Topic: Exploiting FBIGO

[commandant]

I think TOW is roughly on par with 6th and early 7th for killiness

[Zygmund]

Back to the main subject.

I charged my Spearmen into a unit's front and knights into a its flank, won the combat, they FBIGO'ed 6" and lost base contact to my knights.

My knights were on the way of the Spearmen so the Spearmen restrained, to avoid a traffic chaos and to face another enemy unit. My knights pursued, but had to turn and were now fighting alone to the opponent's front. In the subsequent turn my opponent charged another unit to my knight's flank and beat them badly.

Something like this would never have happened in earlier editions. My knights would have pursued and killed the enemy unit, or if the unit passed its modified leadership, my knights would have kept the flank. The FBIGO was a huge tactical boost to my opponent.

Hugely annoying. Sure my opponent needed to roll very high for distance of the FBIGO, but when this happens, the tactical situation changes big time.

-Zyg

[commandant]

This is correct and needs to be take into consideration when you decide if you are going to restrain from pursing an opponent falling back in good order.

[The Peacemaker]

When thinking it's a "huge boon for opponent" ask yourself if would rather have normal steadfast like in 8th where things sit there grinding it out.

FBIGO is a mechanic that you have to plan around. Combats are rarely guaranteed to auto break like in games such as T9A. So you have to plan your strategy and units around that.
This is why I keep telling people this game is mostly about Multiple Small Units. Others have pointed out that higher point games work well. This is all because you need more units on the table in order to set up charges and counter charges and counter-counter charges when this start shifting around.

[Zygmund]

I mean getting the flank isn't important any more. It can be a tactical penalty more than a benefit.

In many situations, if you can be sure to pass the unmodified Ld and get a FBIGO or GG, you're tactically better off if you lose the combat by a big margin.

I'm now thinking of charging to lose instead of charging to win. In order to 'suck' the opponent out of position and make him vulnerable.

Which feels somehow wrong.

-Zyg

[Skyros]

I mean getting the flank isn't important any more. It can be a tactical penalty more than a benefit.

In many situations, if you can be sure to pass the unmodified Ld and get a FBIGO or GG, you're tactically better off if you lose the combat by a big margin.

I'm now thinking of charging to lose instead of charging to win. In order to 'suck' the opponent out of position and make him vulnerable.

Which feels somehow wrong.

-Zyg

It might feel wrong from a gameplay perspective, but it does at least have a rich historical tradiation, from the Parthians to the Normans

[Warlord]

Its why small units greatswords are so interesting.

[sedobren]

I mean getting the flank isn't important any more. It can be a tactical penalty more than a benefit.

In many situations, if you can be sure to pass the unmodified Ld and get a FBIGO or GG, you're tactically better off if you lose the combat by a big margin.

I'm now thinking of charging to lose instead of charging to win. In order to 'suck' the opponent out of position and make him vulnerable.

Which feels somehow wrong.

-Zyg

baiting a unit out of formation is one of the oldest tactics in warfare, i actually quite like that winning the combat is no longer a completely abstract thing where you just unrealistically destroy the opponent and win everything. Warfare is not a videogame or a movie, there is a lot of nuance to it

[Mike Stockin]

i actually quite like that winning the combat is no longer a completely abstract thing where you just unrealistically destroy the opponent and win everything.


Me too, it is one of the things about 3rd I like, when units meet the combat can go on for many rounds with pushing and pulling, this gives your reserves time to come up and aid your engaged unit.
It means a big massive unit can bog down a smaller unit by shear numbers.

One round combats seem wrong to me.

There seems to be a few things from 3rd that have appeared in TOW which is something at least...   

[Hoffa]

This is a big selling point for me. One round combat should be exceptions, not the norm.

[The Peacemaker]

I mean getting the flank isn't important any more. It can be a tactical penalty more than a benefit.

In many situations, if you can be sure to pass the unmodified Ld and get a FBIGO or GG, you're tactically better off if you lose the combat by a big margin.

I'm now thinking of charging to lose instead of charging to win. In order to 'suck' the opponent out of position and make him vulnerable.

Which feels somehow wrong.

-Zyg

Umm, importance of flank might not be apparent until you play a bit and start divising strategies.

Obvious one is against brets to blunt their lance with a flank attack.
Against elves it helps against their high initiative because they won't have to many models to strike with on the flank.
And if you are not a fan of monster/charachter armies, combo charging and hitting both front and flank is one of the few ways to bring enough attacks on tough units.

[Zygmund]

Obvious one is against brets to blunt their lance with a flank attack.
Against elves it helps against their high initiative because they won't have to many models to strike with on the flank.
And if you are not a fan of monster/charachter armies, combo charging and hitting both front and flank is one of the few ways to bring enough attacks on tough units.

Good points.

I was of course referring to FBIGO, because this is a FBIGO discussion. You risk losing the flank when your opponent FBIGOes. First you play so that you can get the rank, then the enemy units backs away and suddenly you're at its front.

My further thoughts on this are
1) Combo charging flank isn't that important when even a corner-to-corner touch to front is enough for the whole front rank to strike.
2) Since many units don't seem to need ranks (linehammer!), deleting the rank bonus is less important, and you get the potential Close Order +1 from the front too.

Sure everything counts in combat still, and there's still the flank bonus +1 if nothing more.

-Zyg

[Warlord]

I think perhaps the value of flank charging, is trying to get unit strength to over double the enemy, so they auto flee rather than FBIGO.

[Zygmund]

I think perhaps the value of flank charging, is trying to get unit strength to over double the enemy, so they auto flee rather than FBIGO.

But double unit strength has nothing to do with getting the flank. You can as well charge the front in order to bring more bodies into combat.

Of course getting the flank is better: +1 flank bonus, probably denying rank bonus should the opposing unit have ranks.

-Zyg

[Warlord]

Considering I plan to run MSU mostly, i need to get into the flank to bring enough bodies to try and double the unit strength.

[The Peacemaker]

I think perhaps the value of flank charging, is trying to get unit strength to over double the enemy, so they auto flee rather than FBIGO.

But double unit strength has nothing to do with getting the flank. You can as well charge the front in order to bring more bodies into combat.

Of course getting the flank is better: +1 flank bonus, probably denying rank bonus should the opposing unit have ranks.

-Zyg

You can get at most 2 units in front. Get a 3rd in flank and it brings more attacks and another close order bonus.
MSU is about multicharges from multiple directions.