Art De La Guerre

[Mark G Fry]

Hi there

I had a situation in a game at the weekend that seemed very 'odd' to me. Potentially at odds with a basic principle of the rules.
So I am interested in others views and opinions on this please?

A Heavy Knight impetuous is facing two units of Bowmen (A & B). One unit of Bowmen (A) is facing the knights, directly in front of them and both are just outside of each others ZoC.
The knight has moved to this position in its turn, as result of a compulsory follow-up.

In the Bowmen's turn, the other unit of Bowmen (B) moves forwards 1UD and turns (not contacting the knights) but creating a 'box' whereby if the knight charges it will end up with this Bowmen (b) fighting it on its flank.

I am aware that in this situation the knights (even though they are impetuous) do not have to charge, but if they do they will not receive a disorder, but Bowmen (B) on the flank will add to the combat factors of the Bowmen (A) being charged frontally by the knights. The knights will also lose their impact factor and fight on a '0' as they have the Bowmen (B) fighting to their flank.

In the next turn, Bowman (B) is charged in its own flank by a unit of enemy LC. The knights now charge Bowmen (A) to their front.
To my surprise it appears that despite Bowmen (B) having been hit in the flank by the enemy LC - it continues to influence the combat between the knights and Bowmen (A).
So the knights still fight on a '0' and still lose their impact, whilst Bowman (B) fights the LC to its flank (admittedly on a '0') but in effect Bowman (B) is influencing (in effect fighting) two enemies at once.

I accept that this is the way that the rules are written ... but is this outcome the intention, as it can create some very 'odd' outcomes.
I'd have thought that Bowman (B) would have been so preoccupied with the flank attack that it would be 'diverted' from doing anything against the knights.

Many thanks
Mark

[Neep]

This is an easily overlooked idea, conveyed only (AFAIU) by the diagram on page 66. Good luck finding original intent.

[Hazelbark]

Yes you can have this occurring.

Usually this occurs in succeeding turns which is why the rule reads the way it does. I flank you hoping for a quick win. I stall. Then in your turn you riposte.

You had a situation where both occur simultaneously.

Additional things to take on board.

The knight if it moved after the light horse would have the option to halt in simple support of the LH. p 60 right column first bullet. So then it would have been LH on flank with a simple support of the KN and the KN would not have to go in. (also shown in the diagrams on p 61) [The impetuous can move to this spot and stop is p45, right column, 5th bullet]

Also the KN if it moves into the position where the bow is on its flank, the KN do not lose a cohesion point, but does get zero'd. (p 61, special cases, 1st bullet)

[Mark G Fry]

Thanks Dan.

I agree with all the points you raise, and was aware that the Knights did not have to charge impetuously into Bownen (A) to their front, so could have remained stationary & supported the LC attacking Bowmen (B) in the flank.

What surprised me was that Bowman (B) could still exert a negative effect on the Knights, even though it is now fighting an enemy in its own flank.
Not only does this seem particularly harsh but also
seems to breach a fundamental rules principle that a unit cannot (in effect) fight against two enemy at the same time.
NB: I am aware that an unengaged unit in a line between two friendly engaged unit can support both, but that is because it is unengaged itself (I assume).

The above is equally odd when you consider that had Bowmen (B) been hit in the flank by a heavy unit, it would not have suffered a Cohesion drop, as it is not considered to be fighting another enemy unit on its front edge. As I read it?

Many thanks
Mark

[Neep]

(I believe you are correct.) You will get the +1 situation modifier.

[daveallen]

Minor point here - the Bowmen keep their base factor (+1) against the LC because units fighting lights on their flank are not reduced to 0.
_________________
Putting the ink into incompetence

[Mark G Fry]

[daveallen]

Or Medium Cavalry.

Also, Heavy Infantry have the same factor against LC as Pike.

The situation you describe is extremely niche. More common is a unit hitting the flank of an existing melee support unit and there the procedure makes sense - melee support disappears immediately, but effect of having a unit on the flank lingers to the end of the turn.

The aim is to make players avoid exposing vulnerable flanks. Following that principle the sensible thing to do was remove the flank threat this turn and send the Knights in next.

Dave
_________________
Putting the ink into incompetence

[Hazelbark]

[Mark G Fry]

[Mark G Fry]

[KevinD]

“When a unit already in melee, or in melee support, is attacked by a new enemy (other than light troops, artillery or WWg) on its flank or rear edge, it immediately loses one cohesion point.” P61, 1st bullet.

So in your example, the unit in melee support hit in the flank by an elephant would lose a cohesion point. The flank support it provides however would not be at -1 as no modifiers are applied to melee support, only the unit’s base factor +1.

[Mark G Fry]

[Mark G Fry]

The answer to this 'problem' seems to me to be fairly straight-forward.

A unit that is not engaged frontally, that is hit in the flank loses the ability to do anything other than fight the attacker on its flank. or words to that effect.

It stops this 'gamey' and unrealistic table-top tactic by making it have no effect. It also maintains the consistency within the rules that a unit cannot 'fight' against two (or more enemies at once)

(as stated above Simple Support is different, as the supporting unit is not actually fighting frontally itself - with an enemy unit on its front edge)

Thanks
Mark

[Hazelbark]