Break Off? (Challenge 1)

[pbrandon]

I thought it might be of interest to share some of the more unusual situations that came up for umpire rulings at the Challenge, subject to the risk of ridicule from the affected players if it turns out I got it very wrong. Here's the first one.



Blue is a 4 strong BG of Cav, which has turned to face 2 directions having been flank charged. It beat off it’s frontal opponents causing them to rout, but did not pursue due to still being in contact with the steady foot that charged it’s flank. In the JAP, what happens about the break-off?

Paul

[hazelbark]

Well I think...whoops...let me read the rule.

Under break off p 106 it says only you can't beak if fighting the enemy in 2 directions. Itals in the rules, which on p 88 clearly say "turned...and...in melee with different enemy BGs on different facings."

So it is not fighting the enemy in 2 directions.

Then on p 106 it says not measured normally. And straight away and facing, etc.

So I think once you implement the turning rule the Cavalry will be facing the infantry in a column 1 wide 4 deep.

[SirGarnet]

Terry responded to this with:

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.

viewtopic.php?t=6983

[hazelbark]

I can see his point. It depends on how severely you want to mess with the cav.

[marioslaz]

Terry responded to this with:

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.

This is reasonable. While in that mess formation it would be hard to perform a break off.

[philqw78]

But they are not facing in 2 directions as one of the enemy routed before the JAP. So therefore can break off.

[marioslaz]

But they are not facing in 2 directions as one of the enemy routed before the JAP. So therefore can break off.

They are still facing in 2 directions, but no more fighting. Rules state about 'fighting' and this would give reason to you. But it is in a such formation it would be more reasonable waiting for next manoeuvre phase where it can reform and then break off (if still alive, since it will be FRAG because it lost 1 level for flank charge and 1 level due it didn't break off).

[philqw78]

(if still alive, since it will be FRAG because it lost 1 level for flank charge and 1 level due it didn't break off).

Exactly the reason mounted break off, to reform and charge again.

[SirGarnet]

But they are not facing in 2 directions as one of the enemy routed before the JAP. So therefore can break off.

The diagram shows them facing in 2 directions with 2 rears, as mentioned above.

[philqw78]

Sorry I meant to say/type not fighting in 2 directions so can break off

[marioslaz]

In effect, rules at hand, cav should break off, since in JAP, when break off occurs, they are not fighting in 2 directions, but only facing. If you want to play in a different way, for example in a scenario or in a campaign game, you could make a compromise and decide Cav doesn't break off because it is still facing in 2 directions, but it didn't lose a cohesion level, because cohesion loss occurs when you cannot break off due to obstacle.

[SirGarnet]

Sorry I meant to say/type not fighting in 2 directions so can break off

If so, how?

[philqw78]

If so, how?

Now that's where you would need an umpire. If it where me I would split the angle. But I didn't write the rules, so I can say anything I want without fear of meeting hordes (or is it Mobs) of disgruntled players.

[SirGarnet]

If so, how?

Now that's where you would need an umpire. If it where me I would split the angle. But I didn't write the rules, so I can say anything I want without fear of meeting hordes (or is it Mobs) of disgruntled players.

LOL. Well, an author said you can't break off to the rear if you have 2 rears. If you reject that answer but can't offer a better one, that would make you a consultant.

[petedalby]

You don't mention what decision you made Paul?

But I agree with Mike / Terry - no break off until the BG has reformed. This is not as the rules are written but would be in the spirit.

Pete

[nikgaukroger]

Oddly just this situation cropped up down the club before the Challenge - Terry ruled for us that the BG would break off to the rear of the base that was fighting ...

[dave_r]

Which to me would make sense.

The rules state that the Cavalry BG breaks off.

The direction is tricky - Terry's solution seems as good as any, but obviously something that happend at Reigate is not exactly going to be internationally binding now is it? Well, unless the Authors and Umpires all come from that club.

Erm, hang on a minute....

[Polkovnik]

IMO they should break off and the direction is clear from the rules. The rules say the break-off move should leave the cavalry exactly one move away from the enemy BG, facing them. The rules don't mention moving to the rear, so the fact that the unit has 2 rears is irrelevant - well they do say straight back but I would interpret that as back away from the enemy BG.

If you rule that they don't break off because they are facing in two directions then they shouldn't drop a cohesion level anyway, as they don't have to break off.

[nikgaukroger]

The direction is tricky - Terry's solution seems as good as any, but obviously something that happend at Reigate is not exactly going to be internationally binding now is it?

Hardly binding down the club

[hazelbark]

Oddly just this situation cropped up down the club before the Challenge - Terry ruled for us that the BG would break off to the rear of the base that was fighting ...