Portable Obstacles

[dave_r]

I think these are in serious need of some "clarifications"....

In a recent game, my opponent deployed PO's. I had a unit to the front and a unit to the rear. In my opponents move he turned 180 degrees, but remaining in place.

The PO's aren't removed as the BG hasn't picked them up and has remained in place. If I charged them with the unit who were previously to their front, but now to their rear, it was ruled that I would have attacked over the PO's, despite these now being to the rear of the unit.

For a bonus point, would I have counted at double plus had I charged?

[philqw78]

For my bonus point, if you were foot yes, if you were mounted no.

[hammy]

For my bonus point, if you were foot yes, if you were mounted no.

Why?

The ++ for a rear charge doesn't care a whit about the terrain...

I would say that a rear charge probably would count the POs but the charged BG would be disrupted and fight at -- in the impact.

[elysiumsolutions@fsmail.n]

I was going to say I dont see what the problem was - a rear charge is a ++ so it doesnt matter but then I read the section on obstacles on page 121.
From the Portable Obstacles section : 'PDs are treated as FF vs mounted opponents other than elephants'. From the Field fortification section 'Troops defending FF cannot be charged in the flank/rear across the fortifications, and suffer no penalty for fighting in more than one direction across them'.

Therefore, for my bonus point foot or elephants would be at double +.

Paul

[hammy]

I was going to say I dont see what the problem was - a rear charge is a ++ so it doesnt matter but then I read the section on obstacles on page 121.
From the Portable Obstacles section : 'PDs are treated as FF vs mounted opponents other than elephants'. From the Field fortification section 'Troops defending FF cannot be charged in the flank/rear across the fortifications, and suffer no penalty for fighting in more than one direction across them'.

Therefore, for my bonus point foot or elephants would be at double +.

Paul

Just goes to show that making things up without looking at the rules is a risky business

[grahambriggs]

For my bonus point, if you were foot yes, if you were mounted no.

Unless the mounted are offset ans can step forward to contact the side edge? In which case that file will be on a ++

[dave_r]

So if I contacted the rear of the bg then what would happen in the impact? Would they count rear rank crossbow? Where would I go when I conformed?

This all sounds ridiculous

[grahambriggs]

So if I contacted the rear of the bg then what would happen in the impact? Would they count rear rank crossbow? Where would I go when I conformed?

This all sounds ridiculous

Assuming you charge over the fortifications, the crossbow turn and fight you "If not already facing the part of the fortification being attacked, the defending bases turn to face it". You get no POA (lance and mtd vs MF don't count because of the 'fortifications'). The crossbow get a POA for defending fortifications. In melee, they'll also have a POA for the fortification.

Not the best fight for cavalry - so you might need to charge from 2 directions.

[dave_r]

But it would count as a frontal charge. So the mg would count their year tank X-bow. Giving them three dic
In the conform part the cavalry would then "teleport" to the front of the mg bg???

And therefore, not now fighting across the fortifications?

[grahambriggs]

But it would count as a frontal charge. So the mg would count their year tank X-bow. Giving them three dic
In the conform part the cavalry would then "teleport" to the front of the mg bg???

And therefore, not now fighting across the fortifications?

Not quite. They don't count as being charged in rear, but the bases do turn. So they'll turn, and you'll then confoorm to them, rather than teleporting.

Relevant bit of the rules is "troops attacked across fortifications they are defending (see the Special Features section) never count as being charged in flank or rear. Battle wagons and troops in Orb formation do not turn if contacted on their side or rear base edge."

They wouldn't get support shooting I presume as the only bases with crossbows are now in the front rank.

[kevinj]

I can see how, if a fortification has corners or is a closed structure, bases inside could be regarded as defending that fortification even if an edge that might be contacted is not actually facing the contact. I think it would be wrong to claim that if only the rear of the BG was in contact with the fortifications that they were being defended.

[expendablecinc]

I was going to say I dont see what the problem was - a rear charge is a ++ so it doesnt matter but then I read the section on obstacles on page 121.
From the Portable Obstacles section : 'PDs are treated as FF vs mounted opponents other than elephants'. From the Field fortification section 'Troops defending FF cannot be charged in the flank/rear across the fortifications, and suffer no penalty for fighting in more than one direction across them'.

Therefore, for my bonus point foot or elephants would be at double +.

Paul

But at the point of the rear charge they are not defending FF. I believe the intent of the rule quoted (from the FF section) is primarily to cover exposure at corners.

If you have the situation below:
v = BG facing down the page

---- = FF lined up
< = BG facing left


V can flank charge < as they are not defending FF


in the situation below V cannot flank charge <

V

----
|<
|

I cannt imagine a situation where PO to a BG rear can prevent a flank charge
Thants not to say that Po to a BG rear would not still disorder Mtd

[expendablecinc]

I was going to say I dont see what the problem was - a rear charge is a ++ so it doesnt matter but then I read the section on obstacles on page 121.
From the Portable Obstacles section : 'PDs are treated as FF vs mounted opponents other than elephants'. From the Field fortification section 'Troops defending FF cannot be charged in the flank/rear across the fortifications, and suffer no penalty for fighting in more than one direction across them'.

Therefore, for my bonus point foot or elephants would be at double +.

Paul

But at the point of the rear charge they are not defending FF. I believe the intent of the rule quoted (from the FF section) is primarily to cover exposure at corners. Hammy I belive you were right with your initial response.(regarding the initial impact combat)

If you have the situation below:
v = BG facing down the page
---- = FF lined up
< = BG facing left


V can flank charge < as they are not defending FF


in the situation below V cannot flank charge <

V

----
|<
|

I cannt imagine a situation where PO to a BG rear can prevent a flank charge
Thants not to say that Po to a BG rear would not still disorder Mtd

Dave - you wouldnt teleport to the BGs front as you have hit them in the rear. one base woudl turn to face you. not due to the FF but just as per the normal flank/rear charging rules

[dave_r]

It doesn't count as a rear charge - therefore you move to the front don't you? Just like if you hit a BG in the flank that isn't a flank charge - you get moved to the front of the file you hit?

[philqw78]

It doesn't count as a rear charge - therefore you move to the front don't you? Just like if you hit a BG in the flank that isn't a flank charge - you get moved to the front of the file you hit?

You are just making s%*t up now Dave

[expendablecinc]

It doesn't count as a rear charge - therefore you move to the front don't you? Just like if you hit a BG in the flank that isn't a flank charge - you get moved to the front of the file you hit?

Why doesnt it count as a rear charge?
They arent 'defenders' being rear charged across FF. They are just troops being rear charged across FF.
If they were 'defenders', then yes it woudlnt count as a rear charge and yes you would teleport around to the front but then you would still be fighting across FF as in order to be defending FF they have to have thier frotn edge in contact with FF. ie the situation you are describing is at a corner or a narrow fort.

If it were adjudicated by someone that it was not a rear charge then yes you must confirm to the front of the Bg but I dont think that is the case.

[dave_r]

It was adjudicated that the po's were defended.

Hence my request for a clarification. I would also Luke it clarified if pp's can be placed in a threat zone.

None of this is a grumble about the decision on the day, it just feels wrong and could get ruled differently at a different time, which would be very annoying.

[zeitoun]

I think these are in serious need of some "clarifications"....

In a recent game, my opponent deployed PO's. I had a unit to the front and a unit to the rear. In my opponents move he turned 180 degrees, but remaining in place.

The PO's aren't removed as the BG hasn't picked them up and has remained in place.

If you turn or expand or contract you are not remained in place so the PO are remove for me....

[philqw78]

I think these are in serious need of some "clarifications"....

In a recent game, my opponent deployed PO's. I had a unit to the front and a unit to the rear. In my opponents move he turned 180 degrees, but remaining in place.

The PO's aren't removed as the BG hasn't picked them up and has remained in place.

If you turn or expand or contract you are not remained in place so the PO are remove for me....

That I agree with

[grahambriggs]

I think these are in serious need of some "clarifications"....

In a recent game, my opponent deployed PO's. I had a unit to the front and a unit to the rear. In my opponents move he turned 180 degrees, but remaining in place.

The PO's aren't removed as the BG hasn't picked them up and has remained in place.

If you turn or expand or contract you are not remained in place so the PO are remove for me....

That I agree with

"If the battle group moves away without picking up its PD, the PD markers are removed.". The BG has not moved away. So the PD aren't picked up.