Outcome moves question

Moderators: hammy, terrys, Blathergut, Slitherine Core

Post Reply
alcibiades
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 6:04 am
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Outcome moves question

Post by alcibiades » Sun May 05, 2013 6:27 am

We are in the middle of our second game of FoG-N pitting a 1200 point 1812 French Infantry Corps against a Russian Corps of the same vintage. It is time once again to turn to the collective knowledge and experience of the forum.

Anyway, following our outing one of the lads was looking at the rules and suggested that we were doing outcome moves incorrectly. The situation that created the issue was as follows:

A unit of French Hussars charged a unit of Russian Dragoons. The Hussars were supported to flank and rear and the Dragoons were unsupported. The French inflicted 7 hits, the Russians inflicted 4 hits.

In my interpretation, the Dragoons who were in contact with the Hussars are broken as a result of suffering 3 cohesion losses and must make an outcome move of D6 + 6 inches. The Hussars suffer 2 cohesion losses and become wavering. As a result, they are not permitted to pursue and remain in place.

My opponent takes no issue with the outcome as it relates to the Dragoons but argues that the Hussars must also make an outcome move of D6 + 4 inches which would result in them bursting through their rear support.

It is my position that only the loser of a melee makes outcome moves. The winner may or may not pursue depending on cohesion levels lost. Which interpretation is correct?

Thanks in advance gentlemen (and any ladies who might be out there).

Kent

KendallB
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Posts: 416
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 9:01 pm
Location: North Shore, New Zealand

Re: Outcome moves question

Post by KendallB » Sun May 05, 2013 7:31 am

You are correct.

The combat resolution states that the broken unit retires then the other player does a pursuit unless the unit is wavering.

alcibiades
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 6:04 am
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Re: Outcome moves question

Post by alcibiades » Sun May 05, 2013 1:56 pm

Thanks for getting back with your comments, Kendall. It is much appreciated. I am pleased that you concur with my reading of the rules. Hopefully, the silence of the others who took a peak at this thread but did not respond signifies agreement as well.

As I was glancing over the rules with my morning coffee, another question popped in my head. This relates to prohibitions on units advancing due to combat results from firing, whether it be no advance or no advance without passing a CMT. The rules define an advance as moving further "forward than the original front edge and facing". Most of the time the result is very straightforward and causes no difficulty. BUT, what about the unit that has turned a flank to the firer while repositioning itself with the intention of turning to its flank again to advance on the firer. This situation arose in our first game when I tried to send a French cavalry unit in a second line position to an outflanking position. During its lateral movement to the left it came in range of a large Russian battery. At that point, the French cavalry had reached the position it wanted to be in and was intending to change facing by 90 degrees and advance upon the enemy. Here, the unit does not wish to advance beyond its original front edge. It wishes to turn to the flank, thereby facing the enemy, then advance upon said enemy. Arguably the unit could turn to its flank and if successful with a CMT, make a second move towards the enemy. The unit would not have moved further forward than the original front edge in this scenario but it does seem a bit disingenuous.

Perhaps the rule should read "further forward than the original front edge and facing or closer to any known enemy. While that is implied, it is not clearly spelt out and many wargamers are happy to exploit those gaps in the rules regardless of how little sense it might make. As always, the collective wisdom of the forum is most welcome.

Cheers and thanks from the prairies of the Great White North.... :D

Kent

BrettPT
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1266
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:52 am
Location: Auckland, NZ

Re: Outcome moves question

Post by BrettPT » Sun May 05, 2013 8:37 pm

Hi Alicibiades

Kendall and yourself are correct on combat results. You proceed down the results table from top to bottom, when you hit the first line that applies, that is your answer. In this case line 1 applies. The non-active dragoons break, and active play may pursue unless wavering - which is was in your case. The combat resolution stops there.

It is only if units were still in contact after line 1 that you would continue.

A more complicated situation as an illustration. Say there was a 2nd unit of Russian Dragoons also in contact with the French Hussars, this 2nd Dragoon unit took no hits, and let's say the French Hussars were large (so ignored a hit and only dropped to disordered).

You would then go:
Line 1 - broken 1st Dragoons break. Hussars may pursue. However as pursuit takes place after "all retirement moves in the combat phase are made, ( see errata for page 24) the actual pursuit does not happen just yet.

The 2nd Dragoons now have to take a cohesion test for seeing friends break. Let's say they pass this.

If we had no further units in combat, we would stop here and the Hussars would pursue. However the fresh 2nd Dragoon unit and the disordered Hussars are still in contact. We therefore continue to move down the combat results table line by line until we arrive at the next applicable line - the last one.

The last line says active disordered units in contact retire. So the Hussars now retire. Moving to the right of this line we see the Dragoons "Halt - no pursuit"

So the final outcome of the combat would be the routed 1st Dragoons, the retired Hussars and the Halted 2nd Dragoons.

On your 2nd issue - advancing after receiving shooting hits, I also agree with you. The rules are pretty clear. Advance means move further forward than your original front facing. So no problem turning 90 degrees and then attempting a 2nd move staight ahead in this direction.

Cheers
Brett

alcibiades
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 6:04 am
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Re: Outcome moves question

Post by alcibiades » Sun May 05, 2013 9:00 pm

Hi Brett:

Thank you for taking your time to provide that very thorough and excellent walk through. I was fairly confident in my interpretation but it is nice to have it confirmed. I guess the rules could have been a little clearer by simply stating: The winners of a close combat do not make an outcome move. They may pursue subject to their post combat cohesion level.

The second point I raised is slightly more troubling as the fire which caused the cohesion loss was coming from the flank. By our strict interpretation, the unit could end up advancing on the source of fire without having to take a CMT. Common sense dictates that the unit should not be allowed to get closer to the source of its discomfort but common sense often disappears when victory or defeat is on the line....lol...

Cheers

Kent

terrys
Panzer Corps Team
Panzer Corps Team
Posts: 4189
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 11:53 am

Re: Outcome moves question

Post by terrys » Wed May 08, 2013 12:45 pm

On your 2nd issue - advancing after receiving shooting hits, I also agree with you. The rules are pretty clear. Advance means move further forward than your original front facing. So no problem turning 90 degrees and then attempting a 2nd move staight ahead in this direction.
I guess it depends upon WHEN you make the decision of what the units "original front facing" is.
Is it:
a) At the start of the movement phase.
b) At the start of the move (either 1st or 2nd ).
Most people would go with (a) so I'm happy to stick with that at the moment.

alcibiades
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 6:04 am
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Re: Outcome moves question

Post by alcibiades » Wed May 08, 2013 1:26 pm

Hi Terry

Thanks for the input. The situation I described will not arise all that often. However, I think we will play it so that a unit which receives the " No Advance" or "No Advance without CMT" from receiving fire cannot get closer to the enemy from its original "footprint". The unit would be allowed to change facing to face the firing unit but can't advance beyond its original "footprint".

Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions”