Another unsecure flank question

[hazelbark]

E
E
E
E
_RRRR
3333

So its the melee phase. Friendly unit 3 just broke R, which is now routing up.

E needs to check for friends breaking within 3 MU.

So 3 is going to pursue R and slam into the flank of E.

When E rolls for the break does it have a -1 on the CT for threatened flank?

[ravenflight]

E
E
E
E
_RRRR
3333

So its the melee phase. Friendly unit 3 just broke R, which is now routing up.

E needs to check for friends breaking within 3 MU.

So 3 is going to pursue R and slam into the flank of E.

When E rolls for the break does it have a -1 on the CT for threatened flank?

I think I'd say 'no' (again, with all the precursors of the previous thread). The test is 'right now' so the pursuers will have friendlies between to stop the charge if it were to happen 'right now'. I think it would be similar to having a fragged unit who may break if charged so maybe we should count the test if it might happen (if that makes sense)

[grahambriggs]

It depends. If 3 can't miss E even with 3 and R rolling a 1 on VMD dice, then it'll hit in this melee phase. So it can't hit in 3s next impact phase. so the flank isn't threatened. If 3 could pursue short it will be threatened.

So bizarrely, the closer 3 is, the less threatened the flank is

[lawrenceg]

It depends. If 3 can't miss E even with 3 and R rolling a 1 on VMD dice, then it'll hit in this melee phase. So it can't hit in 3s next impact phase. so the flank isn't threatened. If 3 could pursue short it will be threatened.

So bizarrely, the closer 3 is, the less threatened the flank is

Is the threatened flank definition going to be revised in FOG2 ?

[grahambriggs]

It depends. If 3 can't miss E even with 3 and R rolling a 1 on VMD dice, then it'll hit in this melee phase. So it can't hit in 3s next impact phase. so the flank isn't threatened. If 3 could pursue short it will be threatened.

So bizarrely, the closer 3 is, the less threatened the flank is

Is the threatened flank definition going to be revised in FOG2 ?

I've flagged it in the "wording to be revised for v2" thread Lawrence.

[hazelbark]

It depends. If 3 can't miss E even with 3 and R rolling a 1 on VMD dice, then it'll hit in this melee phase. So it can't hit in 3s next impact phase. so the flank isn't threatened. If 3 could pursue short it will be threatened.

So bizarrely, the closer 3 is, the less threatened the flank is

It was a friendly so we said no because it would have such a big impact.

Its weird. The unit absolutely will be hitting the flank and rolling dice in the next impact phase but it doesn't count?

[ravenflight]

It depends. If 3 can't miss E even with 3 and R rolling a 1 on VMD dice, then it'll hit in this melee phase. So it can't hit in 3s next impact phase. so the flank isn't threatened. If 3 could pursue short it will be threatened.

So bizarrely, the closer 3 is, the less threatened the flank is

It was a friendly so we said no because it would have such a big impact.

Its weird. The unit absolutely will be hitting the flank and rolling dice in the next impact phase but it doesn't count?

Again, I think it depends a lot on the phases etc, and because of that it needs to be adjudicated 'at the time'.

For example, what if he rolled 'down' with this pursuit. The unit now has a chance to turn and take the hit on the front rank. It might fail the CMT. It might manoeuvre out of the way.

[dave_r]

The unit wont _charge_ into the flank, it will _pursue_ into the flank. This is quite clear - the unit must be able to charge in this case it cant, ergo no threatened flank.

[grahambriggs]

The unit wont _charge_ into the flank, it will _pursue_ into the flank. This is quite clear - the unit must be able to charge in this case it cant, ergo no threatened flank.

"If pursuers contact fresh enemy in any phase, this is treated as a charge on the contacted enemy."

However, if the pursuers are definately going to hit the flank, the it doesn't seem to be threatened as to be threatened "There are enemy non-skirmishers capable of charging the battle group‟s flank/rear in their next turn." Since the pursuit-come-charge hits in this turn not the next then it's not threatened.

Daft eh?

In practice, it's still a ghastly situation, so in practice probably a minor wrinkle.

[philqw78]

A rule that clearly needs re-writing.

 There are enemy non-skirmishers capable of charging the battle group‟s flank/rear in their next turn.

To

There are any steady enemy battle troops or disrupted shock enemy battle troops who could make a legal flank or rear charge contact upon the testing BG if that enemy were to charge at the time of the test.

[elysiumsolutions@fsmail.n]

Phils suggested definition:
There are any steady enemy battle troops or disrupted shock enemy battle troops who could make a legal flank or rear charge contact upon the testing BG if that enemy were to charge at the time of the test.

I had always assumed that could declare a charge meant you included units which would have to test to charge, such as disrupted non-shock. Another subtle feature is the changed definition brings up situations such as shock which might charge through another unit which currently do not threaten as they cannot declare a charge (possibly a deliberate implication)

Paul

[ravenflight]

I had always assumed that could declare a charge meant you included units which would have to test to charge, such as disrupted non-shock. Another subtle feature is the changed definition brings up situations such as shock which might charge through another unit which currently do not threaten as they cannot declare a charge (possibly a deliberate implication)

Paul

I'd have to agree with Paul here.

I think we've got to look at it from the tester's perspective not a game perspective.

It's Hans saying "Holy shyte, there's a troop of cavalry on our flank" starting a wave of panic, not "Oh' thank God those cavalry are disrupted, so have to test to charge"

Other than that Phil's def seems to work. Just change it to any troops other than lights and I think it works.