Break offs

[titanu]

A unit of cavalry was fighting a unit of foot with no cohesion drops on either side. A send unit of foot broke another unit and persued into the cavalry. These are those with the pointer and the base below the pointer in contact with the cavalry. They persued into the cavalry at the end of the melee phase. Do the cavalry then break off? I think that they do as there is no exception to the breakoff rule.

[berthier]

p. 106 - mounted troops break off if at least half their close combat troops are STEADY foot (counting only front rank bases in contact other than only as an overlap).

[peteratjet]

So, you were thinking that possibly the fact the pursuers had caused an impact to be resolved in the next turn would override the rules for breaking off at the end of this turn?

I would say not.

[philqw78]

IMO they break off.
A possible minor flaw in the rules, depending how you look at it.
Break off comes before JAP route moves, so it could be justified as an overlapping part of the turn sequence done like this for simplification. Perhaps Break off could have been put at the end of the Melee phase just before rout from melee to tidy the odd effect up. Would need good wording as well because you would still want BG that broke off to test if a BG in their vacinity broke or lost a general.

A bit of a bummer as it stands though as it stops you catching the routers, possibly putting them past autobreak and also not getting a chance to kill any general.

[bbotus]

Here is the unofficial/official but never published FAQ by the authors:
viewtopic.php?f=43&t=10147

Post by terrys » Fri Apr 17, 2009 10:22 am
I've raised this on the authors forum - and I'm waiting for Richard & simon to respond.

At the moment I'm thinking that they should break off - as a literal interpretation of the rules.
It all revolves around whether or not the BGs are considered to be 'in combat'
Since no combat has occured (or is possible) this move are they in combat this move or next?

Post by shall » Thu May 14, 2009 7:17 am
We have kicked this one around a bit. Probably and FAQ as below to reflect our intent... views? [spelling edited by bbotus for clarity]

Si



Can a BG break off if it pursues into something but hasn't yet fought the impact phase yet?

No. We intended that anything hitting something in a pursuit stayed there and resolved the combat in the next impact phase. So no breaking off first - it must stay and resolve its impact in the next impact phase.

So the unofficial answer is, 'No, they can't break-off until after the impact is resolved.' But, of course, it never got published as official.

[grahambriggs]

Here is the unofficial/official but never published FAQ by the authors:
viewtopic.php?f=43&t=10147

Post by terrys » Fri Apr 17, 2009 10:22 am
I've raised this on the authors forum - and I'm waiting for Richard & simon to respond.

At the moment I'm thinking that they should break off - as a literal interpretation of the rules.
It all revolves around whether or not the BGs are considered to be 'in combat'
Since no combat has occured (or is possible) this move are they in combat this move or next?

Post by shall » Thu May 14, 2009 7:17 am
We have kicked this one around a bit. Probably and FAQ as below to reflect our intent... views? [spelling edited by bbotus for clarity]

Si



Can a BG break off if it pursues into something but hasn't yet fought the impact phase yet?

No. We intended that anything hitting something in a pursuit stayed there and resolved the combat in the next impact phase. So no breaking off first - it must stay and resolve its impact in the next impact phase.

So the unofficial answer is, 'No, they can't break-off until after the impact is resolved.' But, of course, it never got published as official.

Actually, Simon has answered a different question: that of the mounted pursuing into combat, not the foot. Which is slightly different I guess.

[CLAVDIVS]

If you look at the Full turn sequence sheet, no5 Joint Action Phase Both sides;
1, Remove scythed chariots if so specified
2, Make Break offs.
3, CMT to stop pursuing or looting.
4, Move Commanders.
5, Commanders attempt to bolster or rally BG's
6, Move Routers & Pursuers. Remove bases if pursuers remain in combat at the end of the rout move. Roll to inflict Commander losses. Resolve cohesion tests for seeing commandeers lost.
7, Remove any battlegroups that are autobroken or reduced to 1 base.

So break off moves are before moving routers & pursuers

[dave_r]

If you look at the Full turn sequence sheet, no5 Joint Action Phase Both sides;
1, Remove scythed chariots if so specified
2, Make Break offs.
3, CMT to stop pursuing or looting.
4, Move Commanders.
5, Commanders attempt to bolster or rally BG's
6, Move Routers & Pursuers. Remove bases if pursuers remain in combat at the end of the rout move. Roll to inflict Commander losses. Resolve cohesion tests for seeing commandeers lost.
7, Remove any battlegroups that are autobroken or reduced to 1 base.

So break off moves are before moving routers & pursuers

but after the routers have moved in the Combat phase.... Which is where the pursuit and resultant contact actually took place.

For what it's worth, since the rule in pursuits specifically states that the impact will take place next turn then I ajudged that they remained in place for that impact. Others views may vary.

[philqw78]

For what it's worth, since the rule in pursuits specifically states that the impact will take place next turn then I ajudged that they remained in place for that impact. Others views may vary.

So for your game you judged what you thought best

[dave_r]

For what it's worth, since the rule in pursuits specifically states that the impact will take place next turn then I ajudged that they remained in place for that impact. Others views may vary.

So for your game you judged what you thought best

It wasn't my game.

[philqw78]

It wasn't my game.

Well that makes it Bobs fault for asking you then.