Rear Support

[bbotus]

A BG of 8 bases has another BG of 6 bases directly behind it and both BGs face the same direction. The BG of 6 bases has 1 base in disordering terrain. 5 bases are not disordered. Would the BG of 8 be able to count rear support?

[petedalby]

No - see page 133. The 6 base BG is unsteady and cannot count as rear support.

[batesmotel]

No - see page 133. The 6 base BG is unsteady and cannot count as rear support.

I see no place in the rules that indicate that a BG is unsteady is any of its bases are. BG Steady-ness (p. 24) is a cohesion state like Disrupted, Fragmented or Broken. Terrain caused disorder seems to only affect bases that are actually in the disordering terrain. So as far as I can see, the 6 stand BG would have 5 steady bases and since it is not Disrupted, Fragmented or Broken, should be able to provide read support for the 8 base BG.

Chris

[petedalby]

I see no place in the rules that indicate that a BG is unsteady is any of its bases are.

Okay - try Page 26. Last 2 sentences.

[batesmotel]

I see no place in the rules that indicate that a BG is unsteady is any of its bases are.

Okay - try Page 26. Last 2 sentences.

Thanks, I missed that.

Chris

[petedalby]

Thanks, I missed that.

No problem - it's very easy to miss.

[bbotus]

Yes, but page 26 specifies the BG is considered disordered only for movement and purposes of taking tests. Page 132 says that bases not in the situation do not suffer the penalty (meaning disorder). And it goes on to say, "...so a long line of spearmen may be disordered at one end and unaffected at the other."

So, after this discussion, can the unaffected spearmen offer rear support?

[petedalby]

I don't believe so - no.

A BG is either steady or not - that's why my first reply referred you to page 133 - this table is often overlooked but I think it makes it quite clear.

I've just seen the other thread that links to this and I see that you got the same response there too.

[philqw78]

Yes, but page 26 specifies the BG is considered disordered only for movement and purposes of taking tests. Page 132 says that bases not in the situation do not suffer the penalty (meaning disorder). And it goes on to say, "...so a long line of spearmen may be disordered at one end and unaffected at the other."

So, after this discussion, can the unaffected spearmen offer rear support?

No because, as you stated, it is considered disordered for the purpose of taking tests.

[peteratjet]

The BG with disordered bases isn't the one taking the test though.

[philqw78]

A disordered BG doesn't count as steady for tests.

So your point is Peter?

[bbotus]

A disordered BG doesn't count as steady for tests.

So your point is Peter?

The point is that if a BG has 1 base disordered then the BG tests with the disorder penalty. But in this case the BG with the 1 disordered base isn't testing, it is trying to give rear support. Now reading 26, 132, 133 and the definition on 135, I'm still not sure we have this right.

Let's go back to the definition: "A BG can claim rear support if it has steady friendly non-skirmishers .... but only if all of the following apply: The number of such bases at least partly directly to the BG's rear...."

It doesn't say the entire supporting BG must be steady. It says, "the number of such bases". The bases don't even have to be from the same BG. You just have to have at least 1/2 as many steady bases. Everything in the definition refers to number of bases not to BGs.

The table on page 133 says a disordered base does not count as steady. But if you read page 132 closely, disorder only pertains to the whole BG if it is testing. So a BG is not either steady or not; it can be both at the same time depending on the action involved. If the whole BG is disordered due to one base in terrain, then they would lose 1 die per 3 in combat and this is clearly not the case.

Sorry for being so wordy. I want to get this right. Comments?

[iversonjm]

Does this mean that mounted will not break off from a unit of spearmen if the spearmen have one of their rear rank bases partially in disordering terrain?

[bbotus]

Does this mean that mounted will not break off from a unit of spearmen if the spearmen have one of their rear rank bases partially in disordering terrain?

So here is another situation. Granted the book says to only count bases in contact. But this is the purpose of my question. If we follow the reasoning that says if 1 base is in terrain and disordered then the other bases in the BG cannot give rear support, then why wouldn't the entire BG be disordered and therefore a break-off would not be required. There seems to be an inconsistency in requiring a break-off if mounted are in contact but not allowing the unit in the same position to be able to give rear support in another instance.

[dave_r]

Does this mean that mounted will not break off from a unit of spearmen if the spearmen have one of their rear rank bases partially in disordering terrain?

So here is another situation. Granted the book says to only count bases in contact. But this is the purpose of my question. If we follow the reasoning that says if 1 base is in terrain and disordered then the other bases in the BG cannot give rear support, then why wouldn't the entire BG be disordered and therefore a break-off would not be required. There seems to be an inconsistency in requiring a break-off if mounted are in contact but not allowing the unit in the same position to be able to give rear support in another instance.

Who has said that the cavalry would break off? Page 133 clearly states that the BG does not count as steady, therefore the cavalry would not break off as the foot aren't steady.

[batesmotel]

Does this mean that mounted will not break off from a unit of spearmen if the spearmen have one of their rear rank bases partially in disordering terrain?

So here is another situation. Granted the book says to only count bases in contact. But this is the purpose of my question. If we follow the reasoning that says if 1 base is in terrain and disordered then the other bases in the BG cannot give rear support, then why wouldn't the entire BG be disordered and therefore a break-off would not be required. There seems to be an inconsistency in requiring a break-off if mounted are in contact but not allowing the unit in the same position to be able to give rear support in another instance.

Who has said that the cavalry would break off? Page 133 clearly states that the BG does not count as steady, therefore the cavalry would not break off as the foot aren't steady.

The table on page 133 lists apples and oranges, e.g. some affects that apply to individual bases and others that apply to the entire BG, e.g. the CMT modifier applies to the group but the loss of dice only applies to the bases affected by disorder, so the table on page 133 does nothing to clarify the break off issue. On page 132, the only BG wide effects listed are for CMTs. The text on page 26 indicates that a BG with any disordered bases is also considered disordered for" movement" or for any "tests" (cohesion plus CMT). When determining mounted break off, the only condition mentioned is "at least half their close combat opponents are STEADY foot. (Counting only front rank bases in contact other than only as an overlap)."

This clearly says that the condition for breaking off is the number of STEADY front rank foot bases in contact. This is not a "test" or "movement" so not a case where an the BG would be considered non-STEADY due to any bases being disordered or severely disordered.

So the answer to Matt's question is clearly yes, the cavalry would half to break off.

Chris

p.s. As further validation that the cavalry must break of, it is well known that Dave is always wrong .

[bbotus]

Following Chris' explanation, it also stands to reason the the same explanation applies to rear support.

[petedalby]

It’s always good to kick these things around and despite holding the opposite view initially I’m persuaded that bases of a BG that are not in any disordering terrain can provide rear support and / or require mounted opponents to break off.

Page 26 makes it clear – ‘The rest of the bases are in good order.’ The phrase ‘good order’ is also used on Page 24 to describe a steady BG.

So I think we’ve been playing it wrongly. Rear support and mounted break offs talk about bases – never BGs.

But what do I know.

[grahambriggs]

A BG of 8 bases has another BG of 6 bases directly behind it and both BGs face the same direction. The BG of 6 bases has 1 base in disordering terrain. 5 bases are not disordered. Would the BG of 8 be able to count rear support?

Yes. Definition of rear support on page 135 mentions bases providing rear support not battle groups. Diagram and words on page 2 make it clear that bases in the open are in good order.