Rules question regarding game tonight.

[Robert241167]

Hi everyone

I had a game tonight with a local group getting into FOG and came across 2 interactions I was unsure of:

Firstly my opponents deployed 2 BG's of 4 cavalry in line behind a steep hill. I rushed my light foot forward and my light horse around the side of the hill. My light foot got onto the steep hill just as the 2 BG's of cavalry started moving up it. As the 2 BG's of cavalry could only move 1 MU in difficult I judged that they could only charge at 1 MU. My light foot and light horse then shot both to fragmented. Did I judge correctly or could they both still have chosen to charge and potentially moved up to 3 MU after a VMD?

Secondly my opponents deployed 6 knights in line moving towards my medium foot. Before they got there I legally contacted them on 1 flank and at the same time on the other flank but not a legal flank charge. They went disrupted and in the impact phase they fought 1 base on each flank against my 2 BG's. They lost here and went to fragmented. In the melee phase there were then 2 stands facing each of the flanks with a lone stand in between but not joining corner to corner. At this point they went to broken and in their initial evade move I declared that they would reform centrally between both my flanking BG's and move directly away at an equal distance from both flanking BG's.

I appreciate any help or guidance on these interactions as how we played it felt right at the time under time pressure.

Thanks

Rob

[gozerius]

Regards the cav in difficult going, you were correct. He could only declare a charge if he was within his normal move range in the terrain: 1 MU.
In the other situation, since your second BG contacted the enemy without qualifying as a "legal" flank charge, the contacting BG would have conformed to the enemy's front during the manuever phase.

From your description the enemy BG had lost a stand in the Impact phase. This should have come from the side where the most hits were taken, or in case of a tie, his choice. He then would have had to fill the vacated space by shifting front rank bases over, which would have led to the enemy BG losing contact with Your other BG, since a BG may never be split apart. So it appears that you played that wrong. He is still in big trouble.

[stenic]

He is still in big trouble.

Excepting since the flank charge was not a legal flank charge the knights would not have dropped a level upon contact and not have had a net double -ve POA in impact for flank charge, nor gross -ve in melee due to enemy in 2 directions. How much 'trouble' depends very much on what hit the knights and I'd suggest that your opponent got a very raw deal here. A good learning experience though

Steve P

[Robert241167]

Hi Steve

I hope that my post was clear. I had a legal flank charge on one side so he would have gone disrupted and I got ++ in impact. The other flank charge was not legal so I was fighting at -- on that flank in impact. I believe I still get the benefit of him fighting in 2 directions during melee though. My troops were both medium foot superior protected offensive spear.

Rob

[stenic]

Ah. Sorry, I missed that and assumed they were both not legal. Ignore my missive.

Steve P

[Polkovnik]

In the melee phase there were then 2 stands facing each of the flanks with a lone stand in between but not joining corner to corner.

The knights must remain in contact with the rest of the BG. Only one base at one end (the end with the flank charge) of the knight BG would turn to the flank, and it would shift back 10mm to maintain contact. At the other end your MF would conform to the front of the knight BG.

[deadtorius]

As for the inevitable rout you would have to split the angle between the 2 battle groups and run away in that direction, kind of a 45 degree rout initially.
Been there had to do that before

[Blathergut]

As for the inevitable rout you would have to split the angle between the 2 battle groups and run away in that direction, kind of a 45 degree rout initially.
Been there had to do that before

[marioslaz]

From your description the enemy BG had lost a stand in the Impact phase. This should have come from the side where the most hits were taken, or in case of a tie, his choice. He then would have had to fill the vacated space by shifting front rank bases over, which would have led to the enemy BG losing contact with Your other BG, since a BG may never be split apart. So it appears that you played that wrong. He is still in big trouble.

Not sure what rules say about, but IMO in a such situation the BG which loses contact should advance to contact again if there is enough space to do that. I mean this:

Code: Select all

1. A  BBB
   ACCC
   A
2. A  BBB
   A CC
   A
3.  A BBB
    ACC
    A

A and B are friends. 1 is situation at impact. 2 is situation after base removal (A inflicted most hits on C). 3 is what A should do IMO.

[shall]

ot sure what rules say about, but IMO in a such situation the BG which loses contact should advance to contact again if there is enough space to do that. I mean this:

Code:
1. A BBB
ACCC
A
2. A BBB
A CC
A
3. A BBB
ACC
A


A and B are friends. 1 is situation at impact. 2 is situation after base removal (A inflicted most hits on C). 3 is what A should do IMO.

The rules don't say the above - although its not unreasonable. CC is in big trouble so any variant is going to be ok. By not closing up AAA would have a flank charge on CC next time; if closed up it gives overlap dice. If BBs move it can feed more bases in to get 3 vs 2 frontage as well. At best CC gets one round of respite, at worst it gets murdered immediately by a flank charge. Most base removal situations are much simpler and can't break up a BG this way.

So while we could have complicated it with added stuff it really doesn't seem too necessary when you take the bigger picture. Will see what RSB and TS think.

Si

[marioslaz]

The rules don't say the above - although its not unreasonable.

Yes, this is a my opinion. In rules I found only a BG must mantain contact with all foes if possible. Of course in this case this is not possible. In a such case "C" fight 2 melee with just one opponent, then "A" charge again, if I interpret correctly rules.

[shall]

RAW I am with you Mario.

FWIW I think its good enough rather than dding lots of extra to deal with a small number of issues where BGs are so clearly in big trouble all variants are likely to end in the same community grave!!

Si

[marioslaz]

RAW I am with you Mario.

FWIW I think its good enough rather than dding lots of extra to deal with a small number of issues where BGs are so clearly in big trouble all variants are likely to end in the same community grave!!

Si

Could it be an extension of the rule for a flank charge? (last bullet on p56). It could be inserted in base removal with a similar format.