Outflanking Marches

[ravenflight]

Don't forget that FM is expensive because you must have a command element with the FM.

If I have the volcano in my half, and expect my opponent not to send a FM on that side because of the volcano, and there are no terrain issues on his half same flank, then I could be tempted to set one against him. Having the volcano is an asset in the balance of things. This is not so stupid?

RobKhan

Throws pointy stick then runs like hell.

Go right ahead! I think you'd be crazy!

[philqw78]

Calling this cheese is like saying it's cheesy to charge someone in the rear when they do a 180 in front of your army. If they make a stupid move how is that cheese? Another case of claiming ones stupidity as cheese on the others behalf.

I think our definition of cheese may be different. To me it is exploiting a badly written rule. Exploiting your enemy's poor play is good, unless he is a complete newbie, then you can make him learn. (possibly by destroying him)

[ravenflight]

Calling this cheese is like saying it's cheesy to charge someone in the rear when they do a 180 in front of your army. If they make a stupid move how is that cheese? Another case of claiming ones stupidity as cheese on the others behalf.

I think our definition of cheese may be different. To me it is exploiting a badly written rule. Exploiting your enemy's poor play is good, unless he is a complete newbie, then you can make him learn. (possibly by destroying him)

How can you 'exploit' this rule?

Go to any game and try to arrange this:

1 - you MUST get hilly, mountainous, tropical or desert.
2 - you MUST get a 1 or 3 on terrain placement.
3 - your opponent MUST get a 1 on the modifying dice.
4 - your opponent MUST do an outflank on THAT flank.
5 - YOU MUST do an outflank of larger size on the same flank.

if ALL of these come off, BOTH outflanks (inc your larger one) are destroyed!!!

Weird kind of exploitation!

[philqw78]

How can you 'exploit' this rule?

Go to any game and try to arrange this:

1 - you MUST get hilly, mountainous, tropical or desert.
2 - you MUST get a 1 or 3 on terrain placement.
3 - your opponent MUST get a 1 on the modifying dice.
4 - your opponent MUST do an outflank on THAT flank.
5 - YOU MUST do an outflank of larger size on the same flank.

if ALL of these come off, BOTH outflanks (inc your larger one) are destroyed!!!

Weird kind of exploitation!

Yes, thats you being exploited for being so daft. To exploit it yourself would need a 2 or 4 to get it on your own side. Hope it stays and hope your opponent is daft enough to flank march. To increase your odds put a coast on the other side edge, then flank march with 1 BG of skirmishers. Unfortunately if he also flanks marches with only 1 BG of skirmishers only your BG will be lost.

[ravenflight]

How can you 'exploit' this rule?

Go to any game and try to arrange this:

1 - you MUST get hilly, mountainous, tropical or desert.
2 - you MUST get a 1 or 3 on terrain placement.
3 - your opponent MUST get a 1 on the modifying dice.
4 - your opponent MUST do an outflank on THAT flank.
5 - YOU MUST do an outflank of larger size on the same flank.

if ALL of these come off, BOTH outflanks (inc your larger one) are destroyed!!!

Weird kind of exploitation!

Yes, thats you being exploited for being so daft. To exploit it yourself would need a 2 or 4 to get it on your own side. Hope it stays and hope your opponent is daft enough to flank march. To increase your odds put a coast on the other side edge, then flank march with 1 BG of skirmishers. Unfortunately if he also flanks marches with only 1 BG of skirmishers only your BG will be lost.

and generals... what a waste!!!

[RobKhan]

Exactly my point. It's the general that makes it far too costly to do a spoiling FM with a minimal BG commitment.
Also remember that terrain placement comes before you decide the FM and deployment, so, once the volcano is there... ya spends ya money and takes ya chances!

I don't see it as a rule problem, but an issue of understanding the balance of probabilities,so it is well and truly part of the game. But, a clarification that BG's fail to come on is very important for victory conditions.

I think each failed BG is worth 1 point if it fails to show up. Another cost and especially not good for the side that does the driving back.

RobKhan

[RobKhan]

There is another aspect deriving from a flank march that I would now like to clarify.

When I arrive on table with a FM and an enemy BG is within 6mu it must evade perpendicularly to the edge of the table, according to the Impact Phase rules, except that the old side becomes the new rear and the old front becomes the new side of the BG.

For a 2x2 mounted BG no problem, it remains 2x2 after the evade. But a 4x2 foot BG facing up the table does a 90 degree turn to become a column to evade perpendicularly.

Is it's new formation a 4x2 column or an 8x1 column?

Am I right in how this works?

RobKhan

[Robert241167]

It ends up as a column 8 bases deep by 1 base wide.

Rob

[ShrubMiK]

> a spoiling FM with a minimal BG commitment

I stil don't understand this bit.

If there is impassable terrain placed along the edge of player A's side of the table, there is no benefit in player B trying a small spoiling FM. What does he have to gain?

If A does not FM on that side, B loses his BF and general for nothing.

If A does a larger FM on that side, B doesn't achieve anything dramatic, a delay perhaps, but the situation would be the same with or without the impassable terrain.

If A does a smaller FM on that side, well... that kind of suggests that B hasn't gone for a "minimal" commitment after all, and in fact in view of the risk of A not FM'ing on that side at all and hence losing that non-minimal commitment would be reckless at least (I'll politely avoid the "s" word!)

Am I missing something?

[ravenflight]

> a spoiling FM with a minimal BG commitment

I stil don't understand this bit.

If there is impassable terrain placed along the edge of player A's side of the table, there is no benefit in player B trying a small spoiling FM. What does he have to gain?

If A does not FM on that side, B loses his BF and general for nothing.

If A does a larger FM on that side, B doesn't achieve anything dramatic, a delay perhaps, but the situation would be the same with or without the impassable terrain.

If A does a smaller FM on that side, well... that kind of suggests that B hasn't gone for a "minimal" commitment after all, and in fact in view of the risk of A not FM'ing on that side at all and hence losing that non-minimal commitment would be reckless at least (I'll politely avoid the "s" word!)

Am I missing something?

I think ultimately it's this:

I have an impassible terrain feature in the corner of my left flank.

I send a small flank march on my left flank.

If YOU send a flank march on your right (my left) flank, then you will be destroyed when your flank march comes on. My small flank march will also be destroyed, but it's worth it seeing I've destroyed a larger flank march.

Seems a great deal of effort to try to out-guess your opponent.

[ShrubMiK]

But what do you think the chances of me sending a FM on that side are? Pretty much zero, I would have thought.

[ravenflight]

But what do you think the chances of me sending a FM on that side are? Pretty much zero, I would have thought.

Yes, so I guess the thing is that the person WITH the impassible terrain feature gets the 'free outflank' if that's the case.

To my way of thinking... big deal. I can think of many things I'd prefer to do with an impassible terrain feature than use it to block an outflank that way. I really don't find outflanks to be a big threat. Yeah, they can be devastating if they come off at the right time, but I don't think I've ever used one, and I think that the risk are way too big to be bothered with. The outflanked side outnumbers your army for a large chunk of the game, and the outflank can be slowed down (stop the double move) by having 4 poor light foot moving away at your troop speed for the remainder of the game.

It's really not that big a deal to my way of thinking.

[david53]

It's really not that big a deal to my way of thinking.

Are you sure, I have found many many times that my flank march is the game winner in a large number of games. Of course it all depends on the enemy force you are facing. I'd never use it against a army heavy with Light Horse, but against Heavy foot armies it can be the winner. Also any thing in a tournement game that gets your opponent thinking about what could happen, instead of what is happening is a plus.

In the 100+ tournement games I've played this impassible thing has'nt ever come up and the thing with two people FM on the same side once in three years, so on those figures its not likely to happen.

Maybe because I plan to win PBI and normally take steppe as terrain choice if i have the chance.

Dave

[RobKhan]

There is no such thing as a free outflank. It all costs resources that may never come on, and if so, the opponent gets the points.

But I am glad someone sees my point of the advantage of having the "volcano" in your own back yard, as long as the other side sees it a a stopper for a FM on that side. It's all a matter of how you handle risk.

And the chance of getting it is low.

It's all good fun.

RobKhan

Rides up to enemy, takes a look, runs away to report.....or just gets lost.

[ShrubMiK]

Well I guess we are all in agreement in the end!

I just see impassable terrain filling the edge of my half of the table as something beneficial in that it protects against an enemy FM as something that prevents an enemy FM, not something that somehow cleverly aids an FM of my own.

Not that I have ever tried an FM in FoG, for some reason.