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.

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

This is what the rules say at the moment. If it was intended otherwise it should have been written so. *shrug*
There are only two ways: Allow all possible charges or allow only easy, unobstructed, safe charges. The current writing supports he first way IMHO.

[dave_r]

Well, you live and learn...

[kevinj]

>
> AA BB CC DD
>

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

If we assume > is an enemy Lancer CavalryBG with a BG of their own LF between it and AA, but with a gap of less than 5 MUs between Lancers and AA.

For me this boils down to whether a charge, either declared or forced, would definitely impact the flank of the BG in question. As far as AA is concerned, if > charges, for whatever reason, they will definitely hit them in the flank. And that is where I think the line should be drawn. Yes we can all think of combinations of circumstances where > could theoretically go on to hit any or all of the other BGs, but the only one that it will definitely hit is AA, so that should be the only one that considers their flank threatened by >.

[gozerius]

A BG is capable of charging a flank or rear if it meets the requirements for charging a flank or rear laid out on page 55-56 at the moment the CT is made. It is not dependant on whether a BG could by its next impact phase find itself in such a position. All this silly if/then speculation is a waste of time.

[Mehrunes]

That's your interpretation of 'capable', which is not necessarily true. I fear we need a statement from the authors here, because no one really knows what capable means here.

Apart from that, in all those silly if/then situations, the to-be-attacker actually meets the requirements laid out on pages 55/56 (stand properly in the flank, do not wheel in 1 MU, contact side/rear edge, do not attack BWs, orbs or across FFs).
So what do you say: LF in the way who only allow burst through charges prevent the -1 or not? The requirements are met.

[philqw78]

That's your interpretation of 'capable', which is not necessarily true. I fear we need a statement from the authors here, because no one really knows what capable means here.

Apart from that, in all those silly if/then situations, the to-be-attacker actually meets the requirements laid out on pages 55/56 (stand properly in the flank, do not wheel in 1 MU, contact side/rear edge, do not attack BWs, orbs or across FFs).
So what do you say: LF in the way who only allow burst through charges prevent the -1 or not? The requirements are met.

The only question is are the testers capable of being charged in the flank. If you can say yes, it could happen at the time of test, then its a minus.

[Mehrunes]

No, the question is if the attacker is 'capable' (and we have to clarify what that word means) of charging the testers in the flank in their next turn (not at the time of the test). That are two huge differences.

Every BG in the game is 'capable" of being charged in the flank, unless it is in orb formation, behind FF or being a battle wagon, as long as the attacker is 'capable' to charge that flank. And now we are at the beginning once again.

[philqw78]

Slack rules writing

[deadtorius]

Which goes back to is the charger in a position where if he makes contact with the enemy is it a legal flank charge, if the answer is no then no -1 if the answer is yes then the -1 would apply. Thought about it today and it all boils down to is the charger in a legal flank charge position. If a charge is not a flank charge then how can a flank be threatened??
I agree with most of what gozerius said.

[AlanCutner]

As far as I can see weshould take the pragmatic view. If an enemy could do a charge that would count as a flank charge in its turn, then there is a threatened flank. This should be regardless of what tests have to be made. The BG being threatened wouldn't feel more protected just because enemy knights on their flank have to fail a test to go through their own troops.

[david53]

As far as I can see weshould take the pragmatic view. If an enemy could do a charge that would count as a flank charge in its turn, then there is a threatened flank. This should be regardless of what tests have to be made. The BG being threatened wouldn't feel more protected just because enemy knights on their flank have to fail a test to go through their own troops.

True I'm with this idea

[gozerius]

No, the question is if the attacker is 'capable' (and we have to clarify what that word means) of charging the testers in the flank in their next turn (not at the time of the test). That are two huge differences.

Every BG in the game is 'capable" of being charged in the flank, unless it is in orb formation, behind FF or being a battle wagon, as long as the attacker is 'capable' to charge that flank. And now we are at the beginning once again.

Since it may be impossible to determine the play of future events, the real question is if there "are" - present tense - enemy capable of charging the testing BG in their next impact phase. That means that the enemy BG would have to already meet the flank charge requirements listed on page 55-56. Since a BG cannot voluntarily charge through its own troops, a BG of shock troops would not be "capable" of charging at the time of the test. Conversely, a BG of disrupted non shock troops meeting the flank charge requirements would be capable of charging, even though they would need to pass a test to charge. Otherwise we enter the realm of wild speculation, and crystal ball gazing. "Is there a possible chain of events which could lead a BG to be in a position to flank charge in its next impact phase?" Or "Is there a possible chain of events which would render a BG incapable of flank charging in its next impact phase?" I believe in interpreting the rules based on the K.I.S.S. method. If the rule makes a simple statement, I don't try to overanalyze it.

[Mehrunes]

We have reached a point where arguments are simply repeated.
Why not wait if an author enlightens us.

[hazelbark]

We have reached a point where arguments are simply repeated.
Why not wait if an author enlightens us.

Because Godot will arrive first?

[Mehrunes]

I still have faith.

[rogerg]

I don't know if it is rule writers or an English language specialist that we need. For what it's worth, I would define the word capable as 'able to do something'. The rules do not imply any dependency on passing tests or other events. It is not 'capable if...' or 'capable after...'. If the rule was 'can possibly be charged in flank', then this would imply other conditions. As the rules are written, the implication appears to be plainly 'can do it now', with no qualifications. I would hope this is taken as the standard. It is everywhere I have played. If for no other reason, we really can do without having to plot a sequence of events that might lead to a flank charge.

[Petefloro]

I don't know if it is rule writers or an English language specialist that we need. For what it's worth, I would define the word capable as 'able to do something'. The rules do not imply any dependency on passing tests or other events. It is not 'capable if...' or 'capable after...'. If the rule was 'can possibly be charged in flank', then this would imply other conditions. As the rules are written, the implication appears to be plainly 'can do it now', with no qualifications. I would hope this is taken as the standard. It is everywhere I have played. If for no other reason, we really can do without having to plot a sequence of events that might lead to a flank charge.

So back to the original posters question, do you think it is a threatened flank and the Shock troops are capable of charging in the next turn then?

[hammy]

I don't know if it is rule writers or an English language specialist that we need. For what it's worth, I would define the word capable as 'able to do something'. The rules do not imply any dependency on passing tests or other events. It is not 'capable if...' or 'capable after...'. If the rule was 'can possibly be charged in flank', then this would imply other conditions. As the rules are written, the implication appears to be plainly 'can do it now', with no qualifications. I would hope this is taken as the standard. It is everywhere I have played. If for no other reason, we really can do without having to plot a sequence of events that might lead to a flank charge.

So back to the original posters question, do you think it is a threatened flank and the Shock troops are capable of charging in the next turn then?

IMO no, the flank is not threatened.

[philqw78]

IMO of course it is

[petedalby]

So back to the original posters question, do you think it is a threatened flank and the Shock troops are capable of charging in the next turn then?

As Hammy & Phil have demonstrated it can be interpreted either way. It needs a view from the authors for a definitive answer.

FWIW I think it is threatened.