As a square have no rear it can’t have rear support in combat, so a square in combat against cavalry with rear support will fights with one dice less and the cavalry with an extra dice. Correct?
Yes. If both units are small the square will get 3 dice and the cavalry 5 dice.
Squares can have and give support fire or flank support in combat?
Squares cannot give support in shooting (they have no 'side edge')
Squares can receive flank support in shooting (it is the supporting unit that must have a side edge).
In combat:
1. squares can give rear support to other units if they are within 1MU behind them (because they can only move 1MU)
2. squares can never receive rear support themselves (they have no rear)
3. squares cannot give flank support to other units (they have no flank)
4. squares can receive flank support from other units (it is the supporting unit that needs a flank to give a 'support area' - not the square)
Can a unit in extended line in front of an artillery unit (touching his rear) assaulted by cavalry form square? If so is the square move forward or the artillery move backward? I think that it can’t form square at all, but as it’s an important issue in our current game and I will like a second opinion!
This is a tough one, no rule specifically on point. I'm sure Terry can give us an answer in one line, however in the mean time we have a few general rules that may apply:
1. p30 "
The owning player must choose whether or not to form Square and the Infantry always ends in this formation ..."
- so the starting point I would take is that the extended line can form square. How to give effect to this on the table is the real issue.
2. pg.40 "
If forming Square from Extended Line ...first place its bases in Tactical formation. In the Assault phase it cannot form Square in a position that takes the unit outside of the assualt range of the enemy ... the Square is slid towards the assaulting unit by the minimum neccessary to ...[be] reachable"
- so we have authority that squares can be shuffled closer to enemy in some circumstances, this being if they would end up out of range.
3. pg 40. "
Interpenetrations are situations where you can choose to move through friendly troops" I guess you are 'choosing' to form square rather than stand and shoot, perhaps more arguable is whether you are "moving through" the artillery...
The extended line snaps into tactical before turning its rear bases around. The unit's front edge once in tactical is halfway through the artillery (although it did not "move through" the guns) and its rear bases on top of them. The interpenetration rules say that if
"the moving unit can move its front edge (or rear edge if moving backwards) at least half way through the stationary unit" it can interpenetrate and is moved forwards to make room.
The following bullet point says if there is insufficient space you push the non-moving unit backwards. Technically this bullet point make no sense as, read with the head sentence, it reads: "
Interpentrations are only permitted if If [sic] there is insufficient space, then the non-moving unit may slide ...." - but we know what is meant.
If I was called to adjudicate on this at a tournament, I would scratch my head a bit, then let the extended line form square and either move the square forward to make room, or push the artillery back to make room, at the defending player's option.
My reasoning would be: The general principal is a square is allowed, so we need to find a way to do this.
There are peripheral rules allowing troops to be moved out of the way in interpenetration situations. These are written with passage of lines in mind but could be stretched to cover your situation.
Giving the choice to the defending player of either moving forward, or pushing the guns back to make room, is a cop out because I can't decide either way! I guess however the commander executing the formation change could decide whether he orders the front of his regiment to advance to make room, or alternatively orders the artillery out of the way, so leaving it to the player to decide is not unreasonable.
A tricky one however.
They can argue about it in the pub later!
Cheers
Brett
