Unsecure Flank

[philqw78]

It is treated as if charging. If it happens in the impact phase it is resolved immediately, if it happens at any other time it is resolved in the next impact phase.

[grahambriggs]

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?

Oh - that's a surprise.

Firstly, the rule is clear. A little odd perhaps as it deals with the future tense but clear. i.e. is the enemy battle group guaranteed to be able to declare a flank/rear charge on the testing BG or not. So I think you're changing what the rule says by that ruling.

Secondly, yes, there may be friends able to intercept. However, the panicky guys with the open flank might not be aware or care about that. The intercepting friends might have better things to do. It seems to me that a -1 is a fair penalty for the troops being aware that the flank is disintegrating.

Thirdly if you start qualifying with current position/interceptors etc you're in a difficult area. What if the interceptors would need a CMT. Or if the intercept would clearly be suicidal? If it's a case of can they charge now what if my knights are pursuing a broken battle group towards your rear? I can't charge you now but I will certainly be able to next bound and your guys will know it surely?

[philqw78]

Oh - that's a surprise.

Firstly, the rule is clear. A little odd perhaps as it deals with the future tense but clear. i.e. is the enemy battle group guaranteed to be able to declare a flank/rear charge on the testing BG or not. So I think you're changing what the rule says by that ruling.

Secondly, yes, there may be friends able to intercept. However, the panicky guys with the open flank might not be aware or care about that. The intercepting friends might have better things to do. It seems to me that a -1 is a fair penalty for the troops being aware that the flank is disintegrating.

Thirdly if you start qualifying with current position/interceptors etc you're in a difficult area. What if the interceptors would need a CMT. Or if the intercept would clearly be suicidal? If it's a case of can they charge now what if my knights are pursuing a broken battle group towards your rear? I can't charge you now but I will certainly be able to next bound and your guys will know it surely?

I think you're arguing against yourself here Graham. What if the possible flank chargers may need a CMT to charge? What if they are fragmented but could be rallied before their next impact phase?

[hammy]

Graham,

I am not sure what you are trying to say here.

There are a huge number of things that could change between for example the melee phase of your opponents turn and their next impact phase.

Would a BG that was fighting one of your BGs but 20+ MU away and to the flank of your BG threaten that flank? If not why not? If for example you BG facing the enemy broke in the melee phase and routed rolling a maximum rout move which the pursuers keep up with so it routs again in the JAP of the enemy phase and then again in the JAP of your phase all the time with both BG's rolling maximum then with 3 base losses from pursuits your BG evaporates so as a result the enemy BG are now within charge of your flank. I make that (assuming cavalry) 7MU three times plus 5 MU of charge so a BG of cavalry 26MU away to your flank fighting one of your own BGs makes a threatened flank

This way lies madness, infact I have just come up with a way to increase that 26MU almost infinitely if troops are in the right place.

[lawrenceg]

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?

As I see it here are only two ways to play the rule that do not require arbitrary decisions about which future possibilities need to be taken into account.

One is if there is any conceivable possibility of enemy charging the flank on his next turn. In that case, the onus is on the threatening player to demonstrate that such a possibility exists.

The other is Hammy's way, ignoring all future possibilities. You look at the current positions and cohesion states. You imagine that this is the state at the start of the player's next impact phase and that no BG other than the chargers will move unless burst through by the chargers. If a declared or involuntary flank charge could occur then the flank is threatened.

I favour Hammy's way as it is simpler to work out.

[hammy]

Consider:

(BG A)(BG 1){gap of 14MU}(BG 2){gap of 19MU less width of BG2}(BG 3)

BG A is facing right and fighting BG1 which is facing left. BG 2's facing is irrelevant but lets say that BG 2 is facing up. BG 3 is the BG with the potentially threatened flank and is facing up.

If BG A breaks BG 1 in the melee phase of it's owners turn then BG 1 routs maximum and is caught then routs maximum again bursting through BG 2 which will be hit in the flank by BG A which has of course rolled maximum again then BG 2 will have to fight in your impact phase against BG A. As BG 2 will be fragmented and hit in the flank it is highly likely to break. Then it routs 7MU and another 7 MU in the JAP before evaporating and leaving BG A within 5 MU of the flank of BG 3.

You can insert several more BGs between BG 2 and BG 3 and effectively extend this situation the full width of the table. Do you really want that to be correct?

[batesmotel]

...
The other is Hammy's way, ignoring all future possibilities. You look at the current positions and cohesion states. You imagine that this is the state at the start of the player's next impact phase and that no BG other than the chargers will move unless burst through by the chargers. If a declared or involuntary flank charge could occur then the flank is threatened.

I favour Hammy's way as it is simpler to work out.

I would argue for an even simpler requirement that the the potential chargers could legally declare a charge, with or without a CMT to do so if necessary, under the other conditions you list for "Hammy's way". I would be in favor of discounting a potential charger that could only charge by bursting through friends after failing a test to not charge. I don't see any good reason to encourage players to try to take advantage of the possibility that shock troops can make an involuntary charge in a situation where they could not legally declare a voluntary charge. That way reminds me too much of the abilities to take advantage of troops impetuosity in DBM. In addition, I'm really not convinced that in the middle of a battle that a unit is going to pay enough attention to what enemy troops are beyond the immediate enemy front line troops to their flank.

Chris

[philqw78]

Battle troops

could legally declare a

flank

charge

now if this was their impact phase.

BG can legally declare a charge, but then may not pass a test to do it

[grahambriggs]

Graham,

I am not sure what you are trying to say here.

There are a huge number of things that could change between for example the melee phase of your opponents turn and their next impact phase.

Would a BG that was fighting one of your BGs but 20+ MU away and to the flank of your BG threaten that flank? If not why not? If for example you BG facing the enemy broke in the melee phase and routed rolling a maximum rout move which the pursuers keep up with so it routs again in the JAP of the enemy phase and then again in the JAP of your phase all the time with both BG's rolling maximum then with 3 base losses from pursuits your BG evaporates so as a result the enemy BG are now within charge of your flank. I make that (assuming cavalry) 7MU three times plus 5 MU of charge so a BG of cavalry 26MU away to your flank fighting one of your own BGs makes a threatened flank

This way lies madness, infact I have just come up with a way to increase that 26MU almost infinitely if troops are in the right place.

I think you may have missed the word "guaranteed" in my posting?. I'm not saying that being range to make a flank charge can but just a possibility, only that it must be a certainty. In the original example posted a battle group is in the way but is routing and will need to make two rout moves thus it will certainly not be in the way in the impact phase. the flanking unit is in charge reach. So it is certainly able to declare a flank charge in it's next impact phase.

I'm clearly being dense but the only difference between the posted situation and a "standard" flank threat seems to be a routing unit that cannot be in the charge path in the impact phase. So I just don't understand why that doesn't qualify as a flank threat given that the rule refences a future phase, not the current one.

Oh well, i suppose it's rare enough that it isn't a big issue either way.

[hammy]

I think you may have missed the word "guaranteed" in my posting?.

Quite possibly but if you need to be able to guarantee to be able to flank charge there are sill issues.

What if there is for example a routing BG that is not currently in the way but after the next JAP it will be in the way? What if the charging BG is disrupted so needs a CMT to be able to charge?

Either way it is none trivial.

[grahambriggs]

I think you may have missed the word "guaranteed" in my posting?.

Quite possibly but if you need to be able to guarantee to be able to flank charge there are sill issues.

What if there is for example a routing BG that is not currently in the way but after the next JAP it will be in the way? What if the charging BG is disrupted so needs a CMT to be able to charge?

Either way it is none trivial.

I'd need to check the precise wording of the rules (must get a work copy ). I seem to recall it's words to the effect of "can declare a flank charge in it's next impact". To me that is where a bit of greyness creeps in. I'm happy that the original posted situation is OK for the -1 as there is nothing capable of getting in the way. Without checking the rules (never stopped me before) I'd say that if there's any chance that a charge could not be declared next move you don't count the -1.

So router that might get in the way would stop the -1. Guys who need to CMT to charge are interesting. Do you declare the charge then test whether they will or test whether or not you can declare a charge?

Where's Larry Essick when we need him?

[hammy]

I'd need to check the precise wording of the rules (must get a work copy ). I seem to recall it's words to the effect of "can declare a flank charge in it's next impact". To me that is where a bit of greyness creeps in. I'm happy that the original posted situation is OK for the -1 as there is nothing capable of getting in the way. Without checking the rules (never stopped me before) I'd say that if there's any chance that a charge could not be declared next move you don't count the -1.

The exact words are "There are enemy non-skirmishers capable of charging the battle groups flank / rear in their next turn"

IMO if there is currently a BG of routers in the way then the threatening BG is not "capable" however if the words were "who will be capable" then I would agree that you should ignore the routers. IMO my interp allows a disrupted non shock BG to threaten a flank as long as nothing is in the way as they would be 'capable' just not certain to be able to deliver.

[MarkSieber]

"There are enemy non-skirmishers capable of charging the battle-group's flank/rear in their next turn."

We've been playing this as though the next turn were scheduled to happen immediately, without imponderables. Would the guys in the BG which is testing feel insecure, seeing a looming presence? As player-commanders, we look for the best case for our little men (we don't want that minus), while they would be considering the worst case...

[hazelbark]

So the way you read it Hammy is the next turn bit is not actually at the point that things may resolve in the next turn. But rather as if could the threatening BG connect with a charge at that instant excludign interceptors etc.

I would be fine with that and I think agree it would be more clear, but not sure that is what is literally written right now.

[hammy]

So the way you read it Hammy is the next turn bit is not actually at the point that things may resolve in the next turn. But rather as if could the threatening BG connect with a charge at that instant excludign interceptors etc.

I would be fine with that and I think agree it would be more clear, but not sure that is what is literally written right now.

The rules simply say "capable", not "will be capable". As far as I am concerned if there is a routing BG in the way now you are not "capable" even though assuming nothing else changes you "will be capable" of making the charge.

As I pointed out earlier if you consider "will be capable" you have to rule out all circumstances that may happen in future to prevent the charge and if you consider "could be capable" then there are even more silly things that need to be taken into account.

Having reread the words in the rules I don't actually think they are unclear but they could perhaps have been written along the lines of "given the current state of the game would be capable of declaring a charge if it was now their impact phase".