Rear Support when fighting in two directions

Caledonian · Post by **Caledonian** » Wed Mar 17, 2010 5:30 pm

A battle group of four stands is fighting in two directions with two stands fighting each way at a right angle to one another . Can it claim rear support from both rear edges. If not, what edge counts as its rear edge. I cannot find anything in the rules which covers this situation

Thanks

John

Mehrunes · Post by **Mehrunes** » Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:21 pm

Without the rule book at hand: In order of getting rear support, there mustn't be enemy troops between the BG providing and the BG claiming rear support.

Edit: Oops, I missed the "right angle" and thought the BG were fighting to front and rear. In that case, I assume, the former rear edge counts.

deadtorius · Post by **deadtorius** » Wed Mar 17, 2010 9:11 pm

cant get rear support if the supporters are currently in melee so in short, no you can't.

Blathergut · Post by **Blathergut** » Wed Mar 17, 2010 9:24 pm

I don't think he meant the rear support dudes were fighting. I would think you would still use the original rear side but can't say so for certain.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Thu Mar 18, 2010 7:56 am

BG fighting in m ore than one direction cannot get rear support from anyone.

Mehrunes · Post by **Mehrunes** » Thu Mar 18, 2010 8:43 am

Now it's getting interesting. Can you point me to the part of the rules where I can find this?
At least, it's not part of the glossary entry 'rear support' where I would assume to find it.

Caledonian · Post by **Caledonian** » Thu Mar 18, 2010 1:06 pm

Can you please indicate where in the rules it states that a BG fighting in two directions does not get rear support. I could not find it anywhere.

Thanks

John

Ghaznavid · Post by **Ghaznavid** » Fri Mar 19, 2010 3:26 am

Given these threads:
viewtopic.php?p=62677#62677
viewtopic.php?p=56577#56577
I would be somewhat surprised if "Phil the Naked Fanatic"

can produce such a rule. Although I might have missed a more recent discussion on the topic.

deadtorius · Post by **deadtorius** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:25 am

whoops my bad I thought the BG was rear charged and was trying to get rear support from the other half of the unit. Looks like the rear is well the backside of whichever side has the most bases so guess that is where you have to look for your rear support. I think this would make rear support even more difficult as your supporters have to be facing the same direction as the now defined rear of the BG. Quite confusing and hope Blathergut never tries to pull this one off on me.

Caledonian · Post by **Caledonian** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 2:17 pm

The second thread link on Ghaznavids post would appear to clarify the matter.

Thanks to all for their inputs

John

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 6:28 pm

Phil the naked fanatic has surprised us all more than once before so I am sure he can do it again...

Mehrunes · Post by **Mehrunes** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 7:33 pm

Caledonian wrote:The second thread link on Ghaznavids post would appear to clarify the matter.

Does it?
I missed the quote from the rules then - or a clarifying answer from Richard himself - or an overwhelming consensus. One of these I need to believe a certain ruling.

Caledonian · Post by **Caledonian** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 8:28 pm

In the absence of any input from Richard himself, I am happy to accept Terry's.

Ghaznavid · Post by **Ghaznavid** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 5:09 pm

Mehrunes wrote:
Caledonian wrote:The second thread link on Ghaznavids post would appear to clarify the matter.
Does it?
I missed the quote from the rules then - or a clarifying answer from Richard himself - or an overwhelming consensus. One of these I need to believe a certain ruling.

Personally I'm happy with a clarification from any of the rule authors, at least as long as none of the other two objects. Since neither Simon nor Richard it's kinda save to assume they are ok with it.

Mehrunes · Post by **Mehrunes** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 5:46 pm

Ok, I had to research first who is author besides Richard. So one can regard every reply of these three (what's Simon's nick here?) as official ruling?
I ask because "I would say" isn't exactly as strong as an official errata or FAQ (besides the necessity to know the particular discussion).

grahambriggs · Post by **grahambriggs** » Tue Mar 23, 2010 11:42 am

I would strongly caution against taking the postings of authors as gospel, unless they've conferred and given an agreed opinion in the FAQ.

Authors can often recall what they intended to rules to say, what the options were that were considered in playtesting, or what they should have written. None of those have any bearing on what the rules actually say. I play two of the authors quite frequently, and they get the rules wrong just as everyone else does.

In this case it's misleading to take an off the cuff comment by an author made two years ago as"official guidance". Particularly so as "what counts as a unit's rear when it's facing in more than one direction" is not well defined in the rules.

When I have seen this ruled upon by umpires, the conclusion has always been that it is the original rear of the BG that is relevant. Which knid of makes sense, as a friendly unit to the original rear might be well placed to help out against whatever just hit the flank.

Caledonian · Post by **Caledonian** » Wed Mar 24, 2010 11:33 am

The reason I asked the question initially was that I had to rule on it at a competition the previous weekend. There being nothing in the rules to cover it my ruling was, by coincidence, what Terry had said including the quote from the other section about units having two fronts. Both players accepted the ruling without further discussion and got on with the game.
Given Terry's opinion, that is the way I will play it until the authors come up with an alternative.
If however, I am playing in competition and get an alternative ruling from the umpire, I will accept that quite readily as I am aware that we all have differing opinions as to how some aspects of the rules, which are not specific, should be applied.

John

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Wed Mar 24, 2010 12:18 pm

Caledonian wrote:The reason I asked the question initially was that I had to rule on it at a competition the previous weekend. There being nothing in the rules to cover it my ruling was, by coincidence, what Terry had said including the quote from the other section about units having two fronts. Both players accepted the ruling without further discussion and got on with the game.
Given Terry's opinion, that is the way I will play it until the authors come up with an alternative.
If however, I am playing in competition and get an alternative ruling from the umpire, I will accept that quite readily as I am aware that we all have differing opinions as to how some aspects of the rules, which are not specific, should be applied.

John

IIRC Terry ruled against me at Britcon 08 and then posted the opposite opinion on here.

dave_r · Post by **dave_r** » Wed Mar 24, 2010 1:20 pm

IIRC Terry ruled against me at Britcon 08 and then posted the opposite opinion on here

He did that to me as well. Rules writers. Can't trust them.

All I have to say is..... Burnley...

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Wed Mar 24, 2010 1:25 pm

dave_r wrote:
IIRC Terry ruled against me at Britcon 08 and then posted the opposite opinion on here
He did that to me as well. Rules writers. Can't trust them.

All I have to say is..... Burnley...

The wargames club was in the Big Window pub when I was there. It was a long time ago. So long ago Newcastle were in a higher league than them.