Edge of table minus 1 on CMT logic?

richafricanus · Post by **richafricanus** » Sat Sep 26, 2009 7:40 am

The rule that you get a minus 1 on a CMT if you are a non-skirmisher within 6 MUs of the table edge is one I've never reconciled myself to the logic of and is possibly one that the rule writers could consider throwing out in future editions. The logic as I understand it is to encourage you to use skirmishers on the flanks. However, how consistently historical is that? Many armies don't even have skirmishers, and there are numerous accounts of battles where armies did not deploy their skirmishers on the flanks. And I get the minus even if I'm sweeping across your rear to sack your baggage! It just seems fairly arbitrary and not based on anything too real. Thoughts?

Richard

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Sat Sep 26, 2009 8:08 am

It is mainly there to provide a penalty for using the artificial edge of the table as protection - it is a boundry that does not exist in real life where you have to use real terrain.

babyshark · Post by **babyshark** » Sat Sep 26, 2009 12:16 pm

To be clear, the -1 is for CTs, not CMTs.

Marc

GHGAustin · Post by **GHGAustin** » Sat Sep 26, 2009 5:06 pm

I love this rule. As Nik said, there is no edge of the real world. In my experience, too many players are happy to use the edge of the table to protect their flanks. That too has no real world equivalent.

Now, should it apply for a coast? Maybe not.

richafricanus · Post by **richafricanus** » Sat Sep 26, 2009 7:21 pm

babyshark wrote:To be clear, the -1 is for CTs, not CMTs.

Marc

yes, sorry that was a typo - I meant a cohesion test

richafricanus · Post by **richafricanus** » Sat Sep 26, 2009 7:25 pm

nikgaukroger wrote:It is mainly there to provide a penalty for using the artificial edge of the table as protection - it is a boundry that does not exist in real life where you have to use real terrain.

One could still argue the merits of this - even terrain that hasn't been explored could be seen as scary to cavalry marching past it so why penalise me for a table edge? But let's accept the argument for a side edge - but how does this justify a flank march being penalised or when you are running along your opponent's rear edge?

dave_r · Post by **dave_r** » Sat Sep 26, 2009 8:00 pm

but how does this justify a flank march being penalised or when you are running along your opponent's rear edge?

Your flank march should be moving away from the flank as quickly as possible. If it doesn't get outside of 6" within two turns you deserve everything you get.

The rear edge -1 is to prevent your opponent sitting on the base line and not commiting. If you are within 6" of the edge then so is your opponent - given he has sat on the table edge then he is likely to be at a disadvantage - if he wasn't he would have advanced. If your enemy isn't there then there are no worries- you will never need to take a Cohesion Test.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Sun Sep 27, 2009 12:45 am

richafricanus wrote:but how does this justify a flank march being penalised or when you are running along your opponent's rear edge?

Flank march
You turn up on the flank and are surprised by the enemy resistance, you should be surprising them
Enemy Rear Edge
You are so far foraward of your own troops its a bit scary if you are put under pressure

ravenflight · Post by **ravenflight** » Sun Sep 27, 2009 4:58 am

GHGAustin wrote:I love this rule. As Nik said, there is no edge of the real world. In my experience, too many players are happy to use the edge of the table to protect their flanks. That too has no real world equivalent.

Whilst it is true there is no 'edge of the world' in reality, there is also an overwhealming emphasis on flanks in wargaming - in particular ancient wargaming - that didn't exist in reality. Sure, you protected your flanks. Sure you were concerned about your flanks. But the ease of movement in these artifical games make it something that is used far more often than it should.

There were very few battles where wrapping flanks became an issue, and so players use the 'artificial ease of wrapping a flank' to their benefit just as much as people use the 'artificial edge of the world'.

GHGAustin wrote:Now, should it apply for a coast? Maybe not.

Are you crazy? Of course it shouldn't apply to the coast. The coast is a physical barrier that you definitely can use to protect your flank.

ravenflight · Post by **ravenflight** » Sun Sep 27, 2009 5:01 am

richafricanus wrote:One could still argue the merits of this - even terrain that hasn't been explored could be seen as scary to cavalry marching past it so why penalise me for a table edge? But let's accept the argument for a side edge - but how does this justify a flank march being penalised or when you are running along your opponent's rear edge?

Hi Richard,

This is already covered in the rules. Terrain that is 'in your sphere of influence' is explored prior to battle. Terrain that is in the enemy's sphere of influence can have ambushers in it, and thus you're more than welcome to expose your flank to the ambush marker... or explore the terrain... your choice.

gozerius · Post by **gozerius** » Sun Sep 27, 2009 6:14 am

I thought it was because when you get too close to the edge of the world you could fall off.

richafricanus · Post by **richafricanus** » Sun Sep 27, 2009 8:25 am

gozerius wrote:I thought it was because when you get too close to the edge of the world you could fall off.

Now if someone had given this explanation in the first place I would have understood the point immediately!