Fragmented troops being charged

[AlanYork]

I'm a little unsure what happens here, it seems obvious to me that everybody should run away but if I may just run this past you guys.

A unit which is fragmented is charged, it fails its Cohesion Test and routs. It has some fragmented friends close behind but if these rear support troops break as a result of the CT for seeing friends run, when do they actually run themselves? The reason I ask is the Full Turn Sequence says the following word for word;

Resolve cohesion tests for FRAGMENTED troops being charged. If they break: Resolve cohesion tests for seeing them break.
(OK, done that, the guys at the front ran, the guys at the back failed their CT for seeing that)

Make their initial rout move
(This to me is clearly refering to the chaps at the front who were the original charge target)

Make interception charges
(There aren't any, let's not complicate it!)

Make evade moves
(There aren't any)

Make cohesion tests for FRAGMENTED troops being charged as a result of intervening friends evading. If they break: Resolve cohesion tests for seeing them break. Make their initial rout move.
(Nobody is evading so none of this part of the turn sequence is relevant)

Make charge moves

At this point one would go on to resolve the impact. Now a literal reading of the sequence would imply to me that the fellas at the back would not run away until the very end of the Impact Phase, in fact would probably try and stand there and get hit by the enemy chargers, despite failing a CT for seeing their friends directly in front of them take to their heels. I must be misreading this surely???? It must be that both units front and back run away immediately the charge goes in, nevertheless unless I am badly misunderstanding the turn sequence as written that doesn't seem to be what it actually says.

[gozerius]

Resolve cohesion tests for FRAGMENTED troops being charged. If they break: Resolve cohesion tests for seeing them break.
(OK, done that, the guys at the front ran, the guys at the back failed their CT for seeing that)

Make their initial rout move
(This to me is clearly refering to the chaps at the front who were the original charge target)

This refers to all troops which have broken thus far in the phase, so any BG which has broken due to a failed CT in the Impact Phase to this point routs. This includes those who failed due to being charged and those who break on seeing others break. It is possible that a domino effect can be caused in this situation.

[SirGarnet]

The last step in the Impact Phase Sequence of Play says "Make initial rout moves for troops broken this phase (other than FRAGMENTED troops that broke when charged." This is reiterated on page 100 where it says re initial rout - "unless it is the result of being charged when fragmented, happens at the end of the phase."

Note that for the second BG to rout by failing the the broken friends CT it had to be Fragmented to start, and if it had been in the path of the charge would already have tested and passed a test for being Fragmented when charged.

[dave_r]

It has some fragmented friends close behind but if these rear support troops

Not part of the original question, but if troops aren't Steady then they are unable to provide rear support! An oft made error.

[marioslaz]

Note that for the second BG to rout by failing the the broken friends CT it had to be Fragmented to start, and if it had been in the path of the charge would already have tested and passed a test for being Fragmented when charged.

It's not true. It's quite difficult, but it can break even a steady BG. In a CT made because it sees friend routs a BG can drop 2 levels. If the frag BG which routs when charged interpenetrate it and it's not a permitted interpenetration, another step of cohesion will be lost, so a BG can loses 3 levels of cohesion.

About rout moves, I think rules say there are 2 moments where rout moves can happen in impact: during charges sub phase, and after impact melee. The statements "Make initial rout moves for troops broken this phase (other than FRAGMENTED [...]" IMO means you must not move 2 times in this phase a broken troop, so if a BG routs during charges sub phase, you make its rout move before impact melee, so you don't move it again after impact melee. This of course it's the same for a BG broken in the charges sub phases but which isn't charged, like one which sees a friend rout.

[dave_r]

It's not true. It's quite difficult, but it can break even a steady BG. In a CT made because it sees friend routs a BG can drop 2 levels. If the frag BG which routs when charged interpenetrate it and it's not a permitted interpenetration, another step of cohesion will be lost, so a BG can loses 3 levels of cohesion.

Nah, it's not that difficult - if a general is killed as part of the pursuit that can also cause a drop of cohesion!

[AlanYork]

Thanks guys, but if I may just return to this and add a second question. I accept what you're saying that Fragmented troops can't provide rear support. Perhaps "rear support" was a bad choice of words, what I meant was just near enough to take a test on seeing friends break.

Are we then saying that if there are two units side by side, both fragmented and one is charged and broken by failing its CT that its friends stood next to it, who are not charge targets, will also have to take a CT and run away at the same time as the unit that was charged should that CT be failed?

That is my understanding of it based on what you guys are saying, I still maintain that isn't quite what the rules say but it sounds like common sense to me. No unit who sees its friends run away from a charge is likely to hang about whilst shooting and melees are resolved over the rest of the battlefield. They're much more likely to say "they're off so we're off too" and run straight away.

[AlanYork]

Thanks guys, but if I may just return to this and add a second question. I accept what you're saying that Fragmented troops can't provide rear support. Perhaps "rear support" was a bad choice of words, what I meant was just near enough to take a test on seeing friends break.

Are we then saying that if there are two units side by side, both fragmented and one is charged and broken by failing its CT that its friends stood next to it, who are not charge targets, will also have to take a CT and run away at the same time as the unit that was charged should that CT be failed?

That is my understanding of it based on what you guys are saying, I still maintain that isn't quite what the rules say but it sounds like common sense to me. No unit who sees its friends run away from a charge is likely to hang about whilst shooting and melees are resolved over the rest of the battlefield. They're much more likely to say "they're off so we're off too" and run straight away.

Ooops should have "added reply" and not "edited", but any opinions on this one will be gratefully received.

[marioslaz]

Are we then saying that if there are two units side by side, both fragmented and one is charged and broken by failing its CT that its friends stood next to it, who are not charge targets, will also have to take a CT and run away at the same time as the unit that was charged should that CT be failed?

Yes. Charged unit make a CT because FRAG & charged. If this BG breaks, second BG makes a CT because a friend breaks within 3". If both fail, both make their initial rout moves at the same time.

[deadtorius]

I would disagree, the sequence says you make rout moves for troops who break while being charged while fragged. So if the next unit over is fragged but is not in the line of charge, is not a possible target of that charge, but still has to check for seeing the guys next door break, they stand until the end of the phase.

If as was stated above the front unit is fragged and breaks, the unit out back might be the new target of the charge and if they fail their test and break the whole mass runs away pre-charge, then you do the charge.
All depends on how the dominoes line up as to how they will fall and run away.

[marioslaz]

I would disagree, the sequence says you make rout moves for troops who break while being charged while fragged. So if the next unit over is fragged but is not in the line of charge, is not a possible target of that charge, but still has to check for seeing the guys next door break, they stand until the end of the phase.

If as was stated above the front unit is fragged and breaks, the unit out back might be the new target of the charge and if they fail their test and break the whole mass runs away pre-charge, then you do the charge.
All depends on how the dominoes line up as to how they will fall and run away.

I apologizes you to insist in my point of view, but I really think my version is right. I write from full turn sequence:

Resolve cohesion tests for FRAGMENTED troops being charged. If they break: Resolve cohesion tests for seeing them break.
Make their initial rout move.

Because the phrase "Make their initial rout move" is after tests of both troops charged and troops who see troops charged break, I think initial rout move should be made by both at this point. I don't know if there were FAQs about which clarify this situation and which can modify in substantial way my opinion. (I haven't my FAQ at hand, sorry).

[gozerius]

Mario,
I believed as you do that the sequence of play instructs us to make initial rout moves for all BGs broken thus far. However, On page 100 it clearly states that "...an initial rout, unless it it the result of being charged while fragmented, happens at the end of the phase."
That settles it for me.

[marioslaz]

Mario,
I believed as you do that the sequence of play instructs us to make initial rout moves for all BGs broken thus far. However, On page 100 it clearly states that "...an initial rout, unless it it the result of being charged while fragmented, happens at the end of the phase."
That settles it for me.

I read the sentence you pointed out. Anyway, I'm still convinced of my version. If you look at full turn sequence you can notice that impact, shooting and melee phases have all the same sentence at the end ("Make initial rout moves ..."). The only difference is in impact phase, where it has been added the sentence "(other than FRAGMENTED troops that broke when charged)". I always interpreted this sentence as there was written also "... and troops that broke due to CT for seeing them break", or, in other terms, as the sentence "FRAGMENTED troops that broke when charged" refer to ALL troops that broke in that sub-phase. Of course I'm not an author and this is only my opinion, but it seems to me more consistent than to move troops that break before impact fight after such melee.
Your interpretation IMO can conduct to nonsense. Think to this example. Two FRAG troops are one behind the other. One enemy BG charge the nearest that breaks. Other BG makes a CT and breaks. Then we move the charged BG, but not the other. Now charging BG moves and let's say it can impact the second BG, the one which broke due to CT. Result: 2 BGs break at the same time and charger catches the further instead of the nearest.

[philqw78]

Mario,
I believed as you do that the sequence of play instructs us to make initial rout moves for all BGs broken thus far. However, On page 100 it clearly states that "...an initial rout, unless it it the result of being charged while fragmented, happens at the end of the phase."
That settles it for me.

Those breaking because someone else broke due to being charged whilst fragmented is a result of someone being charged whilst fragmented.

[ShrubMiK]

That is true. But there is a difference between saying "broke due to themselves being charged whilst fragmented" and "broke due to somebody being charged whilst fragmented". As written it is not clearly stated which version is meant, but I suggest that the former version is more typical of use of language. Whether it is what the authors intended is a whole other matter, but I don't think you can argue for your interpretation purely on the wording that exists at present.

Similarly with the use of "they", "their", and "them" in the previously quoted passage. To assume that the first two uses refer specifically to the charged BG whilst the final is extended without any explanation or hint to include other BGs who break as a result of seeing "them" (i.e. the first BG break) seems unnatural.

My take on the example of the front BG breaking due to testing on being charged, the rear BG breaking in sympathy, and then being hit by the chargers is that I agree that is clearly nonsensical. But the rear BG is now being charged. If it was only fragmented it would test at this point and might break, in which case it would immediately make a rout move. However it is already broken, so doesn't test, so as RAW it seems it should stand, get hit, and rout at end of phase.

I think I know how it should work, or would on seeing such a situation arise on the table, but it does seem like there is room for improvement in the wording of the rules. But I'm doubtful whether it si a particualrly important issue - how many battles would be significantly affected by differing interpretations of this?

[kevinj]

However it is already broken, so doesn't test, so as RAW it seems it should stand, get hit, and rout at end of phase.

But in this case, would the rule about charging routers then apply, so nothing happens until the JAP and then they move?

[philqw78]

However it is already broken, so doesn't test, so as RAW it seems it should stand, get hit, and rout at end of phase.

But in this case, would the rule about charging routers then apply, so nothing happens until the JAP and then they move?

And having been caught whilst routing would they lose a base upon contact, even though they haven't routed yet.

[ShrubMiK]

Good point, I hadn't thought of that. Another oddity resulting from the initial oddity.

Holding up the charging unit to avoid contact because the second unit has not yet made a rout move seems very unrealistic.

If the charging unit is allowed to contact the second broken unit before it has made a rout move, I think it must still lose a base. It's status is "routing", after all. Presumably nobody would suggest that impact combat should be fought ("it hasn't routed yet and it is in frontal contact")! Having nothing at all happen when the contact is made would seem wrong.

[kevinj]

Having nothing at all happen when the contact is made would seem wrong.

That's what happens if you charge a routing unit. No base is lost until the JAP, and then only if there are still pursuers in contact.

[deadtorius]

Check page 168 expanded turn sequence.
First you make cohesion tests for fragged being charged. If they fail they make initial rout moves.
Intercepts occur.
If other fragged troops are now the target of that charge, they test for being charged. if they fail they make their intial rout moves.
chargers then move.

So it seems unless you get 3 deep fragged BG's that can be charged in a nice row, the first 2 have a chance to get away. I would suspect that the second fragged BG would have the -1 to its cohesion test for having more than 1 reason to test, seeing friends break and being charged while fragged.

So if you are standing off to the side and not being charged and break for seeing your neighbors buggering off, you don't actually beat it till the end of the phase.
Depends on how the dominoes line up as to how they fall.