Turning to flank while attacked in a river? Posted by Neil Williamson, 24 October 2021

At Recoil a situation came up regarding combat in rivers. I thought I would post it here to help clarify how combat occurs in rivers.

One of the main section of the rules affecting this is on page 20 where it states that rivers can only be crossed at between 45 and 135 degrees by wading. Which I call the 45/135 rule. The main effect in combat is that this prevents a hard flank manoeuvre being executed against someone crossing the river whilst also in the river themselves.

Vince was crossing a wide (navigable) with a column of light horse when he was caught in the flank by a blade. The photos are from my recreation at home.

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. 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.

I checked on the UK forum and Lawrence kindly replied and the correct procedure should have been as follows:-

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.

This also raised another possible situation

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. Remembering also that TZ s do not extend into or through water.

Lawrence agreed with this.

Sorry for killing your light horse Vincent Cholewa

 https://www.facebook.com/groups/824840264342234/posts/1921291441363772/

The light horse crossing the river by a bend in the river

The blade attacked the flank of the 2nd and 3rd light horse in the river but kept their feet dry.
I ruled at the time, incorrectly, that the horse would stay where they were and the 2nd horse would be at a further -1 penalty in addition to the water penalty. As a result it died.

Vince : In the game we played it was spent - LH vs Bd in rough

The correct interpretation was for the horse to turn to face and be subject to a further -1 penalty in addition to the water as they cannot recoil. The horse would have been spent in this situation.
The 3rd horse could move off, turning asap, to be within the 45/135 rule. (Although in this case would get caught by the TZ outside the water).

• • • Vincent Cholewa

      Admin

      Group Expert

      Hi Neil all good. You didn’t kill my LH. They were doubled in rough going by Bd so were spent 

      • Like
      •  · 
        Reply
      •  · 
        Share
      •  · 1d
    • Active

      Dirk Heinsius

      

      A well reasoned and logical outcome.

      

      1

      • Like
      •  · 
        Reply
      •  · 
        Share
      •  · 1d
    • Active

      Peter Dunn

      So what you are saying is that a Blade in a river is a Boat?

      Not sure you can take a specific and make it a generalisation. If that was Mr. Barker's intent wouldn't he have said "Waders turn to face elements that contact them" rather than the specific "Boats"?

      

      1

      • Like
      •  · 
        Reply
      •  · 
        Share
      •  · 1d
      • Neil Williamson

        Author

        

        Not at all Pete.

        The turning to face rule, page 35, is in the Close Combat section of the rules, not the Movement section. The horse turning to face the blade complies with the Combat Rules and is not against the 45/135 movement rule. I think the rules, carefully read, do state this.

        The use of the boat example was just to demonstrate that this turning to face against the flow can happen.

        Mind you, I'm sure this would be extremely rare. Who would attempt to cross a river with a boat in charge range to catch them in the flank?

        

        1

        • Like