I want to bring up a topic that I hope will get considered at some time in the future. That is: “cheap” flank and rear charges where the unit only clips a tiny part of the target, where I believe it breaks immertion that the unit gets to strike at full power (attacks x multiplier).
This again leads to a need for players to keep their battle line perfectly dressed at all times, because if everything is lined up with 0 mm difference, no such gamebreaking charges will find its way in.
It also means you don’t have full freedom to use just any unit as a screen, you have to make sure the screen matches the width of the unit behind, as just a mm will be enough to run past a screen and hit with full force with most of the unit hanging out into thin air, which both looks silly and does not make sense IMO.
I find all this very constricting upon how the game is played, so I have made a video with my thoughts:
Completely agree with you, and seems like an excellent rules mod to me.
Yes, I like it.
This seems reasonable.
For the record, this is how you present a rules change suggestion. List the issue, present a proposed solution, explain what the solution solves about the issue. Well presented.
I like it.
Would definitely prevent some gotcha NPE.
I started with historical wargaming where flanks are harder to get, with rules like needing a part or you base past a the enemy units front, and zones of control (units have to deal with enemy right in front of them).
Which makes this kind of charge especially jarring.
Sensible and easily written. Can anyone see a problem or an unintended consequence?
Hi Fred,
Well explained, and good video.
However, I think I’ll have to disagree on the premise.
I don’t see these small flanks as a problem, but part of the tactics of the game. In practice, keeping a flush battleline isn’t that hard before lines meet (remember to always call out intent!).
Also, staggering your infantry line to create flanking opportunities for yourself (after you’ve been charged first) is also a valid tactic. Granted, this is much easier when playing with withdraw.
Having said that, when entertaining your thought, a few things come to mind:
- If majority of attacker’s frontage were needed, you’d never get bonuses when charging smaller things with hordes (even a regiment’s flank!)
- If center point of target unit were needed, this would have severe implications for multi-charges, where getting multiple chargers to the center point isn’t possible.
- Similarly, multi-charges are also a problem for the “majority of target” solution, as a triple-flank charge could easily turn out worse than a double flank charge.
Thanks for your post Arcto. 
Disagreeing on the premise is fine.
I think it would be a good change. Units might still want to charge into small exposed flanks because the longer movement and new position gained might be superior to the spot they were before, and/or the new position might open up further good options. All that is taken out is the “auto kill” from miniscule flanks. This will not affect every single flank charge in the game though, far from it I think.
As for your 1-3, those are easily solved by going deeper into the writing of the rule. I did not go unto those details on purpose because I did not want the premise to get bogged down in detail. 
That being said, the 1) is already solved by looking for either the attacker or defenders center point.
2) and 3) just needs something as simple as “when units multi charge and create one combined frontage, as long as one of those attacking units contact the center point of the target facing, all units attacking the same facing also count as being in contact with the center point of the target” - as obviously we’d want to avoid situations where a multi charge is worse than a single charge.
Seeing as the UK does not play with that rule, we in Norway don’t either, as IMO that is a pretty strong hint as to whether that rule will stick around in the future (I think it will not).
That might be a thread of its own, but I wanted to touch on it since you used it as part of your argument. If withdraw goes, so does most of the “stagger tactics” you mention, regardless of my rule suggestion.
On the other hand, with my rule suggestion maybe more players might find Withdraw more palatable as such stagger tactics with the follow-up of cheap ninety degree charges would no longer be as destructive, as they would not double their attacks when doing so. Perhaps, ironically, a rules change such as my suggestion would actually increase the chance of Withdraw staying in the game. 
To add a few more thoughts on this:
- Current rule doesn’t match other RnF Games or Historical wargames well and feels counterintutive.
- Current rule is a big weird gotcha offputting to newbies to KOW and we lose potential players that way.
In most RnF games and especially historical ones, you just can’t charge into a units flank if another unit has a “zone of control” extending to protect this flank. Historically echeloning a line back was a valid tactic to protect flanks (each unit being staggered back from it’s neighbour in stepped fashion ). Units weren’t going to charge into a flank suicidally exposing their own flank. See Alexander the Great’s pike units to left of his cavalry in centre of his line here, and drill books mention this flank protection technique right up to and beyond Napoloeonic times (19th century). The exception is that skirmishers don’t usually have enough weight to them to protect a flank like this.
Given the potential complications of deciding what units could and couldnt’ prevent a unit doing a flank attack in a fantasy game (e.g. can a goblin unit stop a giant?), I think what you suggest with partial flanks not giving full benefits of a flank attack, is a simple and excellent compromise rule (i.e. you need at least one attacking unit in contact with the target’s centrepoint, or contacting with its own centrepoint, to get flank /rear bonus of doubling/tripling dice).
From the point of view of promoting the game’s popularity I think changing this rule would be a very positive move to prevent feel bad counterintuitive gotcha moments for new players - both those who are experienced wargamers already, and those new to wargaming in general.
Also, agree withdrawal is likely going to go (we don’t use it in NZ either), and would also like to see this partial flanks rule promoted and introduced to KOW rules officially. I’m tempted to run it at tournament I’m running this September.
I agree with Markconz.
Good discussion! Really enjoying it.
One more point on the details: if going for the centre point of defender, then a flank could be completely blocked by a single mighty individual by just blocking the centre. I don’t think this is intended, or is it?
Edit: even a yielding individual would technically suffice, as you can’t stop on top of them.
Yes I thought about individuals preventing this, but I think it scales ok according to how good the individual and atttackers in question are.
Ie. If you have a mighty heroic individual, then yes they can single handedly try to prevent a devastating flank or rear attack (Horatius at the Bridge hero styles) - but of course if the enemy is strong enough, and/or the individual not tough enough, then the individual will be killled and the attacker will almost certainly overrrun into the flank and attack with double attacks regardless. Which all seems suitably heroic for a fantasy game to me.
Also if the individual wants to prevent the attack it would be more effective for them to run up and stand directly in front of the potential attacker in many instances anyway, as they already can in current rules. So guarding the centrepoint would be a niche situation and non-optimal way to guard a unit in most cases I think.
I think you’ve somewhat convinced me. The heroics of individuals guarding flanks could be an interesting one to explore game-wise.
Would be interested to hear real-life experiences of some games, where the “defender’s flank’s centre point” rule is tested.
Edit: This would actually be extremely good for the Dwarf Steel Behemoth 
. Not sure that it needs buffing (I play Dwarfs myself), but this rule would definitely benefit it a lot.
I’ve had to take a bit to chew on this, and no, I do not in the end think this is something that would overly complicate things. So yes, I’m game.
Now, how I would word it is using Leader point for determining if units are eligible for their extra attacks instead of checking for percentage width. The leader point is already a nominator for this, basically, and is often referenced in the rules. So, if your leader point does not find contact with the enemy unit, you aren’t eligible for the extra attacks.
Will have to think about this further, but I am, surprisingly, more or less convinced.
In this case of course we have consider 50mm base single models and them AGAIN getting a buff because it would be often difficult to gain the flank bonus against them. A notion for balancing though.
I guess a weak individual could easily protect the unit flank if skillfully placed in some situations. Just one example: the charging unit can reach the flank, but not the individual itself (to kill it and overrun) as the individual may be a fraction of inch too far from the charging unit. Do also note that a value of very cheap troops (or cheap non-individual units in general) would increase as they could cover a flank of much larger (and more expensive) unit easier just by being placed on the bigger unit’s side.
I also think some units are really difficult to crack from the front and the proposed rule change would give them additional protection. Of course, this can be addressed by point increases of such units or by changes to their stats or abilities.
I am not saying I am against the rule change but it would affect the gameplay quite a lot, so any such change should be heavily tested first.