Flank March Question

[dave_r]

If you Flank March with a BG of troops that can dismount - Knights are a good example, then when do you have to decide if they are going to dismount.

If you do dismount do you have to note this down prior to arriving as if you are Heavy Foot there is a modifier for arriving?

Straggling test should be abolished - nobody remembers to do them...

[nikgaukroger]

Straggling test should be abolished - nobody remembers to do them...

I do ...

Although Mr Stewart and I did have the when do you roll for it discussion at Warfare last year ...

[spikemesq]

Curious.

The rules for dismounting state that you can only dismount (a) at first deployment; (b) after all non-ambush ontable troops have deployed; or (3) when an ambush is revealed IF the ambush is noted as dismounted.

Flank marches are not defined as "deployed" but as "sent" and noted "before deployment" in the pre-game stage and then as "arriving."

So ambushes clearly must be designated as dismounted when placed (i.e., with a marker). I makes sense for flank marches to follow this rule, but the book does not say this. Instead, it is not clear where flank marches fit in the deployment universe. They are not in ambush, so when are they "deployed" as "non-ambushing troops"? When they arrive? When they are sent?

This raises a couple of other questions (in addition to the OP).

1. Can an ambush that is designated as "dismounted" be revealed as mounted? The rules clearly prohibit dismounting without designation, but arguably allow a mounted option (troops "can only dismount . . . if it was noted as dismounted").

2. If not, can the ambusher change its designation after all non-ambushers have deployed? Other table troops have this option, so why not troops in ambush?

3. If arrival=deployment, does the last flank march trigger the "after all non-ambushing ontable battle groups have been deployed by both sides"?

Spike

[dave_r]

1. Can an ambush that is designated as "dismounted" be revealed as mounted? The rules clearly prohibit dismounting without designation, but arguably allow a mounted option (troops "can only dismount . . . if it was noted as dismounted").

No. Page 147 -

"A BG of mounted troops can only dismount at the following times:

- When it is first deployed on table
- Immediately after all non-ambushing on-table battle groups have been deployed by both sides. The player without initiative decides first
- When it's ambush is revealed (but only if it was noted as dismounted on the ambush marker"

2. If not, can the ambusher change its designation after all non-ambushers have deployed? Other table troops have this option, so why not troops in ambush?

No. You can't change your ambush after deployment and the ambush marker would have to have the fact it is dismounted written on it.

3. If arrival=deployment, does the last flank march trigger the "after all non-ambushing ontable battle groups have been deployed by both sides"?

I think so - when it is first deployed on table you can make that choice. I think.... Whether this affects the previous arrival roll is debatable. Easily rationalised as they rode to battle and then left their horses with servants / horse holders etc etc

[philqw78]

Not that any of this made a difference to our game. When they arrived we brought them on behind our own troop line to keep them safe. If they had dismounted they could have come on in front of our line and moved so slowly as to do just as little.

[dave_r]

It could of if we had remembered to do the straggling roll. Which we didn't....

[philqw78]

It could of if we had remembered to do the straggling roll. Which we didn't....

Oh, blame something F******g else on me

[spikemesq]

Dave:

On the dismounted ambush issue, the rule says that you can dismount when you reveal an ambush if that ambush has been noted as dismounted.

So you definitely have to make the dismount election when you mark the ambush if you want that BG to dismount.

OTOH, the "can" language suggests that you need not dismount when you reveal that ambush (i.e., it does not say "must dismount"). I initially thought that ambushers designated as dismounted had no choice, but that is not so clear. Indeed, that other ontable troops have 2 opportunities to dismount (i.e., at deployment and after all ontable troops are deployed) suggests that the "can" language might support this optional ambusher dismount concept. Ambushes are revealed after all ontable troops are deployed. Other dismounters get a second (albeit different) bit at this apple, why not ambushers?

Changing the designation of an ambush after all "ontable troops are deployed" is more problematic. I agree that this is not supported by the rules.

As to dismounting after "all ontable troops deploy," I don't think that flank march arrivals present this window. Flank marchers are not "ontable" troops, and the rules do not suggest that "arrival" = "deployment." Otherwise, your OP actually has an easy (and cheesy) solution. If arrival=deployment, then you could arrive mounted, roll for stragglers as mounted, and then dismount (now that all ontable troops have deployed) unless there is a second flank march to arrive later which would postpone your dismount option. Similarly, if arriving flank marchers are the final ontable deployment, are ambushes also "deployed ontable" when revealed? Does this also postpone the second dismount window? I don't think it does, but if arrival turns flank marchers into "ontable troops," why would revealing an ambush not work the same way?

The key to all of these riddles is when are flank marching troops "deployed"? Are they deployed when sent on the flank march? When they arrive? The RaW do not use "deployment" in either context.

Spike

[Ghaznavid]

IMO Flank Marchers are deployed on table after arrival (and passing the straggling roll). Accordingly you can then chose to dismount. The special provision for ambushes make them the exception to that rule IMO, not a model for other circumstances that are vaguely similar.

[gozerius]

This would be nice if mounted infantry were included in the mix. Deploy as foot on table. but count as mounted for flank marches. We could make it cost the same as light spear and everyone would be happy.

[philqw78]

This would be nice if mounted infantry were included in the mix. Deploy as foot on table. but count as mounted for flank marches. We could make it cost the same as light spear and everyone would be happy.

ROTFL

But the points cost is fair, and would still be less of an advantage than Lt Sp.

And it would give Osprey the option to publish a new set of army lists.

[kevinj]

I don't see any ambiguity, if your ambush is designated as dismounted, that's how you deploy. Logically, in order to ambush you'd need to hide before the enemy turned up, so it's totally reasonable that you have to make the decision before you both deploy.

This would be nice if mounted infantry were included in the mix. Deploy as foot on table. but count as mounted for flank marches. We could make it cost the same as light spear and everyone would be happy.

Mounted Light Spear or Foot Light Spear?

[dave_r]

This would be nice if mounted infantry were included in the mix. Deploy as foot on table. but count as mounted for flank marches. We could make it cost the same as light spear and everyone would be happy.

I actually suggested something along these lines prior to publication - namely that Mounted Infantry added to the number of bases of LH and Cavalry for the Pre-Battle Initiative.

AP values were tiresome, although I worked something out which most people didn't have a huge problem with.

I think they got dropped / ignored as being too much effort for a very small effect.

[spikemesq]

I don't see any ambiguity, if your ambush is designated as dismounted, that's how you deploy. Logically, in order to ambush you'd need to hide before the enemy turned up, so it's totally reasonable that you have to make the decision before you both deploy.

I agree that it would be logical to commit the ambush to dismounted under the idea that the horses do not accompany the BG when it ambushes.

However, the rule suggests this is optional. Again, the BG of mounted troops CAN dismount when the ambush is revealed but only if that ambush is marked as dismounted. Similarly, a BG of mounted troops CAN dismount after both sides deploy all ontable troops but does not have to. So if you want to dismount an ambush, you better note that when placing it or lose the ability. Once noted, the rules do not make dismounting mandatory (e.g., they CAN dismount not MUST dismount).

I don't think that arrival=deployment. Otherwise, a flank march would postpone the second dismount option. Say you deploy some Knights that have a dismount option. You opponent lines up some Battle Wagons or Elephants against them AND sends a BG on a flank march. If arrival=deployment, the Knights must fend off the Elephants until that FM arrives, creating a pretty artificial race to combat for the Elephants hoping to get in there before the FM (which may have zero effect on the matchup, be set to come in on the far end of the table, etc.).

That seems wrong.

Also, why use the term "ontable" troops? If that only excludes ambushes (because arrival = deployment) then why not call them non-ambushing troops (a term I recall used elsewhere in the book)?

Spike

[ethan]

However, the rule suggests this is optional. Again, the BG of mounted troops CAN dismount when the ambush is revealed but only if that ambush is marked as dismounted.

If correct, the rule has some strange wording. Why include the "if marked as dismounted?" Why would you ever NOT mark it as dismounted if this is all that is required to gain the extra capability, at no actual cost.

[spikemesq]

Ethan, I agree that the rule has strange wording.

Another point on the arrival=deployment, there is another cheesy side-effect from the postponement.

Absent this interpretation of flank marches, not troops can move and then dismount. If a flank march pushes the dismount window back, then mounted troops can fly around like the mtd inf of DBM while the flank march is pending. I understand that FoG's dismount rules are a strong break from some of the gimmicky dismounting found in earlier DBM rules.

If arrival=deployment, then anyone with a dismount option has a strong incentive to flank march so they can redeploy before dismounting. Of course, they won't know when the dismount window will open, but that still seems pretty trashy.

Spike

[david53]

Straggling test should be abolished - nobody remembers to do them...

I do ...

Although Mr Stewart and I did have the when do you roll for it discussion at Warfare last year ...

I do them

[kevinj]

For ambushers I had not read this as saying that you may choose to dismount when placing the BG on table if you marked them as dismounted, but that you could only deploy dismounted if marked as such, and that marking them dismounted committed you to that.

[hazelbark]

I was asked by a new player if you have an ally with 5 BGs under their line of command. Can you flank march?

I suggested no, as the limit is 3 and it says if an ally all must go. Therefore no flank march permitted by that ally over 3 Bgs.

Agreed?

[david53]

I was asked by a new player if you have an ally with 5 BGs under their line of command. Can you flank march?

I suggested no, as the limit is 3 and it says if an ally all must go. Therefore no flank march permitted by that ally over 3 Bgs.

Agreed?

True