Unsecure Flank

[hazelbark]

Trivial point came up in a game but the CT -1 determined whether a unit broke or not. Thought I would post it.

A
A....22222
A
AFF

"A" are friendly archers pointing right.
"F" are two stands of an enemy frag'd unit facing down
"2" is anoother enemy facing down

Shooting phase. F breaks as result of fire. BG 2 has to check for a friend breaking as it is within 3 MU. Does BG 2 take the minus CT for threatened flank?
It is clearly a legal flank charge. But at the time of the test F is in a position that prevents A from moving forward to contact or step forward.
The section is in the glossary and readds approximately "capable of charging in their next turn".
So do you say, in the next turn the broken unit will be gone, which we knew for certain. I think so. But the "in next turn" phrase means I believe you calculate mandatory moves.

[petedalby]

I think you played it right Dan - as usual!

[rogerg]

I am unsure about whether the routing unit can be assumed to be gone. In other situations in the rules, you work on how things are at the time. You cannot declare a wheel in a charge over a position where skirmishers are because you cannot assume they will evade.

[philqw78]

But as the obstruction is routing the BG will be in a flank charge position in its next turn.

[deadtorius]

"capable of charging in their next turn

This would indicate that enemy unit 2 can be charged in its flank at the next opposing manouvre phase so threatened flank would apply for the cohesion test.

[marioslaz]

"capable of charging in their next turn

This would indicate that enemy unit 2 can be charged in its flank at the next opposing manouvre phase so threatened flank would apply for the cohesion test.

Yes, but this implies testing BG make this analysis: "friendly BG is rout, so they'll flee in next phase and also in JAP, so enemy BG next turn will can charge our flank". I don't want to say this means flank is no threatened, but IMO this needs to be well pondered. In particular, I think we must consider how move-counter move system influence situations like this.

[hazelbark]

"capable of charging in their next turn

This would indicate that enemy unit 2 can be charged in its flank at the next opposing manouvre phase so threatened flank would apply for the cohesion test.

Yes, but this implies testing BG make this analysis: "friendly BG is rout, so they'll flee in next phase and also in JAP, so enemy BG next turn will can charge our flank". I don't want to say this means flank is no threatened, but IMO this needs to be well pondered. In particular, I think we must consider how move-counter move system influence situations like this.

Don't disagree about ponder, but the rules clearly state it. So the question is do you assume that mandatory moves are made. The answer would seem to be yes. The difficulty beceome when a VMD of a routing unit with someone in contact is in play. So ponder yes, but not certain its worth expending too much energy on.

[deadtorius]

I wouldn't expend too much energy on this one, seems pretty straight forward your troops get nervous if they see the enmy could charge a flank.

[lawrenceg]

Non-shock disrupted troops may or may not be capable of charging next turn, depending on their CMT. Would they count as a threatened flank?

I think it is clear that possible future events such as the above would have to be taken into account, and therefore also future events that are certain. However, not ALL possible future events need to be accounted for ("If my BG routs your other BG in the melee phase and pursues to here then I could flank charge you...")

[marioslaz]

Non-shock disrupted troops may or may not be capable of charging next turn, depending on their CMT. Would they count as a threatened flank?

The point is exactly this: how much can we extend deductions BG can do to establish if its flank is threatened? Because FOG is a move counter move system we could say you should consider mandatory movement as done, but this is quite simple for rout, less in other cases. At present, I would play in the simplest way, that is looking to situation at test moment without taking account of mandatory movement, even if in the case in question could seem a little odd. Anyway, this is not a strong conviction, but just the simplest way to play and to haven't discussion.

[philqw78]

I think different wording would have been better. Capable is a maybe for a lot of situations as discussed, bow armed, disrupted, fragmented that could rally, etc.

[hammy]

If I was ruling as an umpire I would work on the principle: can the exposed flank be charged as the current possition of the BGs lies.

Taking into account potential future moves is not IMO a good plan.

Is a flank can be threatened even if the threatening BG would itself be intercepted in the flank?
Does this change if the threatening BG is not currently in interception range of the potential interceptor but the interceptor will definitley be in range to do so after it makes a pursuit roll etc?

[philqw78]

So the wording should be changed?

[hammy]

So the wording should be changed?

Quite possibly.

I would think that "currently capable" would be a better and clearer phrase.

[timurilenk]

Taking into account potential future moves is not IMO a good plan.

This is eminently sensible - otherwise there are too many imponderables.

[philqw78]

I would think that "currently capable" would be a better and clearer phrase.

In the strictest sense would not work as BG would not normally be in their enemy's impact phase when the test is taken.

[hazelbark]

If I was ruling as an umpire I would work on the principle: can the exposed flank be charged as the current possition of the BGs lies.

Taking into account potential future moves is not IMO a good plan.

Is a flank can be threatened even if the threatening BG would itself be intercepted in the flank?
Does this change if the threatening BG is not currently in interception range of the potential interceptor but the interceptor will definitley be in range to do so after it makes a pursuit roll etc?

So back up at my orignial point wouldyou have ruled that the BG does NOT have a -1 CT?

[timurilenk]

So back up at my orignial point wouldyou have ruled that the BG does NOT have a -1 CT?

That is what hammy is saying -yes

[hammy]

If I was ruling as an umpire I would work on the principle: can the exposed flank be charged as the current possition of the BGs lies.

Taking into account potential future moves is not IMO a good plan.

Is a flank can be threatened even if the threatening BG would itself be intercepted in the flank?
Does this change if the threatening BG is not currently in interception range of the potential interceptor but the interceptor will definitley be in range to do so after it makes a pursuit roll etc?

So back up at my orignial point wouldyou have ruled that the BG does NOT have a -1 CT?

I would have ruled no threatened flank.

[titanu]

Is a persueing body hitting a new enemy BG in its path a charge?