Flank Threat?

TERRYFROMSPOKANE · Post by **TERRYFROMSPOKANE** » Wed Mar 28, 2012 11:58 am

An enemy BG must take a Cohesion Test. I have a BG in position to qaulify as a flank threat. However, my opponent has another BG in position to intercept this threat - IF he choses to declare an intercept should I decide to charge.

Does the testing BG still have to count the "-1 threatened flank" modifier in his Cohesion Test?

Thanks, Terry G.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Wed Mar 28, 2012 12:42 pm

A not very well worded part of the rules. e.g. If I had a cavalry BG and it was the impact phase of my turn it could cause the -1 to CT if to any enemy BG within about 10MU, possibly further considering the enemy could also move closer.

It is generally accepted that the interpretation is "It can charge now if we imagined it was now that BG's impact phase" An intercept or other happening, (it could dropped to fragged for seeing friends rout) not being taken into account.

bbotus · Post by **bbotus** » Thu Mar 29, 2012 9:14 am

philqw78 wrote:A not very well worded part of the rules. e.g. If I had a cavalry BG and it was the impact phase of my turn it could cause the -1 to CT if to any enemy BG within about 10MU, possibly further considering the enemy could also move closer.

It is generally accepted that the interpretation is "It can charge now if we imagined it was now that BG's impact phase" An intercept or other happening, (it could dropped to fragged for seeing friends rout) not being taken into account.

Wow, Phil, I thought I was wordy.

The answer is the definition of a threatened Flank on page 136. A flank is threatened if enemy non-skirmishers are capable of charging the BG's flank/rear in their next turn.

You don't get to count the potential move of any BG, only their current position (which is probably what Phil meant, I think, maybe).

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Thu Mar 29, 2012 7:39 pm

bbotus wrote:You don't get to count the potential move of any BG, only their current position (which is probably what Phil meant, I think, maybe).

The problem being that it doesn't say this anywhere.

bbotus · Post by **bbotus** » Fri Mar 30, 2012 4:02 am

The problem being that it doesn't say this anywhere.

Maybe I'm not understanding you.

When I read the definition of a threatened flank on page 136; it says to me that, at the moment of the test, I look to see if any enemy unit is in a position to charge me on its next turn. If so, then -1 for threatened flank.

The original question about 'what if a unit capable of charging my flank could be intercepted?', doesn't matter. All that matters is whether or not a unit is in position to charge the flank/rear. Even if the charger could be intercepted, it doesn't mean that the opposing player will actually intercept. He may decide that the unit would be better used in another way. If we count all the 'what ifs', the game would become one big argument.

kevinj · Post by **kevinj** » Fri Mar 30, 2012 8:33 am

I think the key word is "capable". It doesn't matter if the BG in question could be intercepted, would need to pass a CMT or any other condition may apply, if it's in the right place and of an appropriate type, it's "capable" and the -1 applies.

zoltan · Post by **zoltan** » Fri Mar 30, 2012 9:15 am

I feel bbotus and kevinj are describing a situation where the enemy BG is capable of declaring a charge on a flank, without any regard to what may subsequently happen after the declaration to prevent the charge move actually occurring (such as an enemy intercept charge). If the authors meant this, surely they would have explicitly defined a threatened flank as one where an enemy BG was capable of declaring a charge against it.

If this is what they meant then they should issue a clarification; otherwise, the rule remains ambiguous.

The word "capable" means "to be able to". There is a reasonable argument that an intercept charge would prevent a charger being "able to" contact the enemy's flank. This seems quite reasonable to me.

"Oi, you lot watch our backs while we look north. If that rabble behind us tries any funny business make sure you get in their faces. That way we can focus on the smelly lot to our front in the safe knowledge that you're on our 6. Capish?"

pyruse · Post by **pyruse** » Fri Mar 30, 2012 9:20 am

The word "capable" means "to be able to". There is a reasonable argument that an intercept charge would prevent a charger being "able to" contact the enemy's flank. This seems quite reasonable to me.
-----------------
I don't think that is a reasonable interpretation. Interception is optional. Therefore a battle group which could charge your flank or rear is clearly able to do so.
The fact that you can do something to stop it doesn't alter the fact that the unit is able to charge your flank or rear.

kevinj · Post by **kevinj** » Fri Mar 30, 2012 9:36 am

The word "capable" means "to be able to". There is a reasonable argument that an intercept charge would prevent a charger being "able to" contact the enemy's flank. This seems quite reasonable to me.

I prefer the simple approach. Otherwise you could get drawn into a whole sequence along the lines of

"They could charge, but then my knights could intercept"
"But I can prevent your knights intercepting by chaging them with my cavalry"
"But your cavalry are disrupted non-shock troops so would need to pass a CMT to charge"

Add other considerations ad infinitum.

As far as I'm concerned, capable in these circumstances will continue to mean able to able to charge the flank or rear from their current position regardless any potential circumstances that may prevent that charge.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Fri Mar 30, 2012 9:54 am

And irregardless of what may happen to them in between that moment and their next turn? They could be shot to fragmented or broken by then

kevinj · Post by **kevinj** » Fri Mar 30, 2012 10:39 am

And irregardless of what may happen to them in between that moment and their next turn? They could be shot to fragmented or broken by then

Exactly, once you start going down the route of considering hypothetical situations, where do you stop?

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Fri Mar 30, 2012 6:07 pm

kevinj wrote:
And irregardless of what may happen to them in between that moment and their next turn? They could be shot to fragmented or broken by then
Exactly, once you start going down the route of considering hypothetical situations, where do you stop?

In Phil's case....never.

ShrubMiK · Post by **ShrubMiK** » Fri Mar 30, 2012 6:11 pm

It also doesn't make much logical sense to me, form a "reality" persepctive.

Why is the -1 adjustment applied? Surely it is to reflect the nervousness of troops who feel they might be about to find themselves up the toilet with a cleaning brush. Or whatever the appropriate metaphor is.

So it's not unreasonable to model it such that if there is any possibility that those troops could be hit in the flank - even if only because the friendly troops that could perhaps protect their flank by intercepting have fallen asleep - the penalty will be applied.

If these particular troops are a more optimistic bunch the average this moment in time, so are prepared to trust their mates to keep them safe, well that will show up in the dice roll.

zoltan · Post by **zoltan** » Fri Mar 30, 2012 8:15 pm

So simply publish an FAQ that reads 'whose flank or rear is threatened by an enemy BG currently eligible to declare a charge in its next turn' and put the matter to rest!

bbotus · Post by **bbotus** » Fri Mar 30, 2012 10:40 pm

So simply publish an FAQ that reads 'whose flank or rear is threatened by an enemy BG currently eligible to declare a charge in its next turn' and put the matter to rest!

Isn't that pretty much what the definition on page 136 says?

zoltan · Post by **zoltan** » Sat Mar 31, 2012 12:18 am

bbotus wrote:
So simply publish an FAQ that reads 'whose flank or rear is threatened by an enemy BG currently eligible to declare a charge in its next turn' and put the matter to rest!
Isn't that pretty much what the definition on page 136 says?

Well there must be some doubt about that as it led to this post seeking clarification.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Sat Mar 31, 2012 2:55 am

zoltan wrote:So simply publish an FAQ that reads 'whose flank or rear is threatened by an enemy BG currently eligible to declare a charge in its next turn' and put the matter to rest!

This is exactly the same useless rubbish that the rules has. In my next turn I could have moved 10 MU and be on the flank of Tierra del Fuego. Thereby giving an extra -1 CT to any interlopers.

berthier · Post by **berthier** » Sat Mar 31, 2012 2:53 pm

philqw78 wrote:
zoltan wrote:So simply publish an FAQ that reads 'whose flank or rear is threatened by an enemy BG currently eligible to declare a charge in its next turn' and put the matter to rest!
This is exactly the same useless rubbish that the rules has. In my next turn I could have moved 10 MU and be on the flank of Tierra del Fuego. Thereby giving an extra -1 CT to any interlopers.

Speaking of rubbish

ravenflight · Post by **ravenflight** » Wed Apr 18, 2012 10:12 am

bbotus wrote:The original question about 'what if a unit capable of charging my flank could be intercepted?', doesn't matter. All that matters is whether or not a unit is in position to charge the flank/rear. Even if the charger could be intercepted, it doesn't mean that the opposing player will actually intercept. He may decide that the unit would be better used in another way. If we count all the 'what ifs', the game would become one big argument.

Agree with this interpretation. If we go too far, we can end up with "what if I had a huge battle line of troops, and the one on the very left had a cavalry unit on its flank. Does the one on the very right have to test with a -1 because, in theory, the cavalry could charge and break and continue to charge and break the 17 intervening BG's in their next impact phase". Hyperbole is deliberate, but it's 'right here right now' IMHO

Flank Threat?

Flank Threat?

Re: Flank Threat?

Re: Flank Threat?

Re: Flank Threat?

Re: Flank Threat?

Re: Flank Threat?

Re: Flank Threat?

Re: Flank Threat?

Re: Flank Threat?

Re: Flank Threat?

Re: Flank Threat?

Re: Flank Threat?

Re: Flank Threat?

Re: Flank Threat?

Re: Flank Threat?

Re: Flank Threat?

Re: Flank Threat?

Re: Flank Threat?

Re: Flank Threat?