Rear support when fighting in two directions

titanu · Post by **titanu** » Thu Nov 18, 2010 12:09 pm

I thought I knew this until I played Dave Ruddock last night. He had a battle group of cav that had been charged in the flank and turned a base. He had a unit that would have given the cav rear support before they turned a base. Do they still give rear support?
If so does it matter which was the original front and hence rear of the unit before turning?
Also would the cav get rear support from a unit to the side that is only behind the base that turned?

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Thu Nov 18, 2010 1:27 pm

BG fighting in 2 directions do not get rear support.

titanu · Post by **titanu** » Thu Nov 18, 2010 1:36 pm

philqw78 wrote:BG fighting in 2 directions do not get rear support.

That was exactly what I said but DR spat in my face and said I was talking b****ks!

Robert241167 · Post by **Robert241167** » Thu Nov 18, 2010 1:38 pm

Note to self: always carry tissues when playing the ladyboy !!

Rob

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Thu Nov 18, 2010 1:38 pm

titanu wrote:
philqw78 wrote:BG fighting in 2 directions do not get rear support.
That was exactly what I said but DR spat in my face and said I was talking b****ks!

Just remember "Dave is wrong" especially when he gets to benefit from his 'ruling'

titanu · Post by **titanu** » Thu Nov 18, 2010 1:56 pm

hammy wrote:
titanu wrote:
philqw78 wrote:BG fighting in 2 directions do not get rear support.
That was exactly what I said but DR spat in my face and said I was talking b****ks!
Just remember "Dave is wrong" especially when he gets to benefit from his 'ruling'

Oh how cynical

Just because he had 4 units of Bosporan lancers all of whom routed on the same turn - oh I see what you mean

lawrenceg · Post by **lawrenceg** » Thu Nov 18, 2010 3:02 pm

(see below)

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Thu Nov 18, 2010 8:43 pm

...and to thread viewtopic.php?t=19817

Tim

dave_r · Post by **dave_r** » Thu Nov 18, 2010 10:54 pm

Anybody care to point out in the rules where it says this?

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Fri Nov 19, 2010 7:32 am

dave_r wrote:Anybody care to point out in the rules where it says this?

Phil presumably can as he was so adamant about it. We await with interest ...

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Fri Nov 19, 2010 7:51 am

nikgaukroger wrote:Phil presumably can as he was so adamant about it. We await with interest ...

Nik told me at Britcon 08. I disagreed, so he brought Shipman round to back him up.

titanu · Post by **titanu** » Fri Nov 19, 2010 7:59 am

philqw78 wrote:
nikgaukroger wrote:Phil presumably can as he was so adamant about it. We await with interest ...
Nik told me at Britcon 08. I disagreed, so he brought Shipman round to back him up.

Next time you play Phil and ask for an umpire you should be onto a good thing!!!

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Fri Nov 19, 2010 9:13 am

titanu wrote:
philqw78 wrote:
nikgaukroger wrote:Phil presumably can as he was so adamant about it. We await with interest ...
Nik told me at Britcon 08. I disagreed, so he brought Shipman round to back him up.
Next time you play Phil and ask for an umpire you should be onto a good thing!!!

He ought to have asked for an umpire then - I wasn't umpiring FoG in 2008 IIRC

I see that checking the rules since 2008 hasn't crossed Phil's mind ...

FWIW the rules are silent on this (as repeated queries on this forum show). I know I have ruled it different ways at different times depending what my view was at that time.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Fri Nov 19, 2010 10:25 am

nikgaukroger wrote:He ought to have asked for an umpire then - I wasn't umpiring FoG in 2008 IIRC

But you still felt the need to stick your nose in

Hammy was the official umpire but dithered as usual.

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Fri Nov 19, 2010 10:58 am

I don't have the rules to hand, but IIRC what we have ruled in the past is that the supporting BG would have to be behind the rear of the BG taking into account both (not just either of) the supported BG's facings.

peteratjet · Post by **peteratjet** » Fri Nov 19, 2010 11:48 am

... and would the same principle apply for a threatened flank?

ethan · Post by **ethan** » Fri Nov 19, 2010 1:02 pm

peteratjet wrote:... and would the same principle apply for a threatened flank?

No, as the threatened flank rule is clearer in operation. If a unit can be hit in the flank or rear by non-skirmishers it has a threatened flank (or is within 6 MU of the edge).

grahambriggs · Post by **grahambriggs** » Fri Nov 19, 2010 1:27 pm

rbodleyscott wrote:I don't have the rules to hand, but IIRC what we have ruled in the past is that the supporting BG would have to be behind the rear of the BG taking into account both (not just either of) the supported BG's facings.

I think it's just not covered in the rules Richard.

Since the principle of rear support is presumably that those friends would be helpful, they've obviously failed in their task!

dave_r · Post by **dave_r** » Fri Nov 19, 2010 6:27 pm

I argued that since the unit was behind the original direction the unit was facing and that there were more bases pointing in that direction then that was a reasonable guess at the units rear.

As Bob has stated Hammy apparently ruled that a unit facing in two directions couldn't claim rear support. I told Bob that as usual Hammy was talking B*ll*cks and there was nothing to support that statement in the rules.

You should of course know, Dave is Right

peterrjohnston · Post by **peterrjohnston** » Fri Nov 19, 2010 6:59 pm

dave_r wrote:You should of course know, Dave is Right

grahambriggs and iversonjm and kevinj wrote:Dave is correct.

Three wrongs don't make a right.