Wretched flanks again...Aaaargh!!!!

[philqw78]

A rear contact is different to a rear corner flank contact.

The issue relates to rear corner flank contacts or 2 base flank contacts.

Why, do the rules apply differently?

[hammy]

A rear contact is different to a rear corner flank contact.

The issue relates to rear corner flank contacts or 2 base flank contacts.

Why, do the rules apply differently?

If you make a rear charge you only contact bases at the rear. These contacted bases must turn to face and end up fighting.

If you make a flank charge and contact a front and rear rank base then the contacted bases must turn to face and you end up fighting what was the front rank base and with only one base facing you (if the formation charged was no more than 40mm deep).

[philqw78]

If you make a rear charge you only contact bases at the rear. These contacted bases must turn to face and end up fighting.

I thought you said the whole file must turn

If you make a flank charge and contact a front and rear rank base then the contacted bases must turn to face and you end up fighting what was the front rank base and with only one base facing you (if the formation charged was no more than 40mm deep).

So you are applying the same rule differently, and differently to what you said earlier.
IMO if 2 bases contact then 2 bases must be in contact after turning. If the bases turn individually this can be done. Why are you turning them individually now if a rear contact, but as a pair with a rear and flank contact.

[philqw78]

I see nothing wrong with this as the rules stand

[hammy]

I see nothing wrong with this as the rules stand

Apart from that doesn't follow the "normal rules for turning".

Bases that are contacted must turn.

If you charge the rear then only the rear rank is contacted so only the rear rank turns.

If you charge the flank then there is the potential to contact more than one base. All contacted bases must turn.

Therin lies Alan's issue.

[philqw78]

Apart from that doesn't follow the "normal rules for turning".

Yes it does in both cases. Bases contacted turn. The bases turn so that their front right (in this case) corner is used as the turning point and then they move back to stay in contact with their BG. Which is what the rules say. You would move them as if the BG is turning, which it is not. Only contacted bases turn in both examples above.

If you charge the rear then only the rear rank is contacted so only the rear rank turns.

If you charge the flank then there is the potential to contact more than one base. All contacted bases must turn.

Which they do in my example, but they turn individually.

[hammy]

I suppose the fundamental issue is what are the 'normal rules for turning' then.

The only rules I can find for turning are the ones on P44.

If you say that the front corner remains in place then your diagram doesn't work as the base that was the front rank has not done that

There is an argument that the rear rank base turns on the spot but the front rank doesn't as there is no room for it to turn. That way you would still have two bases fighting and one facing in the wrong direction.

[philqw78]

But they both turn immediately then close up to retain BG integrity. Because, being 15mm deep, no front corner can remain in place. If both turn and end 1 behind the other, as in your example, none of the front corners remain in place either (unless on 20mm deep bases).

[hammy]

But they both turn immediately then close up to retain BG integrity. Because, being 15mm deep, no front corner can remain in place. If both turn and end 1 behind the other, as in your example, none of the front corners remain in place either (unless on 20mm deep bases).

The more I think about this the more I am moving to the following.

The rear rank base turns 90 (front right corner becomes front left corner).
The front rank base cannot turn because the rear rank base is in the way.
The combat is fought between 2 bases on each side.
The chargers conform to the single base that has turned.

Not unlike the first case in your latest diagram

[philqw78]

The rear rank base turns 90 (front right corner becomes front left corner).
The front rank base cannot turn because the rear rank base is in the way.
The combat is fought between 2 bases on each side.
The chargers conform to the single base that has turned.

Not unlike the first case in your latest diagram

The rules say contacted bases turn......where possible.

[petedalby]

Is this a MAWS only argument or can anyone join in?

FWIW I agree with Hammy - sorry Phil! OMG - I think that's twice now!!

[rogerg]

The 'normal rules for turning' can only mean the situation where there is no contact involved. In this case, the two bases are behind each other and only one fights. I see no reason why the contacted bases have to remain in contact if that would be contrary to normal turning.

To turn as individual bases is more a DBM concept than a FoG one. FoG is battlegroup based rules set. A BG contacted in flank is still a BG. There is no implication that I can see that a BG is required to expand on th eflan it is contacted.

Suppose that a six base BG of MF in column is contacted in flank along the entire length of the flank. No 'normal turning' would result in anything but a two deep line. To suggest it would become six bases wide and one deep to try and keep all the contacted bases in contact seems absurd.

[hammy]

The 'normal rules for turning' can only mean the situation where there is no contact involved. In this case, the two bases are behind each other and only one fights. I see no reason why the contacted bases have to remain in contact if that would be contrary to normal turning.

Which would be fine if the flank contact rules didn't say that you use the normal rules for turning the contacted BG

To turn as individual bases is more a DBM concept than a FoG one. FoG is battlegroup based rules set. A BG contacted in flank is still a BG. There is no implication that I can see that a BG is required to expand on th eflan it is contacted.

Suppose that a six base BG of MF in column is contacted in flank along the entire length of the flank. No 'normal turning' would result in anything but a two deep line. To suggest it would become six bases wide and one deep to try and keep all the contacted bases in contact seems absurd.

I think that in the case of hitting a column in the flank only the rear base can turn so only the rear base does so. If there is no other contact then the flanked BG has the option to reform which will get it into a sensible formation.

[philqw78]

Is this a MAWS only argument or can anyone join in?

FWIW I agree with Hammy - sorry Phil! OMG - I think that's twice now!!

Ah, but which bit?

[philqw78]

The 'normal rules for turning' can only mean the situation where there is no contact involved. In this case, the two bases are behind each other and only one fights. I see no reason why the contacted bases have to remain in contact if that would be contrary to normal turning.

In that case then when contacted in rear the whole file must turn using normal rules for turning.

[kevinj]

In that case then when contacted in rear the whole file must turn using normal rules for turning.

But (P56) only the bases that are contacted turn at the time of the impact.

On the general issue, i.e. 2 bases contacting a flank, I agree with Roger. If two bases are contacted whose depth is no greater than 1 base width then they should turn 1 wide and 2 deep, in accordance with the "normal rules for turning".

[hammy]

In that case then when contacted in rear the whole file must turn using normal rules for turning.

But (P56) only the bases that are contacted turn at the time of the impact.

On the general issue, i.e. 2 bases contacting a flank, I agree with Roger. If two bases are contacted whose depth is no greater than 1 base width then they should turn 1 wide and 2 deep, in accordance with the "normal rules for turning".

So if this case does only 1 base fight on each side despite 2 bases a side contacting each other in the impact phase?

[ShrubMiK]

That has always been my assumption.

I don't really have a problem with it. There are other situations where fewer attacking bases end up fighting than actually made contact. Admittedly this is slightly different in that 2 defending bases were also contacting so 2v2 becomes 1v1...but if it needs justifying, you can consider that the two attacking bases which originally contacted did so with only approx. half their frontage, so ending up with one base in (full) contact and fighting is sort of representative of the number of troops that made contact in the "real life" situation being represented by the bases on the table.

[rogerg]

I don't have the rules with me, however, 'contacted bases' turning does not imply that all these bases remain in contact.

What is the precise wording about the bases fighting? Unless it specifically states something about 'at the time of contact' then one assumes the number fighting is the number in contact after the contct positioning has been resolved. Often this does mean two contacted bases turning one behind the other to give one base fighting. If one assumes the number of dice should be representative of the frontage width contacted, this seems reasonable.

[AlanYork]

I don't have the rules with me, however, 'contacted bases' turning does not imply that all these bases remain in contact.

What is the precise wording about the bases fighting? Unless it specifically states something about 'at the time of contact' then one assumes the number fighting is the number in contact after the contct positioning has been resolved. Often this does mean two contacted bases turning one behind the other to give one base fighting. If one assumes the number of dice should be representative of the frontage width contacted, this seems reasonable.

If you look at my posting summing up the 3 possible ways of viewing this problem this view is in line with "option 1" ie my own and seems to fit most with the rules as written.

Hammy's issue is that it will cause less casualties on the troops being charged, fair enough but it could be argued that a charge onto a flank that isn't engaged frontally (ie what we have here in the example) will be nowhere near as devastating as a charge against a flank that is already fighting to its front.

ShrubMiKand Rogerq's comments about justifying it by the frontage engaged are also relevant I feel.

To be honest I'm surprised this issue didn't come out in playtest but rule writers are human and maybe it just never came up. Again I take Hammy's point about him personally not seeing this too much but I really don't think this is one of those one in a million situations. Certainly it won't be seen every game either but I think it's reasonable to say it's going to occur enough times to need clarification.