Slitherine

I thought I knew this until I played Dave Ruddock last night. He had a battle group of cav that had been charged in the flank and turned a base. He had a unit that would have given the cav rear support before they turned a base. Do they still give rear support?
If so does it matter which was the original front and hence rear of the unit before turning?
Also would the cav get rear support from a unit to the side that is only behind the base that turned?

BG fighting in 2 directions do not get rear support.

philqw78 wrote:BG fighting in 2 directions do not get rear support.

That was exactly what I said but DR spat in my face and said I was talking b****ks!

Note to self: always carry tissues when playing the ladyboy !!



Rob

titanu wrote:

philqw78 wrote:BG fighting in 2 directions do not get rear support.

That was exactly what I said but DR spat in my face and said I was talking b****ks!

Just remember "Dave is wrong" especially when he gets to benefit from his 'ruling'

hammy wrote:

titanu wrote:

philqw78 wrote:BG fighting in 2 directions do not get rear support.

That was exactly what I said but DR spat in my face and said I was talking b****ks!

Just remember "Dave is wrong" especially when he gets to benefit from his 'ruling'

Oh how cynical Just because he had 4 units of Bosporan lancers all of whom routed on the same turn - oh I see what you mean

(see below)

...and to thread viewtopic.php?t=19817

Tim

Anybody care to point out in the rules where it says this?

dave_r wrote:Anybody care to point out in the rules where it says this?

Phil presumably can as he was so adamant about it. We await with interest ...

nikgaukroger wrote:Phil presumably can as he was so adamant about it. We await with interest ...

Nik told me at Britcon 08. I disagreed, so he brought Shipman round to back him up.

philqw78 wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:Phil presumably can as he was so adamant about it. We await with interest ...

Nik told me at Britcon 08. I disagreed, so he brought Shipman round to back him up.

Next time you play Phil and ask for an umpire you should be onto a good thing!!!

titanu wrote:

philqw78 wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:Phil presumably can as he was so adamant about it. We await with interest ...

Nik told me at Britcon 08. I disagreed, so he brought Shipman round to back him up.

Next time you play Phil and ask for an umpire you should be onto a good thing!!!

He ought to have asked for an umpire then - I wasn't umpiring FoG in 2008 IIRC

I see that checking the rules since 2008 hasn't crossed Phil's mind ...

FWIW the rules are silent on this (as repeated queries on this forum show). I know I have ruled it different ways at different times depending what my view was at that time.

nikgaukroger wrote:He ought to have asked for an umpire then - I wasn't umpiring FoG in 2008 IIRC

But you still felt the need to stick your nose in Hammy was the official umpire but dithered as usual.

I don't have the rules to hand, but IIRC what we have ruled in the past is that the supporting BG would have to be behind the rear of the BG taking into account both (not just either of) the supported BG's facings.

... and would the same principle apply for a threatened flank?

peteratjet wrote:... and would the same principle apply for a threatened flank?

No, as the threatened flank rule is clearer in operation. If a unit can be hit in the flank or rear by non-skirmishers it has a threatened flank (or is within 6 MU of the edge).

rbodleyscott wrote:I don't have the rules to hand, but IIRC what we have ruled in the past is that the supporting BG would have to be behind the rear of the BG taking into account both (not just either of) the supported BG's facings.

I think it's just not covered in the rules Richard.

Since the principle of rear support is presumably that those friends would be helpful, they've obviously failed in their task!

I argued that since the unit was behind the original direction the unit was facing and that there were more bases pointing in that direction then that was a reasonable guess at the units rear.

As Bob has stated Hammy apparently ruled that a unit facing in two directions couldn't claim rear support. I told Bob that as usual Hammy was talking B*ll*cks and there was nothing to support that statement in the rules.

You should of course know, Dave is Right

dave_r wrote:You should of course know, Dave is Right

grahambriggs and iversonjm and kevinj wrote:Dave is correct.

Three wrongs don't make a right.