Joint Action Phase - Cav Bouncing

[madmike111]

Had a nasty result of a small Lt foot unit routing an elite lancer unit.

My cav was just finishing breaking an enemy cav unit, it pursed and hit the extreme end of a HF line, about a ¼ of a base of cav hit the end of the line.

There was an enemy Lt foot unit just under 2 inches in front of the HF, it was lined up so that about ¼ of the lt foot unit was in front of the HF line, enough for my cav to miss it and hit the HF line.

Well my cav hits the HF, fights impact and then has to conform to the HF during my move, so the cav slide over to fully fight the extreme end HF base. Come the JAP the cav have to break off, however as the Lt foot blocks the path they drop a cohesion level instead and keep fighting, after 3 turns the cav rout and I failed 5 attempts to rally them.

This tactic seems a gamey way of setting up cav to be destroyed.

[hammy]

Hmm, that does seem a bit on the sneaky side.

I have seen it done where a BG of light foot moves to block a potential break off but to get the enemy to do it for you is very cunning.

Of course to get this to happen you have to have two spare BGs (the HF and the LF) and to have already lost a BG in the first place.

I suspect that had you fully realised the implications of the situation you may well have looked to do something about the LF.

How you would 'fix' this issue I am not sure. A restriction on conforming only if it would not prevent a break off?

[SirGarnet]

The language and intended effect of the rules seems fairly clear. There are a number of other things that could prevent a break off of at least 1 MU as well, and in this case the Lancers appear to have gotten themselves into this situation entirely on their own.

Or was this a trap of exquisite depth and foresight contrived by a military genius heartless enough to sacrifice a unit just to beguile the lancers to their doom, rather than the happenstance of aggressive cavalrymen boldly pursuing into a tight spot between fresh enemies and unable to fight their way through?

Mike

[expendablecinc]

Hmm, that does seem a bit on the sneaky side.

I have seen it done where a BG of light foot moves to block a potential break off but to get the enemy to do it for you is very cunning.

Of course to get this to happen you have to have two spare BGs (the HF and the LF) and to have already lost a BG in the first place.

I suspect that had you fully realised the implications of the situation you may well have looked to do something about the LF.

How you would 'fix' this issue I am not sure. A restriction on conforming only if it would not prevent a break off?

Perhaps let Mtd breaking off slide by less than a base width when doing so. They can retreat to where they started the charge from and any break-off blockers have to actually move to intervene after the cav charge. Either that of let groups breaking off reduce frontage by up to one base to avoid enemy.

Anthony

[madmike111]

The situation isn't that hard to engineer now that players are aware of it. If one side can see that a BG is going to break soon and the winners BG overlaps the BG that is getting beaten they can position the lines accordingly.

While not easy it is definitely a tactic that can be reused as the attacker can't do a thing about it.

I agree the logical thing is to allow the cav to shift up to one base during the JAP recoil to avoid being pinned. Maybe this should be an errata item, as FOG seems to be free of these sort of DBx gamey moves otherwise.

[SirGarnet]

It's not a simple issue.

Break-offs must be 1 MU to avoid a cohesion loss. Break offs are stopped by:

Enemy troops (stop 1 MU away)
Friendly troops (of any kind)
Terrain in some cases
Table edge

The complaint was that the back edge of enemy behind limited the breakoff to less than 1 MU and suggestion that breakers off can shift a base width to pass by.

Should a shifting breakoff be limited to far enough to not take the cohesion loss?

Should the lancers be able to backoff touching the rear of enemy behind them, so the 1 MU restriction does not apply?

Should the breakoff continue if it would leave the lancers unable to legally charge its target again?

Should the shift apply to other obstacles than enemy?

Should the break off stop but the Lancers just not take the cohesion loss?

Should the enemy behind take a cohesion loss for being backed into?

Should the lancers shift over and break off if the enemy was facing the lancers with their front rather than their rear, perhaps with the evil intention of trapping the lancers?

Should this rule only apply to troop who pursued into this situation, rather than voluntarily charging in?

I think it is a safe wager that this question came up in playtesting the rules. My guess is that after looking at the alternatives of using shifting or evade-like mechanisms available, the authors concluded that being unable to break off cleanly is disruptive and this is the simple and practical solution.

Given the nature of movement in this game, this maneuver is hardly going to be as common as it was in DBM.

Mike

[flameberge]

I guess you can call it "gamey" but I don't have a problem with the way the rule is now. It seems like conforming to the enemy is somewhat like the melee being fully joined and some more men get into the fighting hence the bases being shifted. Now that they have troops at their back is a problem they got themselves into because they got a little overzealous in their charge. Just my opinion.