Slitherine

perhaps it can claim rear support from both directions, or either

perhaps it can claim rear support from both directions, or either

Since the rule says 'at least partly directly to the BGs rear', I'd say anywhere directly to the rear of any of its bases. The facing in 2 directions isn't likely to last long - so it shouldn't be that important.

In theory we should say that a BG is facing is the direction faced by the majority of it's bases, but it could easily end up with half it's bases facing in each direction - so we'd end up with exclusions for different situations and things start to get ugly.

At the moment I think the easiest decision is that a BG is facing in as many directions as it's bases face, and conversly has as many rears. This will occassionally give some rather odd rear support or flank threat situations, but it's better than listing all the exclusions/exceptions that would occur otherwise.

terrys wrote:

perhaps it can claim rear support from both directions, or either

Since the rule says 'at least partly directly to the BGs rear', I'd say anywhere directly to the rear of any of its bases. The facing in 2 directions isn't likely to last long - so it shouldn't be that important.

In theory we should say that a BG is facing is the direction faced by the majority of it's bases, but it could easily end up with half it's bases facing in each direction - so we'd end up with exclusions for different situations and things start to get ugly.

At the moment I think the easiest decision is that a BG is facing in as many directions as it's bases face, and conversly has as many rears. This will occassionally give some rather odd rear support or flank threat situations, but it's better than listing all the exclusions/exceptions that would occur otherwise.

So shouldn't the BG of cavalry be able to break off to anywhere directly to the rear of any of its bases?

This strikes me as a bit odd, as a BG at the end of a line hit in the flank with a base turned now counts rear support!

peterrjohnston wrote:This strikes me as a bit odd, as a BG at the end of a line hit in the flank with a base turned now counts rear support!

The support that was on line would need to angle toward the BG hit in order to get it ahead of the support's front line, and directly to the rear is only a one element wide zone.

In theory we should say that a BG is facing is the direction faced by the majority of it's bases, but it could easily end up with half it's bases facing in each direction - so we'd end up with exclusions for different situations and things start to get ugly

This however directly contradicts the statement within the flank charges bit, namely:

"The charging battle group starts with at least one base entirely behind a straight line extending the front edge of the enemy battle group. If the enemy BG has some files stepped forward, its front edge is taken as the front edge of the file on the flank charged. If the enemy BG is facing in more than one direction it has more than one front edge for this purpose - the above requirement must be satisfied for all of them"

I think this is a fairly good precedent that a BG can have more than one front edge and therefore more than one rear edge!

MikeK wrote:

peterrjohnston wrote:This strikes me as a bit odd, as a BG at the end of a line hit in the flank with a base turned now counts rear support!

The support that was on line would need to angle toward the BG hit in order to get it ahead of the support's front line, and directly to the rear is only a one element wide zone.

If the supporting BG was echeloned slightly back from the flank BG then that would be enough to count. I'll have to deploy my battle lines with the end BGs slightly forward of the rest in future.

So shouldn't the BG of cavalry be able to break off to anywhere directly to the rear of any of its bases?

The problem is that the rule says 'moves straight back' If it's facing in 2 directions what is 'straight' or 'back'. From a practical point of view it's much easier and cleaner to rule that it can't break off because it can't move straight back (in 2 directions) - i.e. as if the restriction actually said 'facing' in 2 directions instead of 'fighting'.

It avoids all the complications and arguments if a BG has just one base turned, or has exactly half its bases turned, and does it turn to face the enemy before or after breaking off (which may affect whether or not it can break off at all).
The BG could also be facing in 3 directions, which has it's own problems.
It's such a rare occurrance that it's just not worth a 3 page FAQ.

This strikes me as a bit odd, as a BG at the end of a line hit in the flank with a base turned now counts rear support!

Again - it's a practicality issue. If a BG has only 4 bases, and 2 turn to face a flank charge - which is it's rear?
Equally a column of 6 bases hit in the flank could end up with 4 bases fighting to the flank and 2 to the front - What direction would rear support be now?
I can't see how we could define all the various situations, especially without also needing a marker to indicate that a battlegroup ignores the fact that some of it's bases are facing sideways - because of something that may have happend 2 or 3 moves earlier.

If a BG on the end of a battle line is hit in the flank, it wouldn't count the adjacent BG as rear support for the base that's turned - because it's not partly in front of the line extending the supporting BGs front.

terrys wrote:

So shouldn't the BG of cavalry be able to break off to anywhere directly to the rear of any of its bases?

The problem is that the rule says 'moves straight back' If it's facing in 2 directions what is 'straight' or 'back'. From a practical point of view it's much easier and cleaner to rule that it can't break off because it can't move straight back (in 2 directions) - i.e. as if the restriction actually said 'facing' in 2 directions instead of 'fighting'.

It avoids all the complications and arguments if a BG has just one base turned, or has exactly half its bases turned, and does it turn to face the enemy before or after breaking off (which may affect whether or not it can break off at all).
The BG could also be facing in 3 directions, which has it's own problems.
It's such a rare occurrance that it's just not worth a 3 page FAQ.

OK, I can see the reason why it is different and the simplicity of the solution.

So you'll be sticking in a 1-line erratum ("fighting" should be "facing") instead of a 3-page FAQ.

I thought you'd prefer the 3 pages

nikgaukroger wrote:I thought you'd prefer the 3 pages

(assuming that was directed at me)

Looks like you were wrong.

By the way, who is Xykon?

lawrenceg wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:I thought you'd prefer the 3 pages

(assuming that was directed at me)

Looks like you were wrong.

By the way, who is Xykon?

Xykon is the evil Lich, enemy of the Order of the Stick.

If you have a day or so spare try Googling "Order of the Stick" and enjoy all 570+ web comics, they are some of the best on the net IMO

I actually prefer Erfworld from the same site

I still like Terry's very simple answer. It punishes people who get let a BG get hit it two directions in that way. I don't think the whole example needs to be there but Terry's words and a simple explaination do need to be in the FAQ, as it's simplicity and elegence deserve to be seen by the world. Also I would never have considered that as the answer. Sorry for bringing this back to the thread's original topic.

However I have learnt something as I thought Xykon was Nik's personal interpretation of a Greek with a big weapon, oh how wrong you can be.

timmy1 wrote:I still like Terry's very simple answer. It punishes people who get let a BG get hit it two directions in that way.

Sometimes you don't want to break off where it's blocked and you take a cohesion hit, OR something nastier is waiting for you, OR you would rather avoid more impact, my experience being Bw/Sword Cav vs LtSpear foot or archers wishing they could avoid breakoff. So it's not necessarily a punishment. And since the enemy needs to cooperate to get you facing in 2 directions, it's not entirely voluntary.

Mike