threatened 'flank or not??

[papsterdino]

In dementia land we had a situation of 4 light chariots in line charged simultaneously by a block of light horse and a block of lance armed cavalry. The light chariots evaded but were caught by the light horse. Now the 2 bases contacted By the light horse turn when caught (bases 1+2). Now in the following moral test bases 1+2) are facing the light horse bases 3+4. Have
The lance armed cavalry still behind them, is this now a threatened flank for moral test purposes Cheers all

[philqw78]

No, as the chariots will turn to face in the movement phase.

[papsterdino]

Don't you take moral test for losing impact before you conform in manouver phase? As this happens in impact phase

[gozerius]

The reason that they do not test for a threatened flank is that they are now facing in two directions and have two fronts. One front is facing in the direction of the cavalry, so even though there are bases facing away from the cav, the bases facing the cav negate the penalty. See the third bullet in section 9-5 (p 60) To qualify as charging the flank or rear of a BG facing in two directions the requirements must be met for both fronts.

[domblas]

same assumption for rear support when testing in the impact phase? Both sides can be considered as being rear supported, assuming that a supporting BG is in the right position ?

[bbotus]

No. See the definition of rear support on page 143, V2. Battle wagons and BGs facing in more than one direction cannot claim rear support. It even includes a kinked column.