Second Moves and Threatened Flank

[bayouwars2001]

Hi Guys,
I need help with two rules -
Rule number one: Second Moves (page 75), fourth bullet "the second move by a BG or BL must be a "SIMPLE ADVANCE".
OK, I think I have been playing this wrong but I thought the second move must be "directly forward" as in "straight ahead". I see now that it can be a simple advance which is any forward move other than a difficult forward move and can include a single wheel. Is that correct?

Rule number two: Cohesion Test modifiers: -1 for "THREATENED FLANK". page 136 - definitions of "threatened flank" "Any part of the BG is less than six MUs away from ANY table edge. So, if you are all the way back against your own table edge, (less than 6 MUs), you suffer this -1 on any cohesion test? Sounds pretty severe. How about if you are winning and pinning your opponent against his own table edge. Same result. Ouch! Is this correct? Seems like the game designers want everyone to stay away from the edges and play in the middle of the table.

Thanks for your help.
Chris

[hammy]

You are correct in both cases.

A simple advance is any move from the advances section that is not complex and as a second move MUST include a general and be more than 6MU fron the enemy there are no difficult second moves so all second move advances are simple even for other undrilled. Remember though that it can only include one wheel so none of those clever arcing moves that columns used to use in DBM to skirt round an enemy elements 4" zone.

The -1 for threatened flanks is harsh but it doesn't apply to skirmishers. It was intentionally put in the rules to make it harder to fortress up in a corner. If you try this in FOG it makes the troops on the ends of the formation far more vulnerable to missiles.

[rbodleyscott]

The -1 for threatened flanks is harsh but it doesn't apply to skirmishers. It was intentionally put in the rules to make it harder to fortress up in a corner. If you try this in FOG it makes the troops on the ends of the formation far more vulnerable to missiles.

Yes, the idea is to deter players from attempting to use the table edges (any table edge) to guard their flank. The edge of the table is not the edge of the world, and in reality all battles took place "in the middle of the table".

[lawrenceg]

Hi Guys,


Rule number two: Cohesion Test modifiers: -1 for "THREATENED FLANK". page 136 - definitions of "threatened flank" "Any part of the BG is less than six MUs away from ANY table edge. So, if you are all the way back against your own table edge, (less than 6 MUs), you suffer this -1 on any cohesion test? Sounds pretty severe. How about if you are winning and pinning your opponent against his own table edge. Same result. Ouch! Is this correct? Seems like the game designers want everyone to stay away from the edges and play in the middle of the table.

I rationalise it as:

If you are near an enemy table edge, you never know if there might not be some dangerous enemy unit lurking in ambush just off the edge.

If you are near your own rear edge and things are looking bad (i.e. you have to take a CT), the temptation to sneak/run off is all the greater.

[nikgaukroger]

Why bother rationalising it? A game mechanism to avoid a dodgy game effect is, IMO, good enough.