Fighting in Two Directions

[shadowdragon]

There are a number of conditions and exceptions with regards to flank attacks and when bases are turned. So I'd like confirmation / clarification of the following:

A non-terico/non-keil unit, say a pike & shot BG, is in two ranks and already fighting an enemy to the front. A flank file of the pike & shot BG, which has its front rank base in contact with an enemy base, is contacted on the flank by another BG in a charge that is a legal flank attack.

The pike & shot unit drops in cohesion.
The two flank file bases do not turn 90 degrees, but the 2nd rank base is assumed to be fighting to the flank.
The pike & shot unit is NOT considered to be fighting in two directions since no bases are turned at 90/180 degrees to the rest of the BG.

Is that correct?

[rbodleyscott]

The two flank file bases do not turn 90 degrees, but the 2nd rank base is assumed to be fighting to the flank.
The pike & shot unit is NOT considered to be fighting in two directions since no bases are turned at 90/180 degrees to the rest of the BG.

Is that correct?

No, because of the second special cases bullet:

"o If none of the contacted bases are eligible to turn, one of them is nevertheless turned if the contact counted as a flank or rear charge, to indicate that this was so."

[shadowdragon]

The two flank file bases do not turn 90 degrees, but the 2nd rank base is assumed to be fighting to the flank.
The pike & shot unit is NOT considered to be fighting in two directions since no bases are turned at 90/180 degrees to the rest of the BG.

Is that correct?

No, because of the second special cases bullet:

"o If none of the contacted bases are eligible to turn, one of them is nevertheless turned if the contact counted as a flank or rear charge, to indicate that this was so."

Thanks. If you had said it was correct, then I would have asked why the 2nd bullet didn't apply. This ensures that at least one base is always turned to meet a legal flank attack.

The latter example on pages 103-104 are because the BG's started in side edge-to-side edge contact. So it's not a legal flank charge situation and the BG has the option of turning or not as described.

Nearly at the end of reading through the rules. Should be fun - not the least of which will be me trying to remember that, "oh this is different than in FoG:AM".

I look forward to FoG:N!

[rbodleyscott]

Thanks. If you had said it was correct, then I would have asked why the 2nd bullet didn't apply. This ensures that at least one base is always turned to meet a legal flank attack.

That is entrapment.

[shadowdragon]

Thanks. If you had said it was correct, then I would have asked why the 2nd bullet didn't apply. This ensures that at least one base is always turned to meet a legal flank attack.

That is entrapment.

No, it was not a test. I just wanted to keep my original question as simple and as clear as possible. I wasn't completely clear on "eligibility to turn" as it applied to the 2nd bullet and didn't know if I had one or two questions. As it turns out, it was only one as you answered my second question in response to my first.

If you genuinely felt entrapped, then I will promise to buy all supplements! Oh heck, I will anyway.

So, guilty as charged with a fine of 1 pound for damages incurred. There was no intent to offend.