What counts as behind the rear of skirmishers?

[Robert241167]

Hi all

Sorry I don't have the rule book in front of me but this came up again last night.

I had pinned a BG of light horse against the table edge and was mostly on its flank but partly behind its rear from the side but had no part of a base directly behind it's rear.

What counts as behind it's rear in order for it to advance straight forward and out of the pinned zone?

Cheers

Rob

[petedalby]

Hi Rob - I don't have my rules with me either....

...but I guess my take on this would be to draw a line extending the rear edge of the BG. If there are enemy behind that line then I would suggest that it has enemy to its rear and can therefore move away from them?

[Robert241167]

Cheers Pete

I assume you mean any enemy that pins the BG behind your line?

Also are we saying any part of any base behind your line or is it a full base or full BG?

Cheers

Rob

[dave_r]

Cheers Pete

I assume you mean any enemy that pins the BG behind your line?

Also are we saying any part of any base behind your line or is it a full base or full BG?

Cheers

Rob

I believe the word partially is used, which indicates any part.

[petedalby]

Just for you Rob - I now have my rules to hand.

Page 80 - "A BG in the restricted area of enemy even partly behind its rear can move straight forwards. These moves are permitted even if the BG ends its move no longer in front of the enemy BG."

The underline is mine but looks like they are pretty hard to pin down.

[batesmotel]

My interpretation of behind the skirmishers rear would be with a base at least partially in the area between the lies extending both flanks of the skirmishers, e.g. in a position where it would be able to provide rear support if it was a friendly battle group. I don't believe it is in the rear of the skirmishers just because it is behind a line extending the rear edge of the skirmishers.

Chris

[petedalby]

My interpretation of behind the skirmishers rear would be with a base at least partially in the area between the lies extending both flanks of the skirmishers, e.g. in a position where it would be able to provide rear support if it was a friendly battle group. I don't believe it is in the rear of the skirmishers just because it is behind a line extending the rear edge of the skirmishers.

No problem with that - but it is quite a narrow definition - ie 'as per rear support' - although I'd probably be happy to play it that way.

I guess it would be down to an umpire on the day since it does not appear to be clearly defined?

[bbotus]

This has been discussed before: viewtopic.php?f=43&t=44646

And in viewtopic.php?f=43&t=9203 Simon defined 'directly' and 'partly' as follows:

Directly to battle groups rear = draw two lines along the supported BGs edges going backwards. The area in between is directly to its rear.

Partly in front = draw a line extending the supporting BGs front to both sides. Some part of the supported BG must be forward of this line. So you cannot, say, be behind but facing backwards away from the supported BG.

The only inference I can draw from those comments is that "even partly behind its rear" (as written in RESTRICTED AREA, page 80) is that it is behind a line extending the rear edge of the skirmishers. So you'd have:



His comments were for V1 but nothing in the rules have changed those definitions for V2 that I can find.

[batesmotel]

In this diagram I think that situation 3 is where the skirmishers may move to their front but not in situations 1 and 2. The position in situation 2 really doesn't seem to justify
the skirmishers being able to move directly across the front of the enemy BG whereas they cannot in situation 1. In situation 3 with some the enemy actually directly behind
the skirmishers it makes much more sense that they can move away to the front of the skirmishers.

Chris

[/URL]

[bbotus]

Assume the skirmishers are facing up the page.

I don't know, according to what I can figure from Simon's definitions, #2 would also qualify as 'partly behind'.

[dave_r]

Assume the skirmishers are facing up the page.

I don't know, according to what I can figure from Simon's definitions, #2 would also qualify as 'partly behind'.

Don't think so - #2 would qualify as being partly to it's rear, rather than being partly behind.

Which I think is what you meant. I haven't got my rules with me - but if they say partly to the rear, then #2 is OK to move forward, but if they say partly behind then it isn't.

Nice and easy

[kevinj]

The rule wording is "partly behind its rear". Does that help?

[gozerius]

Situation #3, then. The rear being the rear edge of the BG. This blocks the BG from retiring to its rear, allowing only forward movement to move away from the pinning BG.

[bbotus]

Did anyone look at the previously mentioned references about 'partly' and 'directly' and how the authors define them? Also, look at the definition of Rear Support on page 143 V2, they use the same distinctions again. 'Directly' means draw the lines back from the 2 side edges and 'partly' means draw a line along the rear edge of the base.

Change example 2 a little. Move the skirmishers up the page so their rear is just barely in front of the enemy. Then would you say they can't move forward and can only retreat along the entire front of the enemy?

[dave_r]

Its #2 and #3 if it states partly to its rear.

[paullongmore]

Its 2 & 3 for me.

[grahambriggs]

This has been discussed before: viewtopic.php?f=43&t=44646

And in viewtopic.php?f=43&t=9203 Simon defined 'directly' and 'partly' as follows:

Directly to battle groups rear = draw two lines along the supported BGs edges going backwards. The area in between is directly to its rear.

Partly in front = draw a line extending the supporting BGs front to both sides. Some part of the supported BG must be forward of this line. So you cannot, say, be behind but facing backwards away from the supported BG.

His comments were for V1 but nothing in the rules have changed those definitions for V2 that I can find.

I believe you have misinterpreted Simon's definition which was regarding v1 rear support rules. In clarifying what the authors meant by: "The supported battle group must be at least partly in front of a straight line extending the front edge of the supporting bases" Simon wrote:

"Partly in front = draw a line extending the supporting BGs front to both sides. Some part of the supported BG must be forward of this line. So you cannot, say, be behind but facing backwards away from the supported BG."

He has here defined what partly in front of "a straight line extending the front edge" means. He has not laboriously added in every word in case this gets quoted out of context.

[grahambriggs]

I believe it is number 3.

The wording is "partly behind its rear" not "partly behind a line extending it's rear edge".

If I say "I was driving down the road with a truck behind me" you would imagine that I could see the truck in my rear mirror, not that it might be coming up on my outside and just about to overtake me.

[batesmotel]

The fact that the option for the troops to advance is presented in the same bullet item as an alternative to troops who can "move straight back perpendicular to its own rear" does seem to apply that this is something which can be used by those troops in a case where moving back perpendicular to their own rear would be blocked by an actual enemy to their rear, e.g. situation 3 in my diagram.

Chris

[paullongmore]

I think if the rule writers had meant directly to the rear they would have said so.

The rule about always being able to retire to your rear stops the unrealistic pins to stop skirmishers retiring which were possible in V1 and is a significant anti-cheese improvement of v2

I prefer the interpretation that the partly behind rear means partly behind a line extending the rear of the BG to the directly behind interpretation as then it does something useful in that it stops unrealistic pins of rear corners (which the sensible thing to do about would be to move forward).

If you are pinned by someone directly to your rear you are quite likely to be able to move forward anyway as you are able to move away from the pinning unit.

I believe that in the same way that it is now always acceptable to retire to your rear, the intent of the rules seems more likely to be that you can advance if there are any of the pinning unit behind the line extending the rear of the BG (of course as always we are unlikely to get an author to actually tell us)