Rout direction

[pbrandon]

This game up last night in a v2 play test, but I don't think there is any meaningful difference in the rules sections on this.

A column of cataphracts is fighting enemy MF to their front. The cataphracts are fragmented (long and painful story). In the melee phase some pursuing Cv charge the cataphracts in the flank (legitimate flank charge) as part of a pursuit. The Cv are at an angle to the MF. The cataphracts diced for being charged while fragmented and survived (in hindsight I'm not sure we did that at the right time?). However, the cataphracts then had to break off in the JAP, which they could not do and so they routed in the JAP.

Given that the Cv charge has not yet got to the impact phase of a turn, in which direction shout the cataphracts rout?

Paul

[philqw78]

Something the rules did not plan for there I fear. But I would say directly away from the foot. The impact has not been fought so they do not need to react to the cav in their flank. If the cavalry did matter to the break off they would not break off because of fighting in 2 directions. Altho those contacted in flank or rear immediately turn a base so perhaps they do count and cannot break off but sit there until the impact when they will break anyway due to flank contact. But they are not yet fighting in two directions, just facing in 2 directions.

[ravenflight]

This game up last night in a v2 play test, but I don't think there is any meaningful difference in the rules sections on this.

A column of cataphracts is fighting enemy MF to their front. The cataphracts are fragmented (long and painful story). In the melee phase some pursuing Cv charge the cataphracts in the flank (legitimate flank charge) as part of a pursuit. The Cv are at an angle to the MF. The cataphracts diced for being charged while fragmented and survived (in hindsight I'm not sure we did that at the right time?). However, the cataphracts then had to break off in the JAP, which they could not do and so they routed in the JAP.

Given that the Cv charge has not yet got to the impact phase of a turn, in which direction shout the cataphracts rout?

Paul

Certainly not a V2 expert, but if they were fragmented and charged in the flank wouldn't they then automatically rout from being charged in the flank while fragmented... and thus dropping a level?

[pbrandon]

I may be mixing the situation up (there were other units charged while fragged - not a good night for the Parthians) or we forgot to drop them a level for the flank charge. My opponent may remember. Anyway, say they went to frag by virtue of the flank charge, the question remains.

Paul

[grahambriggs]

So I'm assuming that the melee against the foot occured, then something else broke in melee and the cavalry clattered into the side of the cataphracts? I suspect some cataphract bases turned to face the cavalry? If so, they don't need to break off (fighting in two directions) so they won't break in the JAP.

I think once the cavarly has hit, the routers would need to halve the angle in the standard manner.

[hazelbark]

I am with Graham i think something is horribly out of sequence.

A flank charge drops a level.
A frag'd unit doesn't test until its a target of charge (impact or pursuit). If it survives that roll then the unit will move into contact and fight if impact phase. If not impact phase its still in contact.

But I think the rules are clear (not looking at them mind you) you flee from those in contact. Its simple either the unit is in contact or not.

[petedalby]

But I think the rules are clear (not looking at them mind you) you flee from those in contact. Its simple either the unit is in contact or not.

Check out Page 100.

If the fragged Cats had routed from being charged I believe you should bisect the angle between the chargers and the close combat opponents.

But we're told they passed their CMT. They should have routed when hit in the flank - assuming it was a legal flank charge?

If they are fragged only after being hit in the flank they don't break off as they are fighting in 2 directions so they don't auto-drop.

[grahambriggs]

But I think the rules are clear (not looking at them mind you) you flee from those in contact. Its simple either the unit is in contact or not.

Check out Page 100.

If the fragged Cats had routed from being charged I believe you should bisect the angle between the chargers and the close combat opponents.

But we're told they passed their CMT. They should have routed when hit in the flank - assuming it was a legal flank charge?

If they are fragged only after being hit in the flank they don't break off as they are fighting in 2 directions so they don't auto-drop.

Re routing from being charged I think the rules wording suggests the cats rout away from the chargers rather than bisecting. However, you could also read it as 'split'

[petedalby]

Re routing from being charged I think the rules wording suggests the cats rout away from the chargers rather than bisecting. However, you could also read it as 'split'

Maybe....but I read as 'if there is more than one such enemy (charging, shooting or in close combat) bisect the angle between them.'

There is definitely one charging and there is another in close combat - so for me it splits the angle.

[grahambriggs]

Re routing from being charged I think the rules wording suggests the cats rout away from the chargers rather than bisecting. However, you could also read it as 'split'

Maybe....but I read as 'if there is more than one such enemy (charging, shooting or in close combat) bisect the angle between them.'

There is definitely one charging and there is another in close combat - so for me it splits the angle.

The rule says "If a battle group breaks as a result of being charged when fragmented, shooting or while in close combat, it routs directly away from the enemy charging, shooting at or in close combat with it. If there is more than one such enemy, bisect the angle between them."

So you're saying, I think, that the cats are in close combat and break from a charge, they should bisect the angle between both enemies.

So, my legion is fighting your pike and have some horse archers shooting at your rear:













Your pike break. According to your logic, their rout should split the angle between the Legion and the horse archers? I don't know anyone who would play it that way.

[kevinj]

I think if it were the shooting that caused the break, most people wouldn't have a problem with splitting the angle as you definitely have multiple enemies. You probably should also split it if the rout occurred as a result of melee as the shooting represents a sustained effort,not just a single shot in the phase before the melee is calculated, but I doubt most of us had thought of it that way.

[philqw78]

In Grahams example

If they routed when shot they would split the angle as they are in close combat and being shot.

If they routed from melee they would not as they are not being shot when they rout

For simplicity and it seems sensible. Which the rules want to be both of those.

[grahambriggs]

In Grahams example

If they routed when shot they would split the angle as they are in close combat and being shot.

If they routed from melee they would not as they are not being shot when they rout

For simplicity and it seems sensible. Which the rules want to be both of those.

Oh yes, I was forgetting that they are in close combat whilst in the shooting phase (and indeed the impact phase). So I agree they'll split the angle if they break from a charge or while in CC and shot at.

There is a bit of weakness in the wording still, in that they are in CC until the break occurs and then no longer so. Whereas actually I think they mean you're in CC until one side breaks and routs (otherwise you could argue they stop being in CC when they break, and their rout is the next step, so they're no longer in CC at the point of rout...). I'll suggest a tidy up for v2.

[petedalby]

Your pike break. According to your logic, their rout should split the angle between the Legion and the horse archers? I don't know anyone who would play it that way.

Perhaps my example was poorly worded because everyone I know does play it this way - and I'm encouraged that at least 2 other people would do the same as I'm advocating - provided the break was from shooting. So no different to my earlier example when the cause of the break was a fragged unit being charged whilst also in combat to its front.

If the pike break in the melee then they just rout away from the Legion as Phil said.

I'm struggling to understand how the wording needs to be tidied up?

[zoltan]

Page 100, Initial Rout
"If a battle group breaks as a result of being charged when fragmented, shooting or while in close combat, it routs directly away from the enemy charging, shooting at or in close combat with it. If there is more than one such enemy, bisect the angle between them."

Reading A of this rule is that there are three (independent) cases:
1. break as a result of of being charged when fragmented
2. break as a result of being shot at
3. break as a result of close combat

In each case, the routing BG moves away from (and if needs be bisects the angle):
1. each and every charger (but not shooters and combat opponents)
2. each and every shooter (but not chargers and combat opponents)
3. each and every combat opponent (but not shooters and chargers)

Reading B of this rule is that the routing BG moves away from (and if needs be bisects the angle) all chargers, shooters and close combat opponents combined.

The example given in this thread involves a combination of close combat opponents and chargers (albeit that the chargers seem to have caused the rout). So depending on whether you prefer reading A or B, the routers either move directly away from only the chargers or bisect the angle between the chargers and the close combat opponents.

[grahambriggs]

Page 100, Initial Rout
"If a battle group breaks as a result of being charged when fragmented, shooting or while in close combat, it routs directly away from the enemy charging, shooting at or in close combat with it. If there is more than one such enemy, bisect the angle between them."

Reading A of this rule is that there are three (independent) cases:
1. break as a result of of being charged when fragmented
2. break as a result of being shot at
3. break as a result of close combat

I think number 3 should be 3. Break while in close combat. i.e. it doesn't have to be a result of a melee result. This would seem to be the difference.

[zoltan]

I think number 3 should be 3. Break while in close combat. i.e. it doesn't have to be a result of a melee result. This would seem to be the difference.

Sorry, but I don't understand your point.

[grahambriggs]

I think number 3 should be 3. Break while in close combat. i.e. it doesn't have to be a result of a melee result. This would seem to be the difference.

Sorry, but I don't understand your point.

"Close Combat‟ is a general term for impact and melee combat. Once such combat has been joined, battle groups are deemed to be in close combat until one side breaks off, breaks or is destroyed.

In other words, close combat does not mean just melee. So a unit can be in close combat throughout the impact and shooting phases. Thus if they break as a result of an impact phase charge, or as a result of shooting, they are still "in close combat", so will need to split the angle.

For example:

A legion charges a pike block. The legion gets lucky and wins big. The pike double drop to fragged in the impact phase. Then, some velites shoot the rear files of the pike and trigger a test. The unlucky pike are still in close combat at this point. Say they fail the test and rout. They are in close combat with the legion, and also break from shooting. So they split the angle between the legion and the velites.

[zoltan]

So sounds like you favour my option B, viz: regardless of what causes the break (failing a CMT when charged while fragmented, breaking from shooting or breaking from close combat result), the routers take into account ALL chargers/shooters/close combat opponents when figuring out the bisected angle to follow.

[grahambriggs]

So sounds like you favour my option B, viz: regardless of what causes the break (failing a CMT when charged while fragmented, breaking from shooting or breaking from close combat result), the routers take into account ALL chargers/shooters/close combat opponents when figuring out the bisected angle to follow.

No. 'close combat' ccan cross several phases. Charges and shooters don't last longer than a phase. e.g. if a unit if in close combat, was shot at, and now is charged, it will only split the angle between close combat and the charg as it is not being shot at in the impact phase.