Breakoff - Feature of rules

list_lurker · Post by **list_lurker** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 1:14 pm

Hi,

Mounted breaking off from steady foot...

Is the intention to break off directly backwards without any shift?

If so, is it a design feature to allow other BGs to sneak behind 'tripping up' the mounted BG with a corner - causing the breakoff to fail and drop a COH level?

thanks

Simon

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 1:26 pm

A feature, not a bug.

list_lurker · Post by **list_lurker** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 1:30 pm

Looks a bit DBM (gay). But at least penalises KNs that are sent in 'unsupported'

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 1:35 pm

It isn't that easy to do as the mounted troops will charge in the impact phase then if they fail to disrupt their opponents break off at the end of their turn before you get to move behind them.

The only time I think I have pulled anything lik this off I did it by bolstering a disrupted BG fighting mounted at the end of my opponents turn then moving to trip up the mounted in mine.

list_lurker · Post by **list_lurker** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 1:43 pm

Yeah, its not so bad. Its the counter to where the cautious KN player lets the SP charge (to avoid the POA in the impact phase).

just looks a bit rubbish when a line of 6 KN are prevented to breakoff by the noetail of a LF base!

babyshark · Post by **babyshark** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 1:46 pm

hammy wrote:It isn't that easy to do as the mounted troops will charge in the impact phase then if they fail to disrupt their opponents break off at the end of their turn before you get to move behind them.

The only time I think I have pulled anything lik this off I did it by bolstering a disrupted BG fighting mounted at the end of my opponents turn then moving to trip up the mounted in mine.

So mounted that take too long to knock their pedestrian opponents on the head will run an increased risk of getting "tripped." Sounds fair to me.

Marc

olivier · Post by **olivier** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 2:07 pm

it's not so hard if the charged BG is at funny angle with one other BG. With the mandatory conforming you may place yourself in a situation where it's impossible to breack off

See a precedent thread on the frrench forum.

carlos · Post by **carlos** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 2:18 pm

Historical in my humble opinion. You have two choices, either charge in and at least disrupt them, or don't charge! You are the mounted, you should be dictating where the fight takes place, not the infantry.

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 2:24 pm

olivier wrote:it's not so hard if the charged BG is at funny angle with one other BG. With the mandatory conforming you may place yourself in a situation where it's impossible to breack off
See a precedent thread on the frrench forum.

I do remember that thread and I can see how it would be possible although not trivial to set such a trap for mounted troops.

carlos · Post by **carlos** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 3:08 pm

You need at least 2 BGs, both of which need to be able to remain steady when charged by the mounted BG. To move them into position you also need to probably roll CMTs with them, so overall quite a costly trap.

olivier · Post by **olivier** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 3:30 pm

You need at least 2 BGs, both of which need to be able to remain steady when charged by the mounted BG. To move them into position you also need to probably roll CMTs with them, so overall quite a costly trap.

2 BG, one of 8 Off or def spearmen, one of 4-6 LF even if they are drilled, they cost less than a BG of Kn

No need to do a CMT. With a general, the spear move in the restricted zone at will and after you only have to wait a failed CMT to see the Kn charge to their doom.

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 4:19 pm

olivier wrote:
You need at least 2 BGs, both of which need to be able to remain steady when charged by the mounted BG. To move them into position you also need to probably roll CMTs with them, so overall quite a costly trap.
2 BG, one of 8 Off or def spearmen, one of 4-6 LF even if they are drilled, they cost less than a BG of Kn
No need to do a CMT. With a general, the spear move in the restricted zone at will and after you only have to wait a failed CMT to see the Kn charge to their doom.

I would like to see it done without exposing the LF to a charge from a supporting BG. I am sure it is possible and uder certain circumstances could be very nasty. I am however sure that if I tried it the knights would charge, break the spearmen and the LF would drop to FRG on the cohesion test

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 5:50 pm

olivier wrote:
You need at least 2 BGs, both of which need to be able to remain steady when charged by the mounted BG. To move them into position you also need to probably roll CMTs with them, so overall quite a costly trap.
2 BG, one of 8 Off or def spearmen, one of 4-6 LF even if they are drilled, they cost less than a BG of Kn
No need to do a CMT. With a general, the spear move in the restricted zone at will and after you only have to wait a failed CMT to see the Kn charge to their doom.

I am confused. Where are the LF in all this? If they are in front of the Sp the KN just declare them both targets and the LF scoot away.

olivier · Post by **olivier** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 6:13 pm

Look the schema in the french forum under "obligation de se conformer" and you see a possibility to cheesy block a breack off.
[/url]