Turn to column and fighting in two directions

[peterrjohnston]

Couldn't find this, but can a battle line turn 90° or 180° as a group? (Specific case was
turning two battle groups 90° and moving off in column).

Odd combat:

_____AAAABBBB
_____XXXXYYYY
_____ZZZZGGGG
CCCCDDDD
EEEEEFFFFF

(underscores for spacing, hope it works.)

X, Y and Z are Cv elements of a BG fighting Cv elements C, D, E and F of an enemy BG. G is
general in the front rank, so Y is moved back to make space.

"XYZ" BG is hit by LH from "AB" BG (not all shown). Who do X and Y fight on LH impact and
subsequent melee?

Rgds,
Peter

[rbodleyscott]

Couldn't find this, but can a battle line turn 90° or 180° as a group?

No. The only thing that battle lines can do (as a battle line) is advance (without or without a single wheel, or a shift when permitted).

I will leave Terry to answer the 2nd one.

[terrys]

XXXX & YYYY both fight to their rear at impact. (it being assumed that the LH would have stepped forwards to contact the back of YYYY, which is actually positioned where the General currently is.)
The LH get 2 dice at 3+, the cavalry get 4 dice at 5+ (and get the re-rolls provided by the general)

In the melee phase, the LH get their normal 1 dice per 2, and again fight against XXXX & YYYY, since these bases are only in contact with the LH.
Their other base ZZZZ fights against all 4 of the cavalry to front.
All get their normal factors, except that their is now an additional -POA for 'fighting in 2 directions' for the BG in the middle.

This situation is bit risky for the LH - they may possibly get beaten before the frontal CV manage to win.
If the LH had contrived to only hit XXXX at impact, (by correct positioning earlier), then they'd be in a better situation - since the base YYYY would not be in contact with them, and only be able to fight as an overlap against DDDD.

[peterrjohnston]

XXXX & YYYY both fight to their rear at impact. (it being assumed that the LH would have stepped forwards to contact the back of YYYY, which is actually positioned where the General currently is.)

Ah, we went wrong here. Making the correct assumption YYYY is fighting where the general is, we forgot the LH step forward.
So just had the LH fighting XXXX.

Incidently, and I would agree, Gug pointed out putting generals in the front rank would be easier by just sticking
a command marker on a front rank base, rather than fiddling about with bases pushed back. Bit late now though

If the LH had contrived to only hit XXXX at impact, (by correct positioning earlier), then they'd be in a better situation - since the base YYYY would not be in contact with them, and only be able to fight as an overlap against DDDD.

This would have been possible, and will happen in the future

The whole situation was a bit of a mess because some jav LH charged some bow LH, and were intercepted by
the Cav. The Cav in pursuit of the rapidly vaporising jav LH hit the ABC Cav, with the bow LH trying to get round
the back.

Which reminds me of another question! If LH are intercepted when charging by non-skirmishers, can they then
evade? In evading it says it's a response to a charge - is an interception charge distinct from this?

Rgds,
Peter

[bddbrown]

Which reminds me of another question! If LH are intercepted when charging by non-skirmishers, can they then
evade? In evading it says it's a response to a charge - is an interception charge distinct from this?

The definition of charging and when you can evade is loosely defined in the rules. We've never played it that you could evade, but re-reading through the rules interceptions are referred to as "interception charges" and it does say you can evade "if charged" - there are no exceptions for charging yourself.

I think this is one area that might benefit from a web-site clarification. I'm fairly sure you cannot evade, having committed to a charge (although in many ways it would be a nice mecahnism if you could then evade - making a 'mock' charge possible and giving Light Horse a little more scope on the battlefield).

I'll be interested to see what the authors have to say on this one.

[peterrjohnston]

Bump

[terrys]

I think this is one area that might benefit from a web-site clarification. I'm fairly sure you cannot evade, having committed to a charge (although in many ways it would be a nice mecahnism if you could then evade - making a 'mock' charge possible and giving Light Horse a little more scope on the battlefield).

I'll be interested to see what the authors have to say on this one.

I've raised this one with Simon & Richard. I know what I'd like the answer to be, but need to make sure that it's the correct one according to the rules.

[peterrjohnston]

I've raised this one with Simon & Richard. I know what I'd like the answer to be, but need to make sure that it's the correct one according to the rules.

OK. Although I could see both being reasonable results in terms of behaviour. A sort of choice between
"Oh bugger" and "Run away, run away".

[rtaylor]

I'm guessing the answer will be: if you don't want to be intercepted, you don't want to charge. It's simpler that way, and from what I've seen, the designers always go with the simplest solution that works.