 12 Spear elements. 

 
Once again, the dice roll placed me in the position of the defender with the Galatians.  I chose a road, two small woods, and one gentle hill as the terrain pieces.  Based on our last game, I went with smaller terrain pieces in case the dice required placement of multiple pieces in the same quadrant.  I also benefited from a comment, learning that a roll of six results in the attacker choosing only the quadrant for placement, not in the attacker placing the terrain. I had missed the distinction in the rules.
 
For the Galatians, I fielded 1x General in Chariot (LCh), 2 x Cavalry, 8 x Warband, and 1 Psiloi.  I initially tried to field the mounted forces on the right flank, in front of a small wood.  However, the measuring stick proved that this wouldn't be possible, it placed my forces to close to the center of the board.  So, I settled for placing the force in reserve.  My Warbands and Psiloi formed a large group, deployed in the center of the board.

Ryan deployed his Spartans in three groups, with one dispatched to his left flank in column, near a forest.

The dice didn't favor me again today.  I rolled very few PIPs in the first turns, resulting in my Psiloi being isolated.  Trying a new tactic, I moved them twice in the first turn, finishing the move in the wood between two Spartan groups.  I intended to advance the Warband group forward in order to engage the Spartan force on my left. I also started moving my mounted group to the right flank. 

Before my plan developed, Ryan advanced and flanked the Psiloi. After a few successful melee rounds, with the terrain advantage saving its skin, the Psiloi was destroyed.

When playing DBA 2.2, I had used a rule and tape measure, since movement distances were in inches.  I created a measuring stick, seen on the table, for DBA 3.0.

As the battle progressed, we ended up with two engagements.  One fight occurred between a Spartan group, four Galatian warbands and the Galatian mounted forces.  The other fight involved six Spartan spear elements in two groups and four Warbands.  After six rounds of melee between these groups, with numerous recoils and pursuits, Ryan won the game 4 -3.

Intrepretations

We had to carefully review the rules on several points.

Pursuit - We were unsure if supporting Warband elements pursue along with the unit in combat.  I interpreted the following statement on page 12 as meaning "yes." 

"An element of any of ........Warbands (or that could provide rear support to any element of these even if not providing such support against current opponents) that is fighting foot,..."

Effect of destroyed unit on rear support- If a Warband element that is being supported is destroyed, what happens to the Warband element providing rear support?   If both elements have been flanked when the element in combat is destroyed, is the rear support unit also destroyed? 

Since the paragraph on destroyed elements doesn't address the effect on a rear support unit, we didn't destroy rear support units.

A Puzzler

During the last turn, Ryan flanked a Warband element that had rear support.  While another Spartan element is engaged with a neighboring unit, the Warband element had no enemy to its front.  I rotated both the flanked element and its rear support element to face the Spartan.  I remain unsure if we maneuvered the forces correctly.   The game ended before this melee occurred.   Thoughts?

I have made numerous notes on the 3.0 rules.  We are playing one more game - Kappadokians versus Galatians - before I submit my comments to the Yahoo DBA Group. 

I'm busy painting elements for a Hellenistic Army Morph plan using the 3.0 draft Army lists. When those units are ready, we will take another run at the rules with some Pikes in the action.