Threatened Flank?

[grahambriggs]

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.

Well, that's your option I suppose. The rule is clearly written, though not what we would like, perhaps.

I'm flagging it because somewhere there will be a group of players playing it as the rules are written. If they play outside their circle and this comes up they will feel cheated when this 'interpretation' (which is actually a deliberate misreading) is used.

There's also the case that many flank attacks are set up in the preceding movement phase, and then go on to hit that flank. So we're assuming troops can see that coming in some circumstances and not in others.

[shadowdragon]

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.

Well, that's your option I suppose. The rule is clearly written, though not what we would like, perhaps.

I'm flagging it because somewhere there will be a group of players playing it as the rules are written. If they play outside their circle and this comes up they will feel cheated when this 'interpretation' (which is actually a deliberate misreading) is used.

There's also the case that many flank attacks are set up in the preceding movement phase, and then go on to hit that flank. So we're assuming troops can see that coming in some circumstances and not in others.

Personally I think it would be a great learning - and no doubt for me a humbling - experience to play people like Graham and....even Dave R - COUGH

[philqw78]

Personally I think it would be a great learning - and no doubt for me a humbling - experience to play people like Graham and....even Dave R - COUGH

Evans and Redhead then

[shadowdragon]

Personally I think it would be a great learning - and no doubt for me a humbling - experience to play people like Graham and....even Dave R - COUGH

Evans and Redhead then

Absolutely those chaps, but note that I wrote "learning experience" and not "fun experience" which isn't to imply that it wouldn't be fun to play against those chaps. I'm sure it would be. I'm convinced I could learn a lot from players who are very competent tacticians, players who are clever strategists and even or maybe especially players who have that low sort of cunning at exploiting the RAW in unforeseen ways by normal human beings. Yup, I can learn from players with any, some or all of those attributes. I leave at as an exercise for the reader to assign attributes to names.

[david53]

maybe especially players who have that low sort of cunning at exploiting the RAW in unforeseen ways by normal human beings. Yup, I can learn from players with any, some or all of those attributes. I leave at as an exercise for the reader to assign attributes to names.

if only true.....

[ethan]

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?

If you want to play this way then you have to let in all sorts of other conditional things that MIGHT happen to allow a flank charge.

How about a unit not currently on your flank but in forward of your front edge and off to the side. I can make a complex move with a 90 degree turn and be positioned on your flank. By this logic it seems that should also count as threatening your flank as it possibly could happen. Basically anyway that can make their next move and be in a flank position regardless of staring position is threatening your flank.

How about if you have a FRG unit on your flank and I am in position to charge the FRG unit in the flank (auto-breaking it) and then charging the unit in question in the flank. This much also count as a threatened flank.

IMO using this line of reaoning will lead to absurdity.

[shadowdragon]

maybe especially players who have that low sort of cunning at exploiting the RAW in unforeseen ways by normal human beings. Yup, I can learn from players with any, some or all of those attributes. I leave at as an exercise for the reader to assign attributes to names.

if only true.....

Oh, you can learn, Dave, from all of those situations - truly. The question is what will you learn?

As has been said, "you can always count on anyone to be a good example, but sometimes that person is a good example of what not to do".

[berthier]

[/quote]

If you want to play this way then you have to let in all sorts of other conditional things that MIGHT happen to allow a flank charge.

How about a unit not currently on your flank but in forward of your front edge and off to the side. I can make a complex move with a 90 degree turn and be positioned on your flank. By this logic it seems that should also count as threatening your flank as it possibly could happen. Basically anyway that can make their next move and be in a flank position regardless of staring position is threatening your flank.

How about if you have a FRG unit on your flank and I am in position to charge the FRG unit in the flank (auto-breaking it) and then charging the unit in question in the flank. This much also count as a threatened flank.

IMO using this line of reaoning will lead to absurdity.[/quote]

I think you are correct on your reading of the rule and the route to absurdity that we entered rather quickly on page 1 of this thread.

[ravenflight]

I think you are correct on your reading of the rule and the route to absurdity that we entered rather quickly on page 1 of this thread.

Berthier,

I don't think anyone is really disputing the way things should be interpreted, but there is a small problem that needs to be rectified. As someone else stated up the thread further what if someone from Kazakhstan who don't have access to a computer and only play with a small bunch of players. The read the rule the way Graham did, and play it that way. They then save up their tenge's and manage to get to the Worlds. They play their first game and bingo they have to totally re-hash their way of playing. It would be unfair, especially considering they would be playing the rules as written.

If it's fixed - no problem.

[gozerius]

I don't have my rules with me, but does the RAW say "is capable of charging the flank" or "will be capable"? "Is" indicates present tense, which to me indicates that the BG in question must currently be physically in position to launch a flank charge, without any intervening actions.

Graham's reading seems to be "could concievably reach a position from which to launch a flank charge by its next Impact phase". Which is very speculative.

So to me it's a tense matter.

[zoltan]

Just on the point of being 'capable', if a BG must pass a CMT in order to charge, is it capable? Or does the chance that it may fail the CMT mean it is not capable?

[grahambriggs]

I don't have my rules with me, but does the RAW say "is capable of charging the flank" or "will be capable"? "Is" indicates present tense, which to me indicates that the BG in question must currently be physically in position to launch a flank charge, without any intervening actions.

Graham's reading seems to be "could concievably reach a position from which to launch a flank charge by its next Impact phase". Which is very speculative.

So to me it's a tense matter.

It's a mix: "There are enemy non-skirmishers capable of charging the battle group‟s flank/rear in their next turn". "is" and "next" suggests to me it's in a position such that in my next impact phase I can charge. So I don't think the tenses help guide us.

Agree with Ethan's point that the RAW allows for absurdity. Unfortunately, that won't stop the isolated group playing it that way. It would be nice if the FAQ changed the rule to something more sensible. Of course there's a flip side to the absurdity. What is my cav are just over 5MU from the flank and you have a bunch of fragged units in between? Then it's quite likely that my cav will be slamming into your flank in the impact phase.