Combat in Rivers

[Neil Williamson]

At a recent tournament I ran, this situation came up for a ruling.
(I did take photos but I cannot work out how to load them and there is a very restrictive file size limit).

A column of 5 light horse were crossing a navigable river close to a bend in the river (on their left). The leading 2 elements had cleared the river; the third had its front edge clear, and rear edge in, the river; the 4th and 5th elements front edges were completely in the river. The left flank edges of the leading two elements were clear of the water, the 3rd was partially in the water.

An opposing Blade element made a front edge to side edge contact on the 2nd light horse element, and partial contact on the third. It did not enter the water due to the bend in the river.

If the river was not there, the 2nd and 3rd element would have turned to face. With the river there however, if they turned to face, the 2nd element rear left hand corner would be in the river and the 3rd element's left flank would be in the river, facing into the flow of the river.
With the river there, by doing this, they would have contradicted the rule on page 20, Water Features, which states "Rivers can also be crossed with more difficulty off-road at between 45 and 135 degrees to the flow by wading,..." So I ruled they could not turn to face combat. This is in contradiction to page 35 where it states in the first paragraph that an element contacted on its flank edge turns into full front edge contact.

It could be argued that, as per the 2nd paragraph on page 35 of Turning to Face Flank or rear contact, "If an element or elements contacted in flank... have insufficient room to turn to face, the enemy must move back to make room." In this case, the 2 light horse elements would turn to face, move forward out of the river, and the enemy Blade would move back. There was sufficient room for this. They would then be at -1 in combat as they can't recoil into the river. However, this manoeuvre involves going against the flow of the river.

My ruling was that the light horse cannot turn to face due to the flow of the river. The light horse (2nd in the column) would be attacked as a front edge contact in contact with an enemy flank edge. This is unusual but not disallowed I think. Expendables and routers are specifically ruled that they do not turn to face when contacted on the flank. With the front edge being in contact with the flank edge, and the blade winning the combat, the light horse was destroyed.

Was my interpretation of the rules correct?

On another point as I re-read the rules of this section:
it is not clear if the light horse suffer a -1 combat penalty for the flank edge contact. Page 35 after the first two bullet points states "An element...in front edge contact with the flank or rear edge of an enemy element which is fighting to its front is subject to an adverse tactical factor." However the tactical factors on page 37 do not mention having to be in front edge combat for this tactical factor to apply. I certainly have never played a rear edge contact penalty can only be applied if the element attacked is also in front edge combat. My interpretation is that the light horse would suffer a -1 combat penalty for being attacked on the flank.

Thank you for your assistance in this.

[LawrenceG1]

Well, the second question is easily dealt with. The rule you cite is there to clarify what happens if you are in combat on your front edge and another edge (i.e. you fight only what is in front, with a negative modifier). As you noted, the -1 for flank contact applies whether or not there is front contact.

The river question: waders turn to face boats that contact their flank, so there is precedent for violating the 45-135 degree rule. It would not be unreasonable to permit turning to face and/or lining up in combat at any angle in any direction. I thought there was a rule allowing this explicitly, but I can't find it. What you did was also reasonable with the information you had available.

[Neil Williamson]

Thanks Lawrence.
I think this is how I should have ruled it.
The 2 light horse in the column (2nd and 3rd) should have turned to face the blade. Rule turning to face page 35 and precedent on page 20 "Waders turn to face Boats that contact them."
The light horse would have combat disadvantages for being in the water and because they cannot recoil. Rules on page 37 and precedent set on page 40 "Recoil by waders that have turned to face Boats is prevented by the river."
In this situation the light horse would have been spent on losing the combat.

If the light horse had won the combat the Blade would have recoiled, but would the light horse pursue?
It is in the water, and therefore impetuous. Rule page 30 "Troops .....that are in a river" and therefore should pursue. However, that would be against the flow of the river. The precedent for boats in this case does not help. Page 42 "A naval element does not pursue land opponents, but its landing troops can choose to do so". This is no problem if the boat is contacted on the side as the land elements would be within the 45/135 rule. If the boat is contacted to its front then the pursuit would be outside the 45/135 rule.

My feeling is that the light horse cannot pursue against the flow of the river, ie outside the 45/135 rule.

In summary, I think that any movement in a river, whether voluntary or involuntary, must comply with the 45/135 rule. Turning to Face though, is not counted as movement. (It does come within the combat section not the movement section of the rules). So Turning to Face will occur, resulting in elements being outside the 45/135 rule.
Presumably we have to fudge it a bit to allow elements trapped against the flow in future bounds to pivot or move off to comply asap with the 45/135 rule.

Does that sound like the correct interpretation?

[LawrenceG1]

Yes, that sounds reasonable.

[Barritus]

Hi folks

I've had a bit of a read of this situation, and with respect I think I disagree.

As I understand it, the philosophy of the rules is something along the lines of that what is allowed is only that which is specifically mentioned as being allowed. That is, if a rule provides specific cases for its application it can't be applied to other cases. Therefore, for example, the rule specifying which elements don't turn to face when contacted in the flank only applies to those elements and isn't to be expanded to apply to other elements.

For what it's worth, my interpretation would be that the two LH elements turn to face the Bd element, and the Bd element backs up until both LH elements are clear of the water. The LH then take a -1 in combat for not being able to recoil.

My logic is as follows:

- The LH can turn to face because the Turning to Face rule on p35 specifies that any element contacted on the flank turns to face; and the LH do not fit any of the exception provided to the rule (not train or Boats or Expendables, and is not in frontal contact).

- The LH can't be allowed to remain in the River facing the Bd at that angle to the flow because of the condition of crossing a River off-road on p20.

- Therefore the Bd must be moved backwards in accordance with the Moving Into Close Combat rule on p33 until the LH elements are clear of the river; the Bd element is the element preventing the LH from legally lining up. (I don't see the forward movement of the LH out of the River as movement contrary to p20 as I think it's effectively another form of EMTLU, and EMTLU allows a range of movements which aren't otherwise allowed in normal movement - for example, a group of elements can't slide sideways in normal movement but can do so as EMTLU.)

- The LH are now sitting with a back corner touching the river and can't recoil as that would involve entering the River at an illegal angle, hence the -1 in combat.

I don't think turning to face while in the River is possible, as the only case for that being allowed is by waders being contacted by Boats.

(Having said all that, I'm happy to be shown where my reasoning is wrong.)

= = = =

FWIW, these sorts of situations could easily occur with elements in the vicinity of a craggy hill. So it might be an idea for the Brains Trust to investigate these sorts of cases for the next edition of the Commentary.

[LawrenceG1]

As I understand it, the philosophy of the rules is something along the lines of that what is allowed is only that which is specifically mentioned as being allowed. That is, if a rule provides specific cases for its application it can't be applied to other cases.

(I don't see the forward movement of the LH out of the River as movement contrary to p20 as I think it's effectively another form of EMTLU, and EMTLU allows a range of movements which aren't otherwise allowed in normal movement - for example, a group of elements can't slide sideways in normal movement but can do so as EMTLU.)

EXTRA MOVEMENT TO LINE UP IN CLOSE COMBAT OR TO LINE UP IN A TZ
An element or group in edge contact but not already lined-up as specified above must (and any moving in an
enemy TZ may) immediately move (expending no PIPs) the minimum extra up to 80p needed to end lined up
with an enemy edge (or any fortification) by (a) a sideways shift and/or (b) wheel or pivot; or to (c) shorten group
frontage by 1 element by moving blocked elements the minimum distance to end immediately behind others.

In the third quote (from the rules) forward movement is not specifically mentioned as being allowed. This means the second quote contradicts the first quote.

It may be possible to get to your conclusion by a self-consistent set of arguments, but this isn't it.

This sort of thing would have to be covered by a suggested playing convention in the commentary as there is no "right " answer per the rules as written. I suspect it is a very infrequent question to arise in games, so probably not a priority for the commentary team.

[Fon Tok Nak]

I understand where Barritus is coming from on the point that the rules providing for specific cases can't be applied in other cases, although I'd prefer to say "don't try and apply rules out of context."

In this specific case, I would make the following observations:
   The river is not impassable, so the Lh can enter it.
   They are not trying to cross the river (a movement rule), but are being forced into it as a consequence of lining up (a close combat rule).
   They are not fighting Boats. (The 'no recoil against boats' gives boats a specific advantage against waders in the middle of a river. There is nothing to stop troops on the edge of a river recoiling into it or pursuing out of it. Again, the 45-135 degree thing does not apply because they are not trying to cross - they are subject to a combat outcome.)

Consequently, I would have the Lh line up and suffer a minus for being in rough or difficult going.

On the point about -1 for flank edge contact, Neil is correct and Lawrence is not. The -1 to enemy gives friends to the front a greater chance of winning the combat (2 elements attacking 1). If you are only on the flank of an enemy and that enemy does not turn, you do not still inflict the -1 (being now 1 to 1). In other words, you do not have a greater chance of winning the combat by being just on the flank, but if you do win, that win can become a quick kill, so there is still an advantage to a flank-only attack.

Anthony

[LawrenceG1]

On the point about -1 for flank edge contact, Neil is correct and Lawrence is not. The -1 to enemy gives friends to the front a greater chance of winning the combat (2 elements attacking 1). If you are only on the flank of an enemy and that enemy does not turn, you do not still inflict the -1 (being now 1 to 1). In other words, you do not have a greater chance of winning the combat by being just on the flank, but if you do win, that win can become a quick kill, so there is still an advantage to a flank-only attack.

Anthony

The tactical factor in the rules is

- 1 For each flank overlapped and/or enemy element in front edge combat with a flank or rear edge.

Nothing there about having to be in combat on the front edge as well.

In most cases, elements that do not turn to face a flank contact also count the edge in combat as a front edge, so would not suffer the -1. But this is a specific exception for specific elements.

[Fon Tok Nak]

The meaning of 'overlapped' is explained in detail on p.35. The -1 bullet on p.37 is for when the conditions on p.35 are met. To apply that -1 without consideration of p.35 would mean allowing overlapping Art (for example) to inflict that -1. 

The rule you cite is there to clarify what happens if you are in combat on your front edge and another edge (i.e. you fight only what is in front, with a negative modifier).

Other way around. The rule (on p.35) clarifies what happens to your enemy when you are on his flank or rear - he suffers a -1 only if you are also on his front as in "an enemy element which is fighting to its front". An enemy element which is not fighting to its front does not suffer the -1 for you being on a flank.

I agree that this situation rarely comes up, but it is worth noting for combat with Expendables (in particular) and War Wagons (S) and (X).

Anthony