Unusual Break-Off Situation

peterrjohnston · Post by **peterrjohnston** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 6:01 pm

Cavalry fighting foot in two directions break the foot to their front in melee
leaving them in combat with a steady foot BG on their flank.

They now have to break-off as their opponents are steady foot. Do they
go straight back (parallel to the flank-contacting BG) or turn all bases to face
the infantry and go straight back?

Rgds,
Peter

Ninthplain · Post by **Ninthplain** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 7:48 pm

I would think that you would break-off directly away from threat, in this case the group to the side. I do not have my rules in front of me but I think in a break-off you move directly away from the front of the steady foot.

Now the question becomes do you turn every base 90 and break off in a column or not.

We had a similar issue this weekend where my Legionaires broke the unit to their front but were stuck in combat with LH in the side. We played it that you break directly away.

<BRIAN>

SirGarnet · Post by **SirGarnet** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 8:15 pm

You break off directly to your rear and end a move away able to charge again. Obviously not possible while in two directions, so the only way to do it is to reform facing the remaining enemy and then complete the break off.

Mike

JanChris · Post by **JanChris** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 6:41 am

MikeK wrote:You break off directly to your rear and end a move away able to charge again. Obviously not possible while in two directions, so the only way to do it is to reform facing the remaining enemy and then complete the break off.

Mike

OK but what happens if the broken foot is too close to finish the evade move? I assume:
- The Cv cant complete the evade so does not evade, loosing 1 cohesion level *

and not:
- end in contact with routers, facing away from the steady enemy

* So the broken foot may well be more usefull when broken then when fighting

peterrjohnston · Post by **peterrjohnston** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 8:11 am

MikeK wrote:You break off directly to your rear and end a move away able to charge again. Obviously not possible while in two directions, so the only way to do it is to reform facing the remaining enemy and then complete the break off.

Except technically they weren't facing two directions any more as the foot to their front
had broken in melee. And a reform is in the movement phase.

IIRC correctly it says seperated by a normal move distance and facing them (although
not facing directly to front) and capable of charging. Unusual situation as I wouldn't
normally expect troops contacted in the flank to break their frontal opponents, but
in this case they'd contacted the routers previously in the flank.

Frankly in the game I'd rather they did turn and face then break-off, as this would
have left them out of charge range of the infantry - by this stage they were fragmented
themselves. Going straight back parallel to the front left them in charge range of the
infantry due to the infantry BG width. Not knowing what to do I went for the worst
out of consideration for my opponent!

Although now I think about "separated by a normal move distance" this would put them
out of range (I just moved them back a normal move, which is wrong):

AA
AA
AA
AA
__|
__| Normal move distance
__|
__Cv

But this wouldn't allow a charge with only corner to corner contact. Hmmm

rogerg · Post by **rogerg** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 8:28 am

The cavalry are facing in two directions and troops facing in two directions do not break off (IIRC, I do not have the rules here). So until the cavalry opt to reform facing the remaining opponent, I would suggest they do not attempt to break off.

peterrjohnston · Post by **peterrjohnston** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 9:03 am

rogerg wrote:The cavalry are facing in two directions and troops facing in two directions do not break off (IIRC, I do not have the rules here). So until the cavalry opt to reform facing the remaining opponent, I would suggest they do not attempt to break off.

No, it's fighting enemy in two directions. By this stage they weren't (thankfully! All a bit touch and go)

Rgds,
Peter

SirGarnet · Post by **SirGarnet** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 9:06 am

Looking at the rulebook:

Are at least half their close combat opponents steady foot, counting only front rank bases in contact? If onoe of the front rank bases have opponents (as it seems is the case), break off does not applt at all.

If that test is met, then are they fighting the enemy in 2 directions? They were, but one of the enemies is gone so they remain facing in 2 directions but will be fighting in just one. The only way to break off is if they were facing in one direction, which they are not, and as was stressed reforming happens in the manoeuvre phase next turn so they can't reform now. Therefore a legal breakoff cannot be started, so leave them as they are.

Ultimately, the cause is that they had been fighting in two directions).

Anyone making better sense of this?

Mike

JanChris · Post by **JanChris** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 11:35 am

MikeK wrote:The only way to break off is if they were facing in one direction, ...

Why? Must have overlooked that...

bigdamnhero · Post by **bigdamnhero** » Wed Jun 18, 2008 9:50 am

This is one dynamic i particularly like about FoG. The fact that cavalry who fail to disrupt a steady foot unit must break off and move away to reform and charge again if they can works great. Once they cause disruption, they are amongst the bad guys shields and cannot break off - too deeply into combat now! makes perfect sense!

SirGarnet · Post by **SirGarnet** » Wed Jun 18, 2008 10:21 am

JanChris wrote:
MikeK wrote:The only way to break off is if they were facing in one direction, ...
Why? Must have overlooked that...

To break off the battle group would move straight back ending in a permitted formation of the same frontage facing its opponent. How can a battle group move straight back when two different directions are straight back if it can't reform?

bigdamnhero · Post by **bigdamnhero** » Wed Jun 18, 2008 1:16 pm

1. If a friendly unit impedes the break off, by being too close to the rear of the cavalry, i believe the cav simply stop in front of the unit. I also understand that the unit is disrupted? Not sure on that one though.

If breaking off (not using a VMD) the cav simply do a 180 and go 5MU's (normal heavy cav) and then turn about 180 again to face the unit they bounced off.

As for a break off when fighting in tweo directions? Well the Cav in this case do not break off as combat is already occuring?

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Wed Jun 18, 2008 2:44 pm

If a units break off move is blocked by friend, enemy or terrain it moves back as far as it ca and then stops - if this is less than 1 MU it drops a cohesion level.

A break off move is measured straight backwards and ends facing the enemy with no need to bother about turns. Thus if cavalry break off they will, unless blocked, end with their front edge 5MU away from the troops they have broken off from.

If fighting in 2 directions you cannot break off - the rules prohibit it. However, in the example that started this the BG was only fighting in 1 direction but was facing in two. This raises the question of where is its rear to break off to - it strikes me that there may be something that helps out in the definition of flank attacks perhaps?

Otherwise I think we await a rules team ruling - and Richard is on holiday

rogerg · Post by **rogerg** » Wed Jun 18, 2008 3:59 pm

Better still, fighting could be changed to facing

SirGarnet · Post by **SirGarnet** » Wed Jun 18, 2008 4:55 pm

rogerg wrote:Better still, fighting could be changed to facing

Actually it makes more military sense for the cavalry having driven off one unit of enemy foot to break off away from the steady foot on their flank to reform ready for a fresh charge.

Mechanically that would require reforming to face that BG and then making the move directly back. That you end in a permitted formation of the same frontage as before should help out, but I'm not seeing anything conclusive.

And at the start you need to meet the requirement of close combat opponent steady foot, counting only front rank bases in contact - does being contacted on the side by someone you would soon need to fight count as having an opponent? I imagine so.

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Wed Jun 18, 2008 5:32 pm

rogerg wrote:Better still, fighting could be changed to facing

Indeed - nice and simple

peterrjohnston · Post by **peterrjohnston** » Wed Jun 18, 2008 7:27 pm

One of the problems is the at least half the front ranks bases point Mike brought up. As the original front edge opponents have routed, is the side edge now the front rank as they would automatically turn the whole group if they stayed?

I don't think my move back as in the diagram is correct, as they could only charge to corner corner contact, which isn't a legal charge.

The turn to face and break off as normal does have the appeal of being sensible...

Rgds,
Peter

dave_r · Post by **dave_r** » Thu Jun 19, 2008 7:24 am

Better still, fighting could be changed to facing

Just a thought - what happens to troops in one rank who don't turn to face?

They would happily break off after being charged in the flank, which I don't think is the intention.

rogerg · Post by **rogerg** » Thu Jun 19, 2008 8:31 am

Yes, when contacted to flank in the manouvre face there is no compulsion to turn. The reason given was that you cannot be forced to ignore a threat to the front. The same reasoning would apply here.

terrys · Post by **terrys** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 12:25 pm

Since the 'breaking off' unit cannot legally move directly to its rear, (it currently having 2 'rears'), its only option it to stay where it is and lose a cohesion level.

During the next manoeuvre phase it can then turn all bases to face the flank, and break off during that moves joint action phase.

Unusual Break-Off Situation

Unusual Break-Off Situation

My take