Threatened flank

[madmike111]

Does a unit count has having a threaten flank if the only way an enemy could charge it is if it fails a complex move test and bursts through its own light foot?

[david53]

I would have said yes but don't have the rules to hand IIRC I think it states are able to charge.

Dave

[hammy]

The actual rule is "There are enemy non-skirmishers capable of charging the battle group’s flank/rear in their next turn", in this case the chargers cannot actually choose to charge so I would say that the flank is not threatened.

I seem to remember a debate on similar lines where there was an argument that a BG that could only threaten the flank if it charged another BG, broke it and then pursued into the flank. IMO this is very similar and for this to count as a flank threat is wrong.

[madmike111]

We had a discussion at the time on what the word ‘capable’, meant. After talking it over it was agreed that the hoplites (the ones doing the threatening) had the ‘capacity’, i.e. ‘capable’ of charging the next turn. Even if it meant charging through their own light foot via a failed complex move test.

It actually seemed quite reasonable that the flank is threatened is these circumstances, i.e. a large formed body is very close to the rear of an enemy unit. To the unit taking the test just because there is a thin screen of enemy light foot between them and a host of Hoplites shouldn’t make them feel any safer.

If in ruling is that a flank isn’t threatened in these circumstances I suggest adding the words ‘capable of voluntarily charging’ to this section of the rules.

[caliban66]

If I had to decide umpiring this, I´d say it´s a threathened flank. If skirmishers weren´t there, it would. More naked enemies throwing stones and staring swearwords would not make me feel safer.

[ShrubMiK]

I'd agree with that.

In response to hammy...I think the troops undertaking the cohesion test should not be over-the-top pessimistic about the friends blocking their flank breaking immediately! Perhaps an exception could be made for friends already fragmented, who are very likely to break during - or even more worryingly, before - impact...but that of course complicates the rules for not much (IMO) benefit. If the flank protector breaks it will mean another test for the protectee anyway.

Has the situation been discussed with a flank which is guarded by friends stepped back, in a suitable position to successfully block a potential flank charge by intercepting?

[kevinj]

The actual wording is "capable of charging" (p136). This seems sufficiently unclear that either interpretaton is possible. On balance, I am tending towards the view that as Shock Troops behind their own lights certainly might charge, they are definitely capable of charging and therefore the flank is threatened.

I would think that where contacting the flank required other events to occur, such as a friendly BG evading/routing, it should not count as threatened.

[Petefloro]

IMO the key word in this rule is capable.
Whether the BG to the rear/flank charges or not, it is a threat to the other BG at that time because it is within range and capable of bursting through it's own LF to reach it's target. The threatened BG doesn't "know" whether the enemy will pass a CMT to stop the charge or not, it only "knows" the enemy is capable next turn to hit them in a very vulnerable place and they're not happy about it.Hence -1 off a CT

[expendablecinc]

IMO the key word in this rule is capable.
Whether the BG to the rear/flank charges or not, it is a threat to the other BG at that time because it is within range and capable of bursting through it's own LF to reach it's target. The threatened BG doesn't "know" whether the enemy will pass a CMT to stop the charge or not, it only "knows" the enemy is capable next turn to hit them in a very vulnerable place and they're not happy about it.Hence -1 off a CT

I am with hammy on this. Alone it seems. The Bg is not allowed to charge the flank. there are troops in the way. They might under particualr circunstances but not intentionally. if you open the doors to failed halt tests you also should allog step forwards, extra VMD and pursuit. What if the Bg isnt actually facing the enemy at all but there are evaders to thier front that are on an angle so if they choose to pursue to their own rear the chargers coudl potentially wheel/turn and charge intothe new flank.

Each of these is successively more silly but it turns the whole distinction into a selection of your preference for a particular shade of grey.

Come to think of it - in the initial scenario what if the the friends intervening were a pike phalanx. Your shock troops could still fail a test and charge through them into the eney flank.

[caliban66]

Yes, but reads "capable of charging", not "capable of declaring a charge". Shock troops can "charge without orders".

[deadtorius]

I agree with Hammy, the flank can not be charged unless the Gods intervene and grant lucky die rolls. Jut because you with the birds eye view can see the HF beyond the lights does not mean the troops on the ground can see it or are aware of it or even consider it a threat. Personally I think unless your set up in a situation where you can make a flank charge without the need of divine intervention or lucky die rolls the flank is secure. I think it comes down to the intention of what was meant in the rule not an odd literal interpretation.

[kevinj]

I'd actually like to agree with Hammy and the others, but it's down to an interpretation of "Capable of charging". If the wording were "Capable of declaring a charge" that would clarify it sufficiently.

[david53]

I agree with Hammy, the flank can not be charged unless the Gods intervene and grant lucky die rolls. Jut because you with the birds eye view can see the HF beyond the lights does not mean the troops on the ground can see it or are aware of it or even consider it a threat. Personally I think unless your set up in a situation where you can make a flank charge without the need of divine intervention or lucky die rolls the flank is secure. I think it comes down to the intention of what was meant in the rule not an odd literal interpretation.

But your idea would also work then when a unit of lights are in a gulley and a BG of enemy heavy troops walk past it outside 4 MU therefore they can't be seen by the heavies but the lights being there it stops the heavy enemy troops double moving. So I'd go with it being a threatened flank.

[Mehrunes]

Why differentiate how the charge will be accomplished? If the BG can be charged in the flank (whatever the circumstances), then the flank is obviously threatened.

[Petefloro]

Come to think of it - in the initial scenario what if the the friends intervening were a pike phalanx. Your shock troops could still fail a test and charge through them into the eney flank.

[/quote]


Surely if the intervening friends were pikes, they could threaten that flank and I'll think you'll find that shock troops will not burst through pikes as they are shock troops as well.

[hammy]

Why differentiate how the charge will be accomplished? If the BG can be charged in the flank (whatever the circumstances), then the flank is obviously threatened.

Consider this situation:

>
> AA BB CC DD
>

Where > is the enemy BG and A, B, C and D are friendly BGs

> is clearly capable of charging A in the flank. If A breaks on impact and routs through B then > will pursue and contact B which is another charge. Does this mean that > is 'capable' of charging B? For that matter what about C and D? all it would take would be the right combat results, cohesion tests and VMDs after all

[dave_r]

Surely if the intervening friends were pikes, they could threaten that flank and I'll think you'll find that shock troops will not burst through pikes as they are shock troops as well.

I think you'll find they will burst through other schock troops, even if they are pikemen!

[david53]

Why differentiate how the charge will be accomplished? If the BG can be charged in the flank (whatever the circumstances), then the flank is obviously threatened.

Consider this situation:

>
> AA BB CC DD
>

Where > is the enemy BG and A, B, C and D are friendly BGs

> is clearly capable of charging A in the flank. If A breaks on impact and routs through B then > will pursue and contact B which is another charge. Does this mean that > is 'capable' of charging B? For that matter what about C and D? all it would take would be the right combat results, cohesion tests and VMDs after all

I thought the point was the - on a CT.

If your > ended up on the flank of C therefore D could not be charged if it was lined up with C and have a minus on any test but C would of course.

[Petefloro]

I agree with Hammy, the flank can not be charged unless the Gods intervene and grant lucky die rolls. Jut because you with the birds eye view can see the HF beyond the lights does not mean the troops on the ground can see it or are aware of it or even consider it a threat. Personally I think unless your set up in a situation where you can make a flank charge without the need of divine intervention or lucky die rolls the flank is secure. I think it comes down to the intention of what was meant in the rule not an odd literal interpretation.

I don't get your "birds eye view" argument.In the OP the HF shock troops can see the enemy through the friendly light foot because they must charge them.They must be able to see the enemy to charge. So if they can see through the LF,then surely the BG with the exposed flank must be aware of the threat from the shock troops.So are you saying then that the shock troops are not a threat because it's not a voluntary charge?A charge is a charge whether it's voluntary or not and therefore a threat whether the charge goes in or not ,nothing to do with divine intervention.
What if the shock troops were not shock troops?They will still be capable of charging in the next turn,OK? They are a threat and will cause -1 on the enemy's CT.But it doesn't mean it absolutely definitely will charge in next turn.The player may change his mind and decide not to,which is the same effect as the shock troops passing their CMT and not charging.What's the difference?It's about the conditions when the CT test is taken relative to the BG with the threatened flank.It doesn't know whether the shock troops are going to hit or not,but it knows that it is capable of doing so.
So how can you call that an odd interpretation? The rules say "capable of charging next turn".Doesn.t mention whether the charge has to go in or not, voluntarily or other wise.

[Petefloro]

Surely if the intervening friends were pikes, they could threaten that flank and I'll think you'll find that shock troops will not burst through pikes as they are shock troops as well.

I think you'll find they will burst through other schock troops, even if they are pikemen!

I think you'll find on Page 58 -"They do not test (and will not charge) if the friends are shock troops..."- since pikes are shock troops they don't burst through then. Or is that another odd interpretation?