What's the point of flanking

[Dragonzord]

The enemy gets to attack you back anyway. Surely if they're flanked, they should only get one attack..

[SS82]

only the models that are in that flank get to attack, so not the multiple ranks from the front, also you get +1 combat res

[AI-COM/RSPN]

Originally posted by Dragonzord:

The enemy gets to attack you back anyway. Surely if they're flanked, they should only get one attack..

As saulsmith82 said, only the models on the flank get to attack your full rank back and you get a bonus to combat resolution (+1 for a flank charge, +2 for a rear charge).

[emperorpenguin77]

I prefer flanking to rear attacks because although you lose an extra +1 combat resolution, there's far fewer attacks coming back at you

[Dragonzord]

Originally posted by emperorpenguin77:

I prefer flanking to rear attacks because although you lose an extra +1 combat resolution, there's far fewer attacks coming back at you

Yeah, same. Which is really not how it should be. Managing to flank into an enemies rear should do a LOT more than it does.

[Parsenius]

In the rear is more potent due to the destruction of the surounded unit when fleeing after combat resolution.

[Glockenspeal]

Originally posted by Dragonzord:

Originally posted by emperorpenguin77:

I prefer flanking to rear attacks because although you lose an extra +1 combat resolution, there's far fewer attacks coming back at you

Yeah, same. Which is really not how it should be. Managing to flank into an enemies rear should do a LOT more than it does.

I actually disagree, when in a melee the blokes at the back are pretty much just standing there waiting for the people in front to die, so them turning around to face the threat isn't unrealistic, when hitting the flank, in this case, the front two ranks are already engaged in combat so would be less able to deal with the new threat

[bogmington enjoyer]

effectively you're stabbing someone in the back who is walking away from you: just because the combat snapshots stationary units doesn't mean that in the fiction the units are standing still when you're not actively moving them.

in a system with such extreme outcomes as sovl a rear charge should basically rout a unit with few if any losses, but in reality you get two free wounds.

it is objectively stronger to get double flanks on a large unit than a front and rear outflank, which is absurd.

[AI-COM/RSPN]

Originally posted by ally destroyer:

it is objectively stronger to get double flanks on a large unit than a front and rear outflank, which is absurd.

It's not - you might take more casualties, but a front/rear flank can completely destroy any sized enemy unit that routs (which it should if you've charged from the front and rear) whereas this isn't the case with flank charges.

It's objectively better to destroy 25 goblins than to kill 8 and have the rest run.

[iainduncan3]

Originally posted by Dragonzord:

The enemy gets to attack you back anyway. Surely if they're flanked, they should only get one attack..

It's also worth noting that, if all the models have already attacked a unit in their front rank, the Flanders will receive 0 damage. Use archer units to flank attack shallow enemy units when they're already engaged by your melee troops, archers aren't total slouches in combat!

[Avlaen]

Originally posted by Based Department:

Originally posted by Dragonzord:

The enemy gets to attack you back anyway. Surely if they're flanked, they should only get one attack..

It's also worth noting that, if all the models have already attacked a unit in their front rank, the Flanders will receive 0 damage. Use archer units to flank attack shallow enemy units when they're already engaged by your melee troops, archers aren't total slouches in combat!

Yeah archers arent *that* much worse than most melee troops its allways worth throwing them into a flank, both for their damage and the bonus combat resoloution

[emperorpenguin77]

Originally posted by AI-COM/RSPN:

Originally posted by ally destroyer:

it is objectively stronger to get double flanks on a large unit than a front and rear outflank, which is absurd.

It's not - you might take more casualties, but a front/rear flank can completely destroy any sized enemy unit that routs (which it should if you've charged from the front and rear) whereas this isn't the case with flank charges.

It's objectively better to destroy 25 goblins than to kill 8 and have the rest run.

That's incorrect. Any time an enemy breaks from being charged from two opposite sides they are destroyed. So a front and rear charge OR two flank charges.
In that regard two flank charges are superior because you are exposed to fewer attacks in return

[emperorpenguin77]

Originally posted by Parsenius:

In the rear is more potent due to the destruction of the surounded unit when fleeing after combat resolution.

Any surrounded unit is destroyed, it doesn't need to be front and rear, two flanks will have the same effect