historygamer | 18 Sep 2015 5:46 a.m. PST |
So can someone explain how they interpret the refused flank modifiers? If I reading it correctly, even though a unit can refuse its flank, it still suffered the penalties as if it had not, and the attacker still gets the modifiers for attacking a flank. Maybe I am mis-reading it, wanted to ask others what they think that means? |
Supercilius Maximus | 19 Sep 2015 3:38 a.m. PST |
I'll go light the BG signal…… |
historygamer | 19 Sep 2015 11:28 a.m. PST |
Thanks. The text just looks contradictory, but maybe I am just not understanding it correctly. :-) |
historygamer | 22 Sep 2015 12:42 p.m. PST |
|
Virginia Tory | 24 Sep 2015 9:59 a.m. PST |
I saw we make our own rule, in the absence of anything official. |
Supercilius Maximus | 24 Sep 2015 10:02 a.m. PST |
He may be away on business. I'll check again. |
historygamer | 24 Sep 2015 4:17 p.m. PST |
It is the same refuse the flank rule in all the GdB variants, if that helps. |
Camcleod | 24 Sep 2015 6:32 p.m. PST |
I note that in the General de Brigade rules the Refusing A Flank rule says: 'A refused flank is NOT classified as a flank for morale and melee purposes.' The British Grenadier version is different. Not sure why. You could ask on the General de Brigade forum. generaldebrigade.fr.yuku.com |
historygamer | 24 Sep 2015 7:24 p.m. PST |
Odd as the same difference is in Guns at Gettysburg as well. A typo? |
Virginia Tory | 25 Sep 2015 10:40 a.m. PST |
I posted the question on the BG forum. |
Eclaireur | 26 Sep 2015 11:44 a.m. PST |
Sorry for taking a while… :-) There are some disadvantages – but you do not suffer the 'attacked in flank or rear' modifier if you've just refused the flank to prevent that happening. EC |
historygamer | 28 Sep 2015 8:27 a.m. PST |
But I think the rules say you do still suffer those penalties. I think they say the same in Guns at Gettysburg too. What you said makes sense though. Another question – In Scenario Book 1 it limits the number of DPs an open order unit can accure to 1. I don't see that in the Deluxe rule book. Am I missing that limitation somewhere? |
historygamer | 28 Sep 2015 1:51 p.m. PST |
BG Deluxe, page 56: "units charging a refused flan claim the charging flank modifier and the target is classed as being charged in the flank for morale and melee purposes." So other than firing, what is the benefit of refusing a flank? I would think if they have the half movement (one dice) to do it, and roll a 1 or 2 they get a DP, otherwise the maneuver is successful. |
historygamer | 28 Sep 2015 1:51 p.m. PST |
He is going to hate us. :-( We are running two BG games though at Fall In! :-) |
Virginia Tory | 29 Sep 2015 4:34 a.m. PST |
>units charging a refused flan So who gets to eat the flan, if it's refused? Ducking now… |
historygamer | 29 Sep 2015 7:00 a.m. PST |
You do. Hey, you try typing with a busted finger in a splint. :-( |
Eclaireur | 04 Oct 2015 11:30 a.m. PST |
I've looked at this @historygamer and I'm real puzzled – even given the sad history of BG typos and glitches. So I am just going to have to start again from scratch on this one… My apologies for previous confusion, friendships lost, duels fought, etc, over this. I can see that if the target unit is charged by a flanking enemy more than half a move away, it could refuse its flank as its reaction to this new danger. In this sense it would make sense for the charger to get his 'charging flank or rear' plus morale throw modifier when he initiates the charge, and even after throwing the first of his charge movement dice. In essence, he thought he was going to pull off a smart little flank charge, and continues to think this, even as the opportunity is slipping way in front of his very eyes. I would not subject the defender to a negative modifier for flank or rear though, assuming his manoeuvre has denied the enemy the chance to strike the side or rear of his unit bases. Under all other circs (i.e. when the flank was refused on a previous turn), I would not allow the charger that modifier. I would not allow the charger that melee modifier under any circumstance that the refusing of a flank had actually succeeded in its aim (of denying the charger the ability to connect with the side or rear of the target unit's bases). EC |
historygamer | 04 Oct 2015 4:14 p.m. PST |
I agree with your assessment, otherwise, what is the point of refusing a flank? This is GdB problem as the same confusing statement is in Guns of Gettysburg as well. I just reread it again to make sure I wasn't missing something there. On another issue – the modifier for open order seems to have disappeared in BG Deluxe – unless I am missing it somewhere. Scenario Book I talks about reducing movement DPs to 1 – which makes sense since the entire point of moving at open order is to reduce the friction of terrain. So my question – am I missing it in BG Delx, or was it left out intentionally or not? FYI – we just did a re-enactment of Brown's Raid at Fort Ti – fighting one day in the woods near the old French lines (and among the traces of the American huts of 1776). We used open order due to the terrain, which helped us greatly. On thing we all noted while fighting in the woods was how little you actually saw of the enemy, even when close. |
Eclaireur | 05 Oct 2015 10:11 a.m. PST |
So i can put this down to cut and pasting GdB rather than my own madness?! I guess there're a pony in here after all. I cannot say what the great Dr Brown was thinking when he put that in his Napoleonic and ACW rules, but best I think to revise play, as outlined above, with British Grenadier! EC |
historygamer | 05 Oct 2015 7:01 p.m. PST |
Thanks. Again, we love your rules. Just wanted to clarify some things before we run our next round of public games and convert more to the rules. :-) |
Virginia Tory | 07 Oct 2015 12:13 p.m. PST |
Yes, we are the standard bearers of BG….:) |
Eclaireur | 10 Oct 2015 9:23 a.m. PST |
Good luck with the games guys! Let's see some pictures :-) |