Break Off in the JAP

[mbsparta]

We had an issue come up this weekend. We have always played that the mounted break off from steady foot was not voluntary but mandatory. A player questioned this. He wanted to stay in contact. Is the cavalry break of a required move in the JAP. We think it is.

Thanks
Mike B

[philqw78]

It is compulsory

[bbotus]

Agree with Phil, break-offs are mandatory.

The cav either meets the criteria for not breaking off on page 106 (version 1) or else they will break-off. No option is specified.

There is also one more where cav would not break off that isn't spelled out in the book. Cav can pursue into fresh enemy. As per page 108, impact combat is only adjudicated in the impact phase so if pursuit hits fresh enemy in the Manoeuver Phase (Edit: Sorry, I meant Melee not Manoeuver), the cav would not break off in JAP since they haven't yet resolved Impact. This exception was discussed in thread:
viewtopic.php?f=43&t=10147

Postby shall » 13 May 2009 22:17
We have kicked this one around a bit. Probably and FAQ as below to reflect out inent... views?

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.

(I wonder if they remembered to add it to V2?).

[kevinj]

Break offs happen before pursuits (at least in V2) so it shouldn't be an issue.

[batesmotel]

Break offs happen before pursuits (at least in V2) so it shouldn't be an issue.

But you can have a pursuit of a BG that breaks in melee that contacts fresh enemy in the melee phase, so the issue still exists. I don't see anything added in V2 that obviously covers the issue.

Chris

[mbsparta]

It is compulsory

The Consul Varro thanks you.

[ShrubMiK]

Out of interest, particularly because there has been a fair bit of talk lately about sections of the rules not being written clearly enough to stop rules lawyers wilfully misinterpreting them to their advantage...

What was your opponent's justification for arguing that break-off is voluntary?

Looks pretty clear cut in the rules to me - "Otherwise mounted break off if ...", not "Otherwise mounted may break of if...". Is there something else somewhere that throws doubt on it?

[grahambriggs]

Some people get confused about this point because they also play FOGR and in that rule set the break offs are optional.

[kevinj]

But you can have a pursuit of a BG that breaks in melee that contacts fresh enemy in the melee phase, so the issue still exists. I don't see anything added in V2 that obviously covers the issue.

I agree that this could be regarded as an anomaly. However, the rules are:

"Initial Pursuits obey the same rules as pursuits in the Joint Action Phase for ... encountering the table edge, terrain or fresh enemy" (13-13)

"If Pursuers contact fresh enemy in any phase this is treated as a charge on the contacted enemy." and "Combat is adjudicated in the next impact phase" (14-3, my emphasis).

My interpretation of that is that as combat is not adjudicated until the next impact phase, troops who have contacted fresh enemy do not consider breaking off if they have hit fresh enemy in the melee phase. (And for Graham's benefit I don't think you could voluntarily break off in these circumstances in Fog R either )

[ShrubMiK]

Agree with that. Although as you say, and I hadn't thought about before, it may be a hole in the rules.

What I failed to mention earlier is that mounted breaking off often tended to be a voluntary thing in games I've played...not because the rules were unclear, not because of the pernicious influence of FoG:R, but simply because it was something we quite often completely forgot about after the excitement of rolling lots of dice

[mbsparta]

Out of interest, particularly because there has been a fair bit of talk lately about sections of the rules not being written clearly enough to stop rules lawyers wilfully misinterpreting them to their advantage...

What was your opponent's justification for arguing that break-off is voluntary?

Looks pretty clear cut in the rules to me - "Otherwise mounted break off if ...", not "Otherwise mounted may break of if...". Is there something else somewhere that throws doubt on it?

....... I think he was down a POA in impact so he want to stay in combat. There was also another BG of his (MF) in contact with my BG. He really offered no justification in the rules other than it doesn't explicitly say it is mandatory. We played it correctly.

Mike B