Slightly complex break off move

[stevoid]

A BG of 4 cavalry already fighting to its front is hit in the flank by steady foot becoming disrupted and turning one base to face. In the melee phase it routs its frontal opponents (fragged MF). Diagram below:

RRRR

^^
^><<<<

Come the JAP phase at least half its close combat opponents are steady foot so it must break off.

The rules say "...facing them, in a permitted formation of the same frontage as before."

Obviously the break off is directly back from the flank chargers, but what does the cav's frontage count as, 1 or 2, i.e. its original frontage or that facing the enemy it is breaking off from?

Will it end up as a 4 deep column facing the flank chargers or as a BG 2 files in 2 ranks?

Cheers,

Steve

[Ironhand]

My guess would be one rank, ending up as a four deep column. I'll be very interested to hear the response from the authors. Probably a not all that uncommon situation.

[shall]

Not covered so we'll have to discuss it.

had I been asked for a ruling I would say they turn to confrom and then break off. 2 x 2 maybe therefore

Will revert past discussion

Si

[stevoid]

Not covered so we'll have to discuss it.

had I been asked for a ruling I would say they turn to confrom and then break off. 2 x 2 maybe therefore

Will revert past discussion

Si

Yes, my thought was that they should perform a reform first, then break off. Hopefully another one for the FAQ.

Steve

[hammy]

Not covered so we'll have to discuss it.

had I been asked for a ruling I would say they turn to confrom and then break off. 2 x 2 maybe therefore

Will revert past discussion

Si

Yes, my thought was that they should perform a reform first, then break off. Hopefully another one for the FAQ.

Steve

Well perhaps not a "Frequesntly" asked question. More like a "Really obscure and potentially cunfusing unless you actually understande the situation perfectly" question

I would be tempted to leave this as is and up to an umpires discression. There are a lot of obscure situations you can create and trying to legislate every single one is just as likely to end up with issues as leaving them.

[stevoid]

Not covered so we'll have to discuss it.

had I been asked for a ruling I would say they turn to confrom and then break off. 2 x 2 maybe therefore

Will revert past discussion

Si

Yes, my thought was that they should perform a reform first, then break off. Hopefully another one for the FAQ.

Steve

I would be tempted to leave this as is and up to an umpires discression. There are a lot of obscure situations you can create and trying to legislate every single one is just as likely to end up with issues as leaving them.

Hmmm.

Hammy, it may not be that frequent a situation but I've had it twice recently, hence the post. Leaving it up to umpires is a recipe for inconsistency, something which FOG seems to have successfully avoided so far with the excellent author support on these forums and the FAQ.

I don't see how an issue will be created by making a decision on what happens. The rules are full of conforms/reforms and explicit explanations for situations just like this. Surely this is just what the after-sales web support is all about

[shall]

It won't be common but neither will it be rare I suspect.

I have had it when those to front wre LH who got caught and creamed.

Si

[terrys]

The relevent rule says:


"When breaking off, a battle group moves straight back. Move distance is not measured normally. Instead, the battle group ends the break off move separated from its opponent by a full normal move, facing them, in a permitted formation of the same frontage as before. It will thus be in position to charge the same enemy again in its next turn."

Whilste not covering this specific situation, my personal opinion is:

The BG breaking off moves directly away from the enemy it is in contact with, facing it 2 wide 2 deep.

Rationale....
Although the rule says 'straight back' the contact that requires the break off is the one facing sideways, therefore 'straight back' in this case is in relation to that base.
It also must end up facing them in a permitted formation of the same frontage. Again this is in relation to the enemy being broken off from - so the frontage must be at least 70mm wide (the original width of frontage facing the enemy - see 'legal formations' and 'turns'). It will now be in a position to charge the enemy next turn.

The only other possible option would be to move the BG straight backwards - relative to the other 3 bases.
If they did, then they would still end up 2 wide 2 deep, but they would no longer be facing the enemy in a position to charge them next move.

In effect the BG 'reforms' facing the enemy and then breaks off. (even though they're not strictly allowed to reform before the end of the move)

[shall]

Sounds like Terry and I have the same rationale and outcome.

One for FAQ 4

Si

[hammy]

I don't see how an issue will be created by making a decision on what happens. The rules are full of conforms/reforms and explicit explanations for situations just like this. Surely this is just what the after-sales web support is all about

The problem as I see it is if there are too many 'clarifications' of multiple specific obscure situations then you IMO significantly complicate the work of an umpire as he has to check all the case law and confirm exactly which specific ruling needs to be applied.

What if the flank charge was into a single rank formation of cavalry? should that result in a column of cavalry breaking off? How about if the cavalry are one deep everywhere apart from a single second rank base at the far end of the BG that has not been contacted by the charge etc. etc.

If I am umpiring I really don't want to have to carry a document along the lines of the Flames of War "More again lessons from the front" which runs to about 100 pages. The more complex the FAQ becomes the more likey there are to be errors made by umpires. If the umpire misses a particualr but relevant part of the clarifications then there will be a very grumpy player when he finds out. If there is no clarification just perhaps general principles or guidelines then the umpire will always be right even if he really wasn't.

Hope that makes sense.

[shall]

I would hate to see a 100 FAQ of anything.

Hopefully after a month or so almost everything is answered.

This is actually covered by the rules reasonably well so perhaps we don't need to include it.

Si

[nikgaukroger]

In some cases you may wish to include a marginally needed FAQ answer and then remove it after a few months when it has become more widely known.

[stevoid]

It also must end up facing them in a permitted formation of the same frontage. Again this is in relation to the enemy being broken off from - so the frontage must be at least 70mm wide (the original width of frontage facing the enemy - see 'legal formations' and 'turns'). It will now be in a position to charge the enemy next turn.

In effect the BG 'reforms' facing the enemy and then breaks off. (even though they're not strictly allowed to reform before the end of the move)

Terry, the frontage facing the enemy being broken off from is only 40mm. If it had been more I don't think I'd have even bothered with the question. In the game we played we did the reform and ended 2 x 2 bases as it seemed the right thing in line with what we discern as FOG philosophy. However, literal interpretation of the rules could see a pedant argue the other way, i.e. ending in a column.

Hammy, I know where you are coming from. No fun wandering round with a sheaf of papers longer than the rules they are explaining (mmm what does that remind me of). The trick is to only FAQ tricky obscure or contentious things (or where, let's admit it, the rules have not been worded as well as they could have been) and not to FAQ things that the rules explain adequately. I genuinely don't believe this situation is as clear as it could be. Maybe its requires a definition of frontage (one that would indicate it is more than 40mm) for a BG in this situation and then other rules would kick in etc.

Thanks for the replies guys.

Steve

[terrys]

Terry, the frontage facing the enemy being broken off from is only 40mm. If it had been more I don't think I'd have even bothered with the question. In the game we played we did the reform and ended 2 x 2 bases as it seemed the right thing in line with what we discern as FOG philosophy. However, literal interpretation of the rules could see a pedant argue the other way, i.e. ending in a column.

Unfortunately we'll never get rid of 'rules lawyers', and that's why these rules cover so many pages (we'd have preferred them to be half the size). We've tried our best to cover the most common siutations but there will always be one or 2 that creep through.

As I said - "In effect the BG 'reforms' facing the enemy and then breaks off. (even though they're not strictly allowed to reform before the end of the move)"

This covers the situation described by Hammy as well.... "How about if the cavalry are one deep everywhere apart from a single second rank base at the far end of the BG that has not been contacted by the charge"

It doesn't matter which part the BG is more than 1 rank deep - It's depth if it was to turn would still be 2 ranks (60mm) and it would still form up 2 wide. When one base is already turned it's depth in that direction is 70mm.

I'm sure you can imagine how difficult is is to word concisely all the different possible formations that need to be considered when turning, which is why we've tried not to add additional descriptions where the answer is obvious.

[rbodleyscott]

Another, perhaps heretical, point is that it does not matter if umpires' rulings on obscure situations are inconsistent.

If the situation is obscure, then it is unlikely that players are planning their tactics around it, and therefore they have no real beef if it doesn't go as expected.

If they are planning their tactics around it, it is probably cheese, and it serves them right if they get ruled against sometimes.

We do not intend to have a huge FAQ (allegedly) covering every obscure situation, there are significant disadvantages to such, as Hammy has pointed out. It has already been decided that we will keep the FAQ lean and mean. We therefore have to be selective as to what goes in the FAQ, and some things won't make the cut.

[domblas]

can someone illustrate that situation
am trying to undertand it but can't on words