Flank support - another q

To qualify as a flank support a unit mist be initially of a type able to form a group and be in the correct position.

However in order to form a group both units must be from the same command - does this restriction also apply to flank support?

Good question. It hasn't cropped up (I think) but clarity would be nice. I can see the argument for either option.

I don't think so. I think it matters only that they hypothetically could be in a group, not that they are in a group.

Yep I agree with Gaius it's more about troop type with regard to flank support, not who's in what group.

That's another good question that's not come up before

Gaius Cassius wrote:I don't think so. I think it matters only that they hypothetically could be in a group, not that they are in a group.

but hypothetically or otherwise they can't be in a group as they are incapable of forming a group because they are from different commands

Just being disordered stops you being part of group but doesn't stop you providing flank support...kind of answers the question in an indirect way

A main Unit /Large Unit in melee gets a +1 modifier for each supported flank. A  nit/Large Unit has a supported flank when it is even partially in base contact with a friendly Unit/Large Unit of a kind with which it can form a Group. The Units must be in contact by side edge, not by angle and must have the same facing.

I take the phrase "of a kind" as meaning that as long the two units could hypothetically form a group they get the coverage. Otherwise, the conditional nature of the phrase doesn't really make any sense to me. To take the sense that you are Cyrus wouldn't the sentence in question run something like;

base contact with a friendly Unit/Large Unit which it can form a Group.

Dont know - hence the q - the conditional part may be referring to the ability to form a group even though technically not a group

I agree with GC - the use of "of a kind" makes it clear in my mind. Which is why the question has never come up for us - we never considered the possibility. To me it's clearly limiting flank support BT disallowing mounted and infantry support,etc.

That said clarity would be nice and in v2 it should be written as a full rule, including the list of units that cannot mutually offer support - it may well be that this list isnt the same as it is for groups (although that's clearly smple and easy to remember and I'd want a very good reason to change it).

It happened to me in the last competition and I didn't give to my Unit the support. It came natural for me to take that choice.

Now, I see the text is more flexible and both options could make sense.

By the way in theory also Cavalry could keep the flank of a foot Unit and limiting the options to those who can really form a Group (within the same Command if is the case) is a way to favour Groups and line formations, not occasional contact between friedly Unit.

So unitil Version 2.0 I would stay stick to the restrictive option.

Thanks for the clarification Lorenzo. Putting aside the wording it is not clear why you would favour the more restrictive option at this time. The whole point of covered/supported flanks to my understanding was to re-balance linear formations with deep units. With this purpose in mind, why would it matter if the covered/supported flank was provided by a unit in the same command or another?

Depends if you trust your "friend" or not - and history shows plenty of reasons why not

But now we have a ruling can we just apply it and move on? (of course this only applies to rulings I agree with ! )

Either way it isn't a big deal. We tend to fall in line with the rulings even when we don't agree with them. I'd still like to know the thinking around this because as Zippee said above, we didn't even consider this an option because of how the rule was written and the supporting discussions around it when it came out.

I often have my main battle line split between two commands (Dark Age fights in particular) so at this meeting point one can't offer the other support ? ......I'll go with it if that's the ruling but like Gaius not sure why it has to be so

You don't get the +1 flank support - still get the additional half combat dice where appropriate.

Having seen what a line of Veteran Legionaires each with their own general can do I'm ok with this

I'm happy with support across commands but can see it both ways. It would be easy to overcomplicate it, alliwing to professionals or the same list entry but not irregulars or of a different ethnicity.

However I think allied troops should only be able to support themselves. Allied contingents are a wholly separate force within the army.

We'll play it by the rules it's OK for now....all good.

I just don't know if the chaps in the field are that concerned about who's who and in what command so long as there's someone on the left or right of them....unless for some reason they're suddenly NOT there then they might begin to take notice.

So groups across commands can not support one another?

Yes they can in the sense they get the normal combat bonus halved but they dont get flank support

Cyrus The Adequate wrote:Yes they can in the sense they get the normal combat bonus halved but they dont get flank support

which is the bit that seems really odd

Zippee wrote:

Cyrus The Adequate wrote:Yes they can in the sense they get the normal combat bonus halved but they dont get flank support

which is the bit that seems really odd

How is that? In this case the main unit and the support unit are both in contact with the enemy.

It seems odd that you benefit from support (half dice) by having a unit in contact with the same enemy. But that same unit doesn't also secure your flank (+1) because it reports to a different commander.

Should being in different commands really prevent that sort of coordination? And if so why don't we reflect that in the way main/support units interact across commands (other than the much debated restart issue)?

It seems an unnecessary complication and is a bit counter-intuitive.

I agree with you Zippee and think that Lorenzo ruled incorrectly. But then you and I were on that side of the argument from the beginning!

I'd like to know more about Cyrus' thinking on this because he seemed earlier to support the more restricted interpretation.

The root cause here is Lorenzo is trying to create a rule that does not require any amendments to the main rules book other than a single para. This is totally understandable and I'm behind him 100% there.

He needed to place some restrictions as to what could legitimately provide flank support, and the rules for forming groups already exists. Therefore using the existing group definition makes perfect sense from the rules point of view.

Given that I don't have a problem - I can explain it away as distrust of units you are not familiar with - and I think that is actually a very good explanation if one is needed. You could also say it requires a good level of intercommunication between units - again that would mean the same command - and that situation exists today even with our tremendous communications capabilities units that stray outside their allotted areas regularly become subject to friendly fire.

But as I said, I'm also happy to accept it as a result of an editing function.

Good points Cyrus. I can see it both ways to be honest. My frustration was more how the rule was written than the result. I don't share Zippee's sense of oddity about supported/covered flanks and support units because in the later case the unit in question is actually engaged in melee with the enemy.