Threatened Flank?

[grahambriggs]

Mr Ruddock and I played at the weekend. A rules question came up. It is my impact phase. I charge his cavalry and it loses, so has to take a cohesion test.

7MUs to the flank of the cavalry, with none of Dave's troops intervening, are some drilled MF of mine.

Is the flank threatened?

I claimed it was, as the definition is that "There are enemy non-skirmishers capable of charging the battle group‟s flank/rear in their next turn". Note turn not phase.

So in my movement phase the MF could turn and move, thus facing the flank, then charge in my next turn's Impact phase.

The counter argument was that the MF are not actually in charge range at the moment and that was what mattered.

Thoughts?

[berthier]

As much as it pains me to say so, I believe Mr. Ruddock is correct.

[grahambriggs]

As much as it pains me to say so, I believe Mr. Ruddock is correct.

Why do you believe that?

[timurilenk]

Ooh - nice one Graham. It would appear you are correct though, despite it being DR a little harsh.

[philqw78]

This is a very badly written rule. Whose to say your MF would even still be alive then, or Dave hasn't placed something between the 2 before then, or they pass the CMT. Until they at least pass the CMT to turn and move they are not capable. Even if they did, in Dave's turn he could still get something between. It could even be claimed that Dave's cavalry could have routed you chargers in the 2 melee phases yet to come. Awfully written as you need a time machine.

[grahambriggs]

This is a very badly written rule. Whose to say your MF would even still be alive then, or Dave hasn't placed something between the 2 before then, or they pass the CMT. Until they at least pass the CMT to turn and move they are not capable. Even if they did, in Dave's turn he could still get something between. It could even be claimed that Dave's cavalry could have routed you chargers in the 2 melee phases yet to come. Awfully written as you need a time machine.

Well, my thought is the rule is very clearly written, it's the intent behind it that's ambiguous. It could happen that they turn/move and then charge; so they are capable of charging the flank. If it said "will be able to charge the flank" I'd agree that it isn't threatened.

Amusingly, it doesn't matter even if they are fighting steady foot. They can always disrupt the foot in the melee phase.

I agree it's daft and needs clearing up.

[ravenflight]

Mr Ruddock and I played at the weekend. A rules question came up. It is my impact phase. I charge his cavalry and it loses, so has to take a cohesion test.

7MUs to the flank of the cavalry, with none of Dave's troops intervening, are some drilled MF of mine.

Is the flank threatened?

I claimed it was, as the definition is that "There are enemy non-skirmishers capable of charging the battle group‟s flank/rear in their next turn". Note turn not phase.

So in my movement phase the MF could turn and move, thus facing the flank, then charge in my next turn's Impact phase.

The counter argument was that the MF are not actually in charge range at the moment and that was what mattered.

Thoughts?

I'd say by strict interpretation of the rules you're correct, but not within the spirit of the rule. By the same rationale, a unit of drilled cavalry 10" away (nearly a foot!) would be able to be used the same way... or worse, light horse would be able to do the same from 14" distant so long as the unit is fragged. They CAN turn and move next turn, and thus be within charge distance.

The spirit (IMHO) of the rule is that they could charge right now, but since it's a turn based game we know they can't turn now, so we'll interpret it as 'next time they can charge'.

[grahambriggs]

Perhaps. The trouble is, who can tell what the spirit of the rules is? And it would be easy to rewrite the rule to make it clearer (while I remember I'll suggest that for version 2.0).

And a player should be able to just play the rules without worrying about what 'the spirit' is - the spirit should be in the rules.

[shadowdragon]

Perhaps. The trouble is, who can tell what the spirit of the rules is? And it would be easy to rewrite the rule to make it clearer (while I remember I'll suggest that for version 2.0).

And a player should be able to just play the rules without worrying about what 'the spirit' is - the spirit should be in the rules.

Help me out, Graham. I'm having trouble here. You're starting to resemble your RAW opponent and vice versa.

But, more seriously, yes, clarity is preferred when it can purchase (unlike impromtu and immoral terrain) at such a cheap price. I've always interpreted the rule as the ability to charge within a single (impetus valid) move and not "get to move the next manoeuvre phase THIS turn and can charge in the impetus phase NEXT turn". As has been point out cavalry can then threaten from a distance of 10 MU. It that's what the RAW mean then it needs changing as that's far too great a distance in my view. Not only that, BG not currently to the flank of the BG can theoretically move to a flank position in the manoeuvre phase THIS turn and charge onto the flank in the impetus phase of NEXT turn. We might as well just have an automatic +1 CT for BG without a friendly BG on each flank.

[zoltan]

Graham is correct. In your own turn RAW effectively means friendly troops threaten an enemy flank from up to twice their normal move/charge range. To restrict this to one normal charge range the definition needs to be amended (which will be tricky due to the need to meld distance with ability to charge).

[iversonjm]

Graham is correct. In your own turn RAW effectively means friendly troops threaten an enemy flank from up to twice their normal move/charge range. To restrict this to one normal charge range the definition needs to be amended (which will be tricky due to the need to meld distance with ability to charge).

Um, if we are saying that in the RAW an upcoming movement phase gets added on to the distance for flank threatening purposes, why is this limited to units already on a flank? Woudn't it also include a unit to the front that was in a position to move forward past the testing unit's front line into a flank charge position?

I'm sorry, but regardless of how the rules is written, this can't possibly be correct. There has to be an implied "currently" in front of the word capable.

[zoltan]

[Um, if we are saying that in the RAW an upcoming movement phase gets added on to the distance for flank threatening purposes, why is this limited to units already on a flank? Woudn't it also include a unit to the front that was in a position to move forward past the testing unit's front line into a flank charge position?

I'm sorry, but regardless of how the rules is written, this can't possibly be correct. There has to be an implied "currently" in front of the word capable.

Yep, I guess that's the implication. Any BG capable of moving (from anywhere) this turn so that in its next turn it can charge a flank..... Sounds of donkey braying stage left etc.

Loose talk about "implied" words in the RAW is very dangerous IMO; the authors should simply fix this in V2.

[ravenflight]

Perhaps. The trouble is, who can tell what the spirit of the rules is? And it would be easy to rewrite the rule to make it clearer (while I remember I'll suggest that for version 2.0).

And a player should be able to just play the rules without worrying about what 'the spirit' is - the spirit should be in the rules.

Agreed.

I think the issue is more a case of not being able to cover all outcomes because we're all human and therefore what someone thinks they write isn't necessarily what someone reads. It reminds me of this:

Vizzini: HE DIDN'T FALL? INCONCEIVABLE.
Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

So, the 'spirit' of the rules is 'what the author intended even though it may not be written in intimate detail'. For instance, it may not say (I'm not sure, I don't bother to check these things) that you're not allowed to use weighted dice... it's in the spirit.

[ravenflight]

Graham is correct. In your own turn RAW effectively means friendly troops threaten an enemy flank from up to twice their normal move/charge range. To restrict this to one normal charge range the definition needs to be amended (which will be tricky due to the need to meld distance with ability to charge).

Incidentally, this 'glitch' further creates a disparity between drilled and undrilled as drilled will have a much greater effect on 'threatened flank' than undrilled.

Lets be realistic we all know what the rules intend, just play it that way.

Rules as written also allow a unit to teleport through terrain by use of the interpenetration rule. Nobody I know uses it, and if they did, it would be the last game they ever got from me.

[ravenflight]

To further add to the debate:

Lets say we have the situation that Graham has described at the beginning of the thread BUT the unit that is going to turn and move and therefore threaten the flank is pinned by an enemy unit. Can the unit then threaten the flank? I can see no reason (under the strict interpretation of the rules) why it couldn't? Lets say on the opposite side of the table there is an impact combat that hasn't yet been resolved. In that impact combat a unit COULD rout. From that rout a chain reaction of routs COULD happen that cause pinned unit to no longer be so. Therefore, the unit WOULD be (if that ridiculous combination of events occurred) free to move in their movement phase.

I'm being deliberately hyperbolic, but my point stays the same - at what point do you draw the line?

[grahambriggs]

Indeed, the current wording is far too permissive; that's why I raised it. I think what it is trying to convey is "a clear threat" without getting tied up in words. Perhaps the current wording plus "and within normal move distance" would do it?

Amusingly, my opponent and I were both agreed that the flank was threatened, but he wanted the umpires view which was that it wasn't. It didn't really matter as the cavalry were doomed anyway.

[hazelbark]

Well i think we have a simple out here. But yes the rules could be clearer.

The glossary rule does not give it the right to move in the threatend flank positon. So "next turn" does not imply the right to be in a different position thatn the one it is physically in.

But clearly one for clean up.

[gozerius]

Remind me never to play with you people. Any BG that is not in position to charge the flank at the moment the CT is required cannot be considered to threaten the flank. Any other interpretation is just daft.

[ravenflight]

Remind me never to play with you people. Any BG that is not in position to charge the flank at the moment the CT is required cannot be considered to threaten the flank. Any other interpretation is just daft.

Steady on Gonzo... We're all agreeing on how the interpretation should be. The rules as written do not comply with how they are played.

Now, if you play it the way you've written it you are doing it exactly how most people play it, but NOT as the rules are as written. If how you're playing it is the intent (which I believe it is) then the rules must be re-written to fix this up.

[grahambriggs]

Well i think we have a simple out here. But yes the rules could be clearer.

The glossary rule does not give it the right to move in the threatend flank positon. So "next turn" does not imply the right to be in a different position thatn the one it is physically in.

But clearly one for clean up.

I agree with the sentiment, but believe you are misreading. There is no need to imply a right. All it say is that it is capable of charging next turn. In between now and then there's a movement phase during which the troops can move to a positionb such that they can mount a charge.

I know it's generally read as "capable of charging the flank if nobody moves". But that's not what it says at present.

I've raised it in the 'wording to clear up in 2.0' thread; at least that will get the authors to look at it.