TESTING THE WATER - Shooting from behind flank/rear

[lionheartrjc]

How would people feel about adding a colour upgrade for shooting behind the flank or rear of a target to the 2026 competition amendments?

Historical accounts suggest shooting at the flanks/rear of an enemy was particularly deadly and demoralising.

Not making any promises here, but would welcome opinions.


Richard

[tarnowski1]

with the current shooting efficacy jump from white to green dice being already OTT, opening that up to more units seems a balance breaker, especially skirmishing types who have the legs to pull it off effectively.

limit it to Tugs (or flex in tug) shooting as a weight of fire/physical threat of large body of men to flank or rear. Alternatively sug & Tug but limit it to being shot in rear.

There are also examples of Bodies of men being harassed from all sides but fighting, and winning, despite this, various Crusade battles come to mind. though if you made it not applicable to Shield cover troops being shot at that equally might fit the historical records better?

[nikgaukroger]

I think the idea is a good one* but feels too late in the day to be adding in something this material - partly as I'd like to see the effect of the other shooting amendments first.


* although probably just for non-Skirmisher formation troops or just for non-skirmisher infantry (and that uncertainty is another reason I'd hold back at present)

[lionheartrjc]

If I were to add the change it would probably only be for non-skirmishing infantry.  They rarely get around a flank anyway - so I don't think it is that significant.

Richard

[Manzikert]

I think it makes sense from a historical perspective but I don't think it comes up often enough in the game to be worth adding the extra rule complexity.

[Lanceflint]

An alternative option could be that instead of a shooting dice upgrade you force a KaB test on the unit being shot at?
Lance.

[badhabum]

I think the idea is a good one* but feels too late in the day to be adding in something this material - partly as I'd like to see the effect of the other shooting amendments first.


* although probably just for non-Skirmisher formation troops or just for non-skirmisher infantry (and that uncertainty is another reason I'd hold back at present)

Better late than never . But it was proposed a year ago ( at least )

[Onurbm]

I think it makes sense from a historical perspective but I don't think it comes up often enough in the game to be worth adding the extra rule complexity.

Ok

[Doomsmile]

I would be excited to see this change! There is sufficiently little incentive for me to get SUGs into peoples' flanks that I don't bother trying all that much (to say nothing of the incentive to shoot an enemy's flank rather than charge it with a TUG).

It also adds zero complication when it doesn't come up and very little complication when it does, so I wouldn't think it likely to cause any major impediments to learning or playing.
Seems like a good candidate for testing to me!


(Bias disclosure: I run a lot of shooters; this may affect my opinion on this one!)

[badhabum]

It's not complicated, it's exactly the same principle as for flank and rear charges. So I do not think it adds complexity

[Wizard of Oz]

In my view it's an absolute no-brainer! Yes, yes, yes.
It is not complicated.
There should not be an artificial separation between skirmish and non-skirmish shooters. And why for non-skirmish infantry? The least likely of any to get around a flank.
As for doesn't come up much! Of course it doesn't at this time because it is pointless. There is no benefit now, so why go to the effort to place shooters there? But if it might be rewarded? That's a different matter. Still not easy, but worth the attempt, especially with skirmish light horse.
Again, if I had a vote, it would be Yes!
 

[Jilu]

In my view it's an absolute no-brainer! Yes, yes, yes.
It is not complicated.
There should not be an artificial separation between skirmish and non-skirmish shooters. And why for non-skirmish infantry? The least likely of any to get around a flank.
As for doesn't come up much! Of course it doesn't at this time because it is pointless. There is no benefit now, so why go to the effort to place shooters there? But if it might be rewarded? That's a different matter. Still not easy, but worth the attempt, especially with skirmish light horse.
Again, if I had a vote, it would be Yes!
 

agree

[Princeps]

In my view it's an absolute no-brainer! Yes, yes, yes.
It is not complicated.
There should not be an artificial separation between skirmish and non-skirmish shooters. And why for non-skirmish infantry? The least likely of any to get around a flank.
As for doesn't come up much! Of course it doesn't at this time because it is pointless. There is no benefit now, so why go to the effort to place shooters there? But if it might be rewarded? That's a different matter. Still not easy, but worth the attempt, especially with skirmish light horse.
Again, if I had a vote, it would be Yes!
 

Couldn't say it better.

Antoine

[badhabum]

As a up for the rules new version . I still think it is a good idea

[lionheartrjc]

As a up for the rules new version . I still think it is a good idea

So do I. It is in the list of changes for consideration.