Second Impact Phase Sequence

[peterrjohnston]

This is a more general question, followed by an example, and more questions.

Obviously when a BG pursuing in the impact phase contacts fresh enemy, it counts a charge and you carry out the combat immediately (p108).

But do you follow the whole impact phase sequence again, or? I don't think it's stated anywhere in the rules what happens.

=== Example ===

This is what we had happen, did we do anything wrong?

PkPkPk
PkPkPk|CtECtE__CtA
PkPkPk|CtECtE__CtA
______________CtA

Cataphracts CtA were facing left on Cataphracts' CtE flank. CtE's had friendly pike on their right flank, ie CtE and Pk are facing up.

CtE were already disrupted, and decided to charge without orders. Naturally CtA intercepted them, fragmented them as a flank charge, then broke them in impact phase combat. Ouch!

The pike went disrupted on seeing friends rout. CtE then burst through them on routing, dropping the pike to fragmented. Ouch! Ouch!

CtA now pursue into Pk's flank. I now realise we forgot to test Pk for being charged whilst fragmented. Assuming they passed, they now drop another level for being charged in the flank, and break (on contact only? See next bit). Ouch! Ouch! Ouch!

Pk now rout, burst through CtE?? And does CtA now pursue again and re-contact CtE...? This was important as CtE had a general with them, ie risk on a 10+. (In reality CtA had thrown a 6 for pursuit, so would have enough move to "re-contact" CtE, but if they hadn't, the double pursuit would be the only way of staying in contact).

Did we miss something?

===

Other questions:
1. Did Pk have a threatened flank when they tested??! ("there are enemy non-skirmishers capable of charging the BG's flank/rear in their next turn". Except enemy non-skirmishers could charge them this turn. Hmm, odd).
2. If you follow the impact phase sequence again, could a BG below CtE intercept CtA?

[berthier]

Other questions:
1. Did Pk have a threatened flank when they tested??! ("there are enemy non-skirmishers capable of charging the BG's flank/rear in their next turn". Except enemy non-skirmishers could charge them this turn. Hmm, odd).
2. If you follow the impact phase sequence again, could a BG below CtE intercept CtA?

Without a book in front of me so no page numbers, but

2) Intercept charges are conducted by the non-phasing player and are responses to charges. There are no responses to a response to a charge.

Christopher Anders

[peterrjohnston]

I do have the rules in front of me, and I can't find that. Interception charges "Each battle group has a zone to its front where it can interfere with the charge of an opposing battle group". The pursers count as charging (from p108).

[hammy]

All sounds good to me but I don't think that recontacting the routers would result in a death roll for the commander.

You need to check the words but I think it is that if pursuers remain in contact that they get the 10+ death roll.

[philqw78]

I do have the rules in front of me, and I can't find that. Interception charges "Each battle group has a zone to its front where it can interfere with the charge of an opposing battle group". The pursers count as charging (from p108).

But pursuit is after intercept in the detailed sequence

[peterrjohnston]

All sounds good to me but I don't think that recontacting the routers would result in a death roll for the commander.

You need to check the words but I think it is that if pursuers remain in contact that they get the 10+ death roll.

"Pursuers who remain in contact at the end of the initial pursuit move inflict loses (bases are removed from the routing battle group) and may inflict commander losses, as detailed in the Joint Action Phase section"

and from JAP

"Pursuers who are in contact with a routing enemy battle group at the end of any pursuit move: ... [base losses and commander losses bits]"

Hmm, slight conflict in the wording there. If you use the first argument, one could argue it's not the initial pursuit but a second, and so no commander losses or bases losses. But the second is quite clear. I think if I was umpiring I'd go for the JAP wording, as it's very specific.

[peterrjohnston]

I do have the rules in front of me, and I can't find that. Interception charges "Each battle group has a zone to its front where it can interfere with the charge of an opposing battle group". The pursers count as charging (from p108).

But pursuit is after intercept in the detailed sequence

Well, that was my question. The pursuit is treated as fresh charge in that impact phase, because CtE broke in impact. As I assume you follow the sequence of the impact phase for resolving this combat with CT's etc, do you follow all of the sequence for what happens with charges in the impact phase?

Rules don't say really. The situation didn't arise though, I was just thinking about it afterwards.

[hammy]

All sounds good to me but I don't think that recontacting the routers would result in a death roll for the commander.

You need to check the words but I think it is that if pursuers remain in contact that they get the 10+ death roll.

"Pursuers who remain in contact at the end of the initial pursuit move inflict loses (bases are removed from the routing battle group) and may inflict commander losses, as detailed in the Joint Action Phase section"

and from JAP

"Pursuers who are in contact with a routing enemy battle group at the end of any pursuit move: ... [base losses and commander lose bit]"

Hmm, slight conflict in the wording there. If you use the first argument, one could argue it's not the initial pursuit but a second, and so no commander losses or bases losses. But the second is quite clear. I think if I was umpiring I'd go for the JAP wording, as it's very specific.

So you would apply the wording for pursuits in the JAP which clearly apply to pursuits in the JAP phase and where pursuers are in contact at the end of the phase to work out what happens if pursuers recontact routers in the impact phase

[peterrjohnston]

So you would apply the wording for pursuits in the JAP which clearly apply to pursuits in the JAP phase and where pursuers are in contact at the end of the phase to work out what happens if pursuers recontact routers in the impact phase

No, it doesn't only refer only to pursuits in the JAP, it says ANY pursuit. And the initial pursuit part for losses says refer to the JAP as to what happens...

Oh, and the JAP is the section that covers what happens with it being a new charge in the impact phase, not the initial pursuit section (which says refer to the JAP section again)...

The cross-referencing does my head in sometimes in FoG

[hammy]

So you would apply the wording for pursuits in the JAP which clearly apply to pursuits in the JAP phase and where pursuers are in contact at the end of the phase to work out what happens if pursuers recontact routers in the impact phase

No, it doesn't only refer only to pursuits in the JAP, it says ANY pursuit. And the initial pursuit part for losses says refer to the JAP as to what happens...

Oh, and the JAP is the section that covers what happens with it being a new charge in the impact phase, not the initial pursuit section (which says refer to the JAP section again)...

The cross-referencing does my head in sometimes in FoG

OK, I do see your point.

I will have a read of the book of words and consider.

What I think should happen is that there is no base loss on the routing cats and no chance of killing the commander. It sounds like there is a chance that may not be what the rules say.

[philqw78]

What I think should happen is that there is no base loss on the routing cats and no chance of killing the commander. It sounds like there is a chance that may not be what the rules say.

But the unit that is pursuing them caused the rout in the first place. Why should they not get a base and a chance to kill the general. Just because someone else temporarily got in the way.

[petedalby]

Quite a messy situation overall!

FWIW I think you got most of it spot on - but you seem to have swapped designations part way through your description so it's not entirely clear?

When the CtE break, they burst through the Pk. You then say that CtE had thrown a six for pursuit....but I guess you meant CtA? So CtA have enough move to contact the Pk. The Pk should have tested as you have noted, and whether they break before or at impact isn't too important but might've been.

I believe the Pk now rout through CtE. If they broke before impact, the move for CtA is measured from their position when they were in contact with CtE. If they broke at impact, CtA throw for a variable pursuit move once again but from their position in contact with Pk. If their move takes them into CtE once again, then yes, I believe CtE will lose a base and their Commander is at risk on a 10+.

1. Did Pk have a threatened flank when they tested??! ("there are enemy non-skirmishers capable of charging the BG's flank/rear in their next turn". Except enemy non-skirmishers could charge them this turn. Hmm, odd).

I don't believe the Pk have a threatened flank at the moment they test for friends breaking. But it is a moot point and others will almost certainly disagree. However the Pk certainly have a threatened flank when they test for being charged whilst fragmented.

2. If you follow the impact phase sequence again, could a BG below CtE intercept CtA?

I don't believe so - no. There is no suggestion that you follow the entire impact phase sequence again - merely that you fight the new impact. An intercept charge can only be declared by the non-phasing player - in this case the non-phasing player is CtA.

[peterrjohnston]

Thanks Hammy... when you look, could you think about the question of whether or not the pike had a threatened flank?

I ask these questions and think about possible interactions because I do a lot of umpiring here.

Some related questions:

1. Tangentially related, but I've never been sure about this. If a broken BG is destroyed in place, do the pursuers still do a pursuit move?

2. On p49, BG's bursting through are placed beyond friends if there is space beyond, otherwise they are destroyed. If they are destroyed, are they destroyed in place before the move, or at the end of the move (thus disrupting friends burst through and allowing the pursuit move)? My impression from the wording is the latter is the case.

3. And if the Pk had another unit beside them (you can see why I ask 2. above), and burst through them, can CtA now pursue into them and do yet another impact combat! This could get real messy

[philqw78]

Thanks Hammy... when you look, could you think about the question of whether or not the pike had a threatened flank?

I ask these questions and think about possible interactions because I do a lot of umpiring here.

Some related questions:

1. Tangentially related, but I've never been sure about this. If the broken BG is destroyed in place, do the pursuers still do a pursuit move?

2. On p49, BG's bursting through are placed beyond friends if there is space beyond, otherwise they are destroyed. If they are destroyed, are they destroyed in place before the move, or at the end of the move (thus disrupting friends burst through and allowing the pursuit move)? My impression from the wording is the latter is the case.

On point two, at Britcon 2009, I had it ruled that they were destroyed in place/as far as the route could go. On point 1 Pursuers follow to and stop at the position of destruction. Therefore no following into a disrupted BG. I felt a bit miffed.
See Hannibals comments at the bottom of here. http://www.madaxeman.com/reports/britcon_2009_4.php

[hammy]

Thanks Hammy... when you look, could you think about the question of whether or not the pike had a threatened flank?

I ask these questions and think about possible interactions because I do a lot of umpiring here.

Some related questions:

1. Tangentially related, but I've never been sure about this. If the broken BG is destroyed in place, do the pursuers still do a pursuit move?

2. On p49, BG's bursting through are placed beyond friends if there is space beyond, otherwise they are destroyed. If they are destroyed, are they destroyed in place before the move, or at the end of the move (thus disrupting friends burst through and allowing the pursuit move)? My impression from the wording is the latter is the case.

I agree with Pete on the threatened flank issue i.e. no when the cats break, yes when they are charged in the flank.

If BG is destroyed in place the pursuers do do a pursuit move but as the destroyed BG is not removed until the end of the bound the pursuers don't move very far if at all.

The failed burst through destroyed BG one is interesting and I have always been a bit unsure on it. I think that they should count as bursting through then vapourising rather than not being able to burst through and dying in place.

[peterrjohnston]

Quite a messy situation overall!

But fun

FWIW I think you got most of it spot on - but you seem to have swapped designations part way through your description so it's not entirely clear?

My fault, corrected it to avoid confusion. Getting my KitACatEs confused

When the CtE break, they burst through the Pk. You then say that CtE had thrown a six for pursuit....but I guess you meant CtA? So CtA have enough move to contact the Pk. The Pk should have tested as you have noted, and whether they break before or at impact isn't too important but might've been.

I realised after as for the pursuit distances it might have been important, as you point out.

I don't believe the Pk have a threatened flank at the moment they test for friends breaking. But it is a moot point and others will almost certainly disagree. However the Pk certainly have a threatened flank when they test for being charged whilst fragmented.

I suspect the definition for threatened flank wasn't written with this in mind as it refers to capable of charging next turn. You would think it is about as was threatened as it can be, but...

I don't believe so - no. There is no suggestion that you follow the entire impact phase sequence again - merely that you fight the new impact. An intercept charge can only be declared by the non-phasing player - in this case the non-phasing player is CtA.

Not sure, I can't find anything about intercept charges being only by the non-phasing player, only the part I quoted above "Each battle group has a zone to its front where it can interfere with the charge of an opposing battle group", ie nothing to do with phasing player. Perhaps I've missed some other definition. Could you argue it's only a charge when it contacts the Pk, before it's defined as a pursuit?

[peterrjohnston]

Sorry, I forgot point 3 and added it while Hammy and Phil replied.

But it's related to 2, and Phil had it ruled against (if I read you right Phil), and Hammy is unsure. As I have the rules, I can quote

"Move the evading or routing battle group to the full extend of its move. If the move does not completely clear all friends, it is placed beyond any battle groups(s) it is currently bursting through if there is room for it beyond, otherwise it is destroyed and removed from the table."

Given it does say move full extent first, I think Phil was hard done by. But I can see it being open to interpretation.

I was curious because if there were more BGs to the left of Pk, and a BG routing is destroyed after bursting through, I assume CtA would continue with another impact phase round. Ie, CtE routs, burst through, is destroyed. Pk routs, bursts through friends to the left, is destroyed, and CtA continues into this new enemy BG's flank. Could get very nasty!

[philqw78]

yes a single BG can hit, in theory, an infinite number of BG in a single impact phase.*



*Your definition of infinity may vary. Suffice to say if the targets break in the impact phase and the pursuit hits another BG and they break in impact phase just keep going.

Dave Ruddock's infinity would be larger in this one as he is jammier.

Hammy will answer this as he has a story about it.

[petedalby]

Not sure, I can't find anything about intercept charges being only by the non-phasing player, only the part I quoted above "Each battle group has a zone to its front where it can interfere with the charge of an opposing battle group", ie nothing to do with phasing player. Perhaps I've missed some other definition. Could you argue it's only a charge when it contacts the Pk, before it's defined as a pursuit?

That's how I've always played it - from Page 108 - ".....this is treated as a charge on the contacted enemy."

The bold is mine - but my interpetration is that it is a pursuit, until such point as it hits the new enemy BG, at which point it is a charge. So the question of a possible intercept never arises.

But of course I could be completely wrong!!