Flank Threat?

[TERRYFROMSPOKANE]

Is the modifier for "flank threat" still in effect if the table edge in question is entirely covered by impassable terrain such as a major river? In such a case it seems the impassable terrain would act as flank protection rather than as a threat.

Thanks.

Terry G.

[Robert241167]

Hi Terry

With regard to rivers and coasts:

A river can be up to 4 MU's wide and be deployed within 6 MU's of the side table edge.

A coast can extend up to 6 MU's in from the side table edge.

So if you utilise either to cover the 6 MU's at the side table edge by definition any troops moving along the inside of them cannot be within 6 MU's of the table edge.

Rob

[zoltan]

Is the modifier for "flank threat" still in effect if the table edge in question is entirely covered by impassable terrain such as a major river? In such a case it seems the impassable terrain would act as flank protection rather than as a threat.

Thanks.

Terry G.

You need to distinguish between:
1. Are you with 6 MU of the table edge (regardless of intervening impassable terrain), and
2. Is the BG's flank threatened by enemy

These two conditions are independent of each other.

[bbotus]

Impassible terrain has no bearing on the decision. A non skirmish BG has a -1 modifier for a threatened flank if it is within 6 MU of its own long table edge or either of the 2 short table edges as per the definition of 'Threatened Flank' on page 144.

I'm not sure but I think it is a game mechanism to invite you to keep non-skirmish units away from the edges of the table.

I put a cav unit 1/4MU too close a couple weeks ago and thought i passed the CT test. Then we measured the edge and I failed. I couldn't charge the next turn and the flank collapsed 2 turns later.

P.S. While i'm bitching: On the other flank a 6 base skirmish unit held off one of my 12 base impact foot warbands in disordering terrain the entire game (more bad rolls).

[grahambriggs]

Yes, as bbotus says it's a -1 regardless of what terrain is there. I think they didn't make exceptions just to keep the rule simple.

In general, I think the 6MU side edge rule is there so that armies are encouraged not to deploy their battle troops up to the false horizon of the table edge.

[ravenflight]

Yes, as bbotus says it's a -1 regardless of what terrain is there. I think they didn't make exceptions just to keep the rule simple.

In general, I think the 6MU side edge rule is there so that armies are encouraged not to deploy their battle troops up to the false horizon of the table edge.

Agreed, however I think it was a slip-up - especially given the revision of V2.

There are quite a few battles where coasts/river/impassible terrain (to use the game's terms) were used to secure a flank. The fact is that a table edge IS indeed an artificial horizon but an impassible terrain feature is indeed a real edge.

It wouldn't have been hard to add 'unless it is a river/coast or impassible terrain feature'

[bbotus]

Agreed, however I think it was a slip-up - especially given the revision of V2.

There are quite a few battles where coasts/river/impassible terrain (to use the game's terms) were used to secure a flank. The fact is that a table edge IS indeed an artificial horizon but an impassible terrain feature is indeed a real edge.

It wouldn't have been hard to add 'unless it is a river/coast or impassible terrain feature'

The placement takes care of this issue. You place the coastline up to 6 MU in from the table edge and therefore BGs can't get within 6 of the table edge. It effectively secures your flank.

That brings up a question on flank marches. I'll put up a separate thread.

[ravenflight]

Agreed, however I think it was a slip-up - especially given the revision of V2.

There are quite a few battles where coasts/river/impassible terrain (to use the game's terms) were used to secure a flank. The fact is that a table edge IS indeed an artificial horizon but an impassible terrain feature is indeed a real edge.

It wouldn't have been hard to add 'unless it is a river/coast or impassible terrain feature'

The placement takes care of this issue. You place the coastline up to 6 MU in from the table edge and therefore BGs can't get within 6 of the table edge. It effectively secures your flank.

It does with a coast, but only if it is 6" in (what if your opponent puts one down that is 3" delberately so that you will have a 3" dead zone that he can exploit?) or what about impassible terrain that is 4" wide?

[bbotus]

That is your choice when placing the terrain. But you have the option to place the coast up to 6 MU in from the side securing the flank. If you don't want a non-skirmish BG with an auto threatened flank, then keep it 6 MU from the table edge. To me (imho) it is reasonable and I (again imho) think it was intentional.

[ravenflight]

That is your choice when placing the terrain. But you have the option to place the coast up to 6 MU in from the side securing the flank. If you don't want a non-skirmish BG with an auto threatened flank, then keep it 6 MU from the table edge. To me (imho) it is reasonable and I (again imho) think it was intentional.

Did you even READ my post?

What if you OPPONENT puts down a coast 3" from the table edge. You're talking about a SEA here. There is NOTHING more secure for a foot army than to have their flank hard up against a sea. But no, in FoG it feels safer if it's far enough away from the sea for enemy troops to overlap them.

Strange.

Anyway, you think it reasonable for an artificial edge of the world to give a -ve and a real (historically used) natural barrier to give no real morale advantage. So be it.

[TERRYFROMSPOKANE]

Well the answers, "You need to distinguish between a side edge threat and threat of flank/rear charge" (I thought I had) and "You can set up the coast line at 6 MU from the edge and avoid the problem" (my question wouldn't have been valid if this were the case) both beg the question. Let me restate:

I have a BG at 5MU from a table edge which is entirely covered by an impassable large river placed by my opponent. There is no enemy BG within charge range of my BG's flank or rear and there is no way enemy can appear on this flank of my BG because of the impassable terrain. Should my BG still suffer the -1 CT modifier for "flank threat for being within 6 MU of a table edge"?

I apologize for the vagueness of my original post.

Thanks.

Terry G.

[zoltan]

Well the answers, "You need to distinguish between a side edge threat and threat of flank/rear charge" (I thought I had) and "You can set up the coast line at 6 MU from the edge and avoid the problem" (my question wouldn't have been valid if this were the case) both beg the question. Let me restate:

I have a BG at 5MU from a table edge which is entirely covered by an impassable large river placed by my opponent. There is no enemy BG within charge range of my BG's flank or rear and there is no way enemy can appear on this flank of my BG because of the impassable terrain. Should my BG still suffer the -1 CT modifier for "flank threat for being within 6 MU of a table edge"?

I apologize for the vagueness of my original post.

Thanks.

Terry G.

Yes you must take a -1 for being within 6MU of the table edge. The rules are black and white on this. Is your BG within 6MUs of the table edge - yes or no? If yes, take a minus 1. You get no relief for having impassable terrain interposed between the table edge and your BG.

There is no need for a FAQ on this and the authors are never going to change this rule. I guess you could make up your own local club exception to allow impassable terrain to permit you to go within 6MUs of the table edge. But that would be contrary to the RAW.

[ravenflight]

Well the answers, "You need to distinguish between a side edge threat and threat of flank/rear charge" (I thought I had) and "You can set up the coast line at 6 MU from the edge and avoid the problem" (my question wouldn't have been valid if this were the case) both beg the question. Let me restate:

I have a BG at 5MU from a table edge which is entirely covered by an impassable large river placed by my opponent. There is no enemy BG within charge range of my BG's flank or rear and there is no way enemy can appear on this flank of my BG because of the impassable terrain. Should my BG still suffer the -1 CT modifier for "flank threat for being within 6 MU of a table edge"?

I apologize for the vagueness of my original post.

Thanks.

Terry G.

Hi Terry,

Nothing at all will negate the -ve for being within 6" of the side edge. I disagree with this, but those are the rules.

[bbotus]

I disagree with this, but those are the rules.

I apologize if I didn't read your previous post close enough. It sounds like you don't like the rule because it lacks ?realism?

[ravenflight]

I disagree with this, but those are the rules.

I apologize if I didn't read your previous post close enough. It sounds like you don't like the rule because it lacks ?realism?

For the most part I like the rules. There are some areas I feel were not handled properly - this is one of them. I mostly (almost exclusively since V2) play FoG:R... the threatened flank rules there are even more draconian, mostly for good reason, but even in FoG:R they failed to address the 'I've got a pit on my flank large enough to engulf the Titanic, but I've still got a threatened flank' rule, and it just seems downright stupid.

I still play the rules. I mean, they don't have the 'ravenflight may re-roll all dice <5' rule, but I still play them, so I guess the threatened flank rule is a minor (although IMHO very real) failing.

[bbotus]

'ravenflight may re-roll all dice <5' rule,

Oh, I like that rule

Let's see, up here we say, " My house, my game, my rules." Hmmm!