Slitherine

Now that we have learned a bit about FoG, we have started doing this dastardly maneuver in our games - 2 times so far.

We think we have it right, but there is a general principle I want to clarify to complete our understanding concerning when both sides have written a flank march on the same flank and the drive back occurs.

Given that each side can only roll for arrival, straggling and deployment in their own active turn, the drive back is an off table event. It does not require successful arrivals in the same turn to have a drive back.

Is this correct?

Secondly, drive back is resolved when the active player has successfully rolled arrival, and the non active player announces he has also has flank marchers on the same flank. Then, the active player arrives in his next turn and the driven back player in his next turn after the initial player's arrival.

Is this correct?

We haven't had this one yet but I see it as the next stage in our attempts crush each other with outflanking.

TIA

RobKhan

Once a player is successful he declares which side his arrival is. If the opponent has a flank march on the same side they are compared to see which is driven back. If the successful player is driven back he arrives in his next turn and the opponent the turn after. If the unsuccesful player is driven back each arrives in their own players next turn. The driven back flank march always arrives before the other.

I have another query about driven back flank marches.
It states in the rules that a driven back flank march makes a double move onto the table. What happens if it cannot complete that double move? i.e. due to impassable terrain or friendlly units.

DavidT wrote:I have another query about driven back flank marches.
It states in the rules that a driven back flank march makes a double move onto the table. What happens if it cannot complete that double move? i.e. due to impassable terrain or friendlly units.

It just stops were it is.

And if that impassable terrain is on the table edge the driven back flank march is on and extends 12" from the table edge, I.e., the driven back player placed an impassable terrain piece extending from his table edge 12" up the side edge in question - then what?

berthier wrote:And if that impassable terrain is on the table edge the driven back flank march is on and extends 12" from the table edge, I.e., the driven back player placed an impassable terrain piece extending from his table edge 12" up the side edge in question - then what?

Then you need an umpire. Who could rule lost or just slide the 12 MU until the impassable isn't blocking. And explain to the FM player you FM are the side OPPOSITE the Impassable in the future.

A novice player did that a top player once and the top player punished him for it.

Thanks for the first part answer Philq, it is now clear to me, but the terrain issue is a good one!

Not everyone plays tournaments, so an umpire is not always available. This circumstance needs to be cleared up. Author Author!!

If it were combat on table, would it not mean the destruction of the BG/s forced into the impassable terrain if there were no other way around? (I love conditionals grammar )

RobKhan

Throws pointy stick and runs like hell.

The 12MU impassable on the side of arrival would mean the loss of both flank marches IMO. A cunning trick. Fromage of the highest order.

philqw78 wrote:The 12MU impassable on the side of arrival would mean the loss of both flank marches IMO. A cunning trick. Fromage of the highest order.

And since you know that your opponents fm is bigger than yours then a sound policy

philqw78 wrote:The 12MU impassable on the side of arrival would mean the loss of both flank marches IMO. A cunning trick. Fromage of the highest order.

Except, I don't believe the rules say anything about the larger FM on a drive back having to arrive in the 12 MUs in question, but fromage, indeed.

p145

While I have done lots of FM's, this has never ever come up in all the years I've been playing FOG.

How many times has this impassible thing happened to other people then?

I would suspect never as your FM is not going to get behind the enemy with a volcano in the way

berthier wrote:And if that impassable terrain is on the table edge the driven back flank march is on and extends 12" from the table edge, I.e., the driven back player placed an impassable terrain piece extending from his table edge 12" up the side edge in question - then what?

I don't understand. You've still got 12 more inches of edge to move into???

A driven back FM must move on to the table on that side edge within 12 MU of his own base edge. If the impassable is covering that 12 MU it cannot come on. The larger nFM must come on in the same 12 MU so also has nowhere to go. P145

philqw78 wrote:A driven back FM must move on to the table on that side edge within 12 MU of his own base edge. If the impassable is covering that 12 MU it cannot come on. The larger nFM must come on in the same 12 MU so also has nowhere to go. P145

Ahh, ok - i hardly ever use outflanks, but still feel another case of objecting to this being cheese. The person pushed back knew the impassible was there before sending an outflank, so it's his fault for not making his outflank large enough - or outflanking at all!!!

Calling this cheese is like saying it's cheesy to charge someone in the rear when they do a 180 in front of your army. If they make a stupid move how is that cheese? Another case of claiming ones stupidity as cheese on the others behalf.

ravenflight wrote:

philqw78 wrote:A driven back FM must move on to the table on that side edge within 12 MU of his own base edge. If the impassable is covering that 12 MU it cannot come on. The larger nFM must come on in the same 12 MU so also has nowhere to go. P145

Ahh, ok - i hardly ever use outflanks, but still feel another case of objecting to this being cheese. The person pushed back knew the impassible was there before sending an outflank, so it's his fault for not making his outflank large enough - or outflanking at all!!!

Calling this cheese is like saying it's cheesy to charge someone in the rear when they do a 180 in front of your army. If they make a stupid move how is that cheese? Another case of claiming ones stupidity as cheese on the others behalf.

I call it cheese because of the stupidity of it. The only people that would do alarge flank march on a side with a volcano would be new to the game or barking mad. So people should not mock the inflicted but explain their opponents window licking frailties instead.

Don't forget that FM is expensive because you must have a command element with the FM.

If I have the volcano in my half, and expect my opponent not to send a FM on that side because of the volcano, and there are no terrain issues on his half same flank, then I could be tempted to set one against him. Having the volcano is an asset in the balance of things. This is not so stupid?

RobKhan

RobKhan wrote:Don't forget that FM is expensive because you must have a command element with the FM.

If I have the volcano in my half, and expect my opponent not to send a FM on that side because of the volcano, and there are no terrain issues on his half same flank, then I could be tempted to set one against him. Having the volcano is an asset in the balance of things.

This is not so stupid?

Flank marching into one is though.