flank charge?

This forum is for any questions about the rules. Post here is you need feedback from the design team.

Moderators: hammy, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Moderators, Field of Glory Design

babyshark
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 1336
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 6:59 pm
Location: Government; and I'm here to help.

Re: flank charge?

Post by babyshark » Wed Oct 09, 2013 12:40 am

hazelbark wrote:
petedalby wrote:For me, I think this is another of those 'once in a blue moon' cases where there's not too much to get worked up about. Just work it through with the rules as written and trying to avoid any cheese or unintended consequences.
I think this is the most sensible. However...since Ruddock is now aware.

I would also say the ruling should not reward cheese.

Furthermore consider if the column wasn't kinked, but the player claimed the column was in such a position that the point first contacted would be the front corner of the succeeding bases. I.e. That infintessimal place between bases. This is an attempt to move in that direction which is also worse.

So the ruling must be to punish cheesey attempts to manipulate the rules beyond sensibility.
Sign me up for this option, please. It makes the most sense. This will be a wonderfully rare occurrence.

Marc

philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8698
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Re: flank charge?

Post by philqw78 » Wed Oct 09, 2013 8:48 am

babyshark wrote: This will be a wonderfully rare occurrence.

Marc
In pursuit maybe, but not in normal play
phil
putting the arg into argumentative

grahambriggs
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2989
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am

Re: flank charge?

Post by grahambriggs » Fri Oct 11, 2013 8:48 am

hazelbark wrote:
I would also say the ruling should not reward cheese.

Furthermore consider if the column wasn't kinked, but the player claimed the column was in such a position that the point first contacted would be the front corner of the succeeding bases. I.e. That infintessimal place between bases. This is an attempt to move in that direction which is also worse.

So the ruling must be to punish cheesey attempts to manipulate the rules beyond sensibility.
While I appreciate the sentiment I suggest it's dangerous to change a rule which is clear but you think is cheesy. It creates a massive precedent. What happens if my opponent thinks something cheesy but is clearly stated in the rules and may even have been the author's explicit intent?

For example, I've seen players who feel it is cheesy that they can march HF up to 6.00000001 MU of the enemy but cannot charge in in two turns: "but that represents hardly any distance in reality; surely they would reach the extra toenail?" Those who've been aware of debate with the authers will know it's a deliberate mechanism, not cheese; but others could be forgiven for thinking otherwise.


I'd suggest the originally posted unusual case is just played RAW.

kevinj
Major-General - Tiger I
Major-General - Tiger I
Posts: 2379
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:21 am
Location: Derbyshire, UK

Re: flank charge?

Post by kevinj » Fri Oct 11, 2013 9:47 am

I think the marching thing is sufficiently well understood and can be reduced to the basic principle that march moves stop over 2 but less than 3 moves for Heavy Foot to make contact. I think we've had that basic premise since march moves were introduced in WRG 7th edition.

The difference here is that it potentially allows gamey positioning of the bases to negate a threat, which to my mind contravenes the principles under which Fog was designed. I habitually depict kinked columns by joining the rear corner of the leading base to the front corner of that following on the inside of the curve which prevents this arising, but I can see how Lawrence's depictions could also be valid. While this may be a rare situation currently, I think that interpreting it Graham's way, while technically correct, at the very least opens up the possibility of time wasting by people looking for more advantageous positioning of the individual bases of a kinked column. I'm much happier with the simple principle that anything behind the front edge is a flank.

dave_r
General - King Tiger
General - King Tiger
Posts: 3790
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 3:58 pm

Re: flank charge?

Post by dave_r » Fri Oct 11, 2013 10:32 am

kevinj wrote:I think the marching thing is sufficiently well understood and can be reduced to the basic principle that march moves stop over 2 but less than 3 moves for Heavy Foot to make contact. I think we've had that basic premise since march moves were introduced in WRG 7th edition.

The difference here is that it potentially allows gamey positioning of the bases to negate a threat, which to my mind contravenes the principles under which Fog was designed. I habitually depict kinked columns by joining the rear corner of the leading base to the front corner of that following on the inside of the curve which prevents this arising, but I can see how Lawrence's depictions could also be valid. While this may be a rare situation currently, I think that interpreting it Graham's way, while technically correct, at the very least opens up the possibility of time wasting by people looking for more advantageous positioning of the individual bases of a kinked column. I'm much happier with the simple principle that anything behind the front edge is a flank.
Does that mean I am allowed to ignore rules I don't like because it "contravenes" the principles under which fog was designed?
Evaluator of Supremacy

vexillia

Re: flank charge?

Post by vexillia » Fri Oct 11, 2013 10:47 am

kevinj wrote:The difference here is that it potentially allows gamey positioning of the bases to negate a threat, which to my mind contravenes the principles under which Fog was designed. I habitually depict kinked columns by joining the rear corner of the leading base to the front corner of that following on the inside of the curve which prevents this arising, but I can see how Lawrence's depictions could also be valid.
Ooh! Do I need to get more popcorn? :mrgreen:

kevinj
Major-General - Tiger I
Major-General - Tiger I
Posts: 2379
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:21 am
Location: Derbyshire, UK

Re: flank charge?

Post by kevinj » Fri Oct 11, 2013 10:51 am

Does that mean I am allowed to ignore rules I don't like because it "contravenes" the principles under which fog was designed?
No but I'm sure you can provide some more ideas that will convince Graham that my approach of cheese avoidance is sensible. :twisted:

Note: buy shares in wherever Martin gets his popcorn...

dave_r
General - King Tiger
General - King Tiger
Posts: 3790
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 3:58 pm

Re: flank charge?

Post by dave_r » Fri Oct 11, 2013 12:12 pm

kevinj wrote:
Does that mean I am allowed to ignore rules I don't like because it "contravenes" the principles under which fog was designed?
No but I'm sure you can provide some more ideas that will convince Graham that my approach of cheese avoidance is sensible. :twisted:

Note: buy shares in wherever Martin gets his popcorn...
The problem is that it isn't sensible since you aren't playing the RAW.

Different umpires will no doubt have different views of what is cheesy or not and it ends up being a complete lottery as to what happens when you call an umpire, based on whether he favours one person, if he has a hangover, etc, etc
Evaluator of Supremacy

kevinj
Major-General - Tiger I
Major-General - Tiger I
Posts: 2379
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:21 am
Location: Derbyshire, UK

Re: flank charge?

Post by kevinj » Fri Oct 11, 2013 12:25 pm

I think we can all agree that the RAW is perfectly adequate for the normal circumstance where the front corner only applies to the front rank base and this only arises where a second or subsequent rank base is sticking out at an odd angle due to forming a kinked column. I think most people would be comfortable with the concept that this should be a flank.Thankfully I've not seen it occur but I think it could probably be usefully covered by an errata entry to avoid the possibility of anyone exploiting it.

dave_r
General - King Tiger
General - King Tiger
Posts: 3790
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 3:58 pm

Re: flank charge?

Post by dave_r » Fri Oct 11, 2013 1:10 pm

kevinj wrote:I think we can all agree that the RAW is perfectly adequate for the normal circumstance where the front corner only applies to the front rank base and this only arises where a second or subsequent rank base is sticking out at an odd angle due to forming a kinked column. I think most people would be comfortable with the concept that this should be a flank.Thankfully I've not seen it occur but I think it could probably be usefully covered by an errata entry to avoid the possibility of anyone exploiting it.
And presumably a clarification on "facing in two directions"?
Evaluator of Supremacy

philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8698
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Re: flank charge?

Post by philqw78 » Fri Oct 11, 2013 1:10 pm

kevinj wrote:anyone exploiting it.
ANYONE???? Or just someone
phil
putting the arg into argumentative

hazelbark
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4957
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: Capital of the World !!

Re: flank charge?

Post by hazelbark » Fri Oct 11, 2013 2:21 pm

dave_r wrote:
Does that mean I am allowed to ignore rules I don't like because it "contravenes" the principles under which fog was designed?
It means all umpires should be prepared to rule against you in particular.

hazelbark
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4957
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: Capital of the World !!

Re: flank charge?

Post by hazelbark » Fri Oct 11, 2013 2:24 pm

A greater solution (but it would be an amendment) would be just say that a kinked column contacted by either a legal flank charge, or contact on ANY base other than its lead base is ALWAYS adjudicated as a flank charge with all the effects.

Kinked column ought not to be occuring near the battle zone.

kevinj
Major-General - Tiger I
Major-General - Tiger I
Posts: 2379
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:21 am
Location: Derbyshire, UK

Re: flank charge?

Post by kevinj » Fri Oct 11, 2013 2:35 pm

A greater solution (but it would be an amendment) would be just say that a kinked column contacted by either a legal flank charge, or contact on ANY base other than its lead base is ALWAYS adjudicated as a flank charge with all the effects.
I think that could be handled by an errata entry as I don't think the Front Corner rule was ever intended to include front corners of non front rank bases at odd angles. But you'd have to also allow for the possibility of a Rear Charge.
It means all umpires should be prepared to rule against you in particular.
This is probably one for the FAQ. It would probably be more widely used than the kinked column one. I'd also replace "prepared" with "instructed"!

IanB3406
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 340
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 6:06 am

Re: flank charge?

Post by IanB3406 » Fri Oct 11, 2013 3:37 pm

Or we could just agree that maneuvering in columns and modeling kinking of such at all is stupid for this scale of game anyway and not allow it. Can anyone give me an example of infantry in March order involved in any kind of set piece battle? Let's not bother with the the ambush in the German Wood......

vexillia

Re: flank charge?

Post by vexillia » Fri Oct 11, 2013 3:48 pm

hazelbark wrote:... a kinked column contacted by either a legal flank charge, or contact on ANY base other than its lead base is ALWAYS adjudicated as a flank charge with all the effects.
Should this read:
a kinked column contacted on ANY base other than its lead base is ALWAYS adjudicated as a flank charge with all the effects.
Because:
  • The rules for a legal flank charge apply anyway.
  • This is simpler as it deals with the special case without mixing the two.
  • Much easier for those that haven't read this thread.
Having said all of that, what if you can just catch the side edge of the first base and it's not a legal flank charge?
Last edited by vexillia on Fri Oct 11, 2013 4:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

grahambriggs
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2989
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am

Re: flank charge?

Post by grahambriggs » Fri Oct 11, 2013 4:49 pm

IanB3406 wrote:Or we could just agree that maneuvering in columns and modeling kinking of such at all is stupid for this scale of game anyway and not allow it. Can anyone give me an example of infantry in March order involved in any kind of set piece battle? Let's not bother with the the ambush in the German Wood......
Lake Trasimene.

the reason they have kinking in the rules is there is worse cheese ifyou just keep the column straight

hazelbark
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4957
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: Capital of the World !!

Re: flank charge?

Post by hazelbark » Fri Oct 11, 2013 7:35 pm

vexillia wrote: Should this read:
a kinked column contacted on ANY base other than its lead base is ALWAYS adjudicated as a flank charge with all the effects.
Because:
  • The rules for a legal flank charge apply anyway.
  • This is simpler as it deals with the special case without mixing the two.
  • Much easier for those that haven't read this thread.
Having said all of that, what if you can just catch the side edge of the first base and it's not a legal flank charge?
I'd be fine with that. You could include the side edges of the front base or not. I don't really care. The reason to make the front base normal is just to prevent some other knock on effect. It may be easy to manage a step forward into contact with a side edge or 2nd base. But anything in this neighborhood is fine by me.

hazelbark
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4957
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: Capital of the World !!

Re: flank charge?

Post by hazelbark » Fri Oct 11, 2013 7:36 pm

grahambriggs wrote:
IanB3406 wrote:Or we could just agree that maneuvering in columns and modeling kinking of such at all is stupid for this scale of game anyway and not allow it. Can anyone give me an example of infantry in March order involved in any kind of set piece battle? Let's not bother with the the ambush in the German Wood......
Lake Trasimene.

the reason they have kinking in the rules is there is worse cheese ifyou just keep the column straight
Wasn't it the Romans at Trasimene who were bascially ambushed in road column? Or is that to simple of a description.

dave_r
General - King Tiger
General - King Tiger
Posts: 3790
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 3:58 pm

Re: flank charge?

Post by dave_r » Fri Oct 11, 2013 8:47 pm

hazelbark wrote:A greater solution (but it would be an amendment) would be just say that a kinked column contacted by either a legal flank charge, or contact on ANY base other than its lead base is ALWAYS adjudicated as a flank charge with all the effects.

Kinked column ought not to be occuring near the battle zone.
What happens if the kinked column is as a result of a compulsory move?
Evaluator of Supremacy

Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions”