Break Off? (Challenge 1)

[SirGarnet]

. . . . in a formation of the same frontage, which is presumably a one-wide column?

[nikgaukroger]

That was what Terry "Herr Schipmann" Shaw thought was what should happen.

[philqw78]

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 ...

Terry had slept between then and the competition.

[nikgaukroger]

Who with

[philqw78]

ROTFLMAO

[sagji]

Key points
1) The exclusion for fighting in 2 directions doesn't apply so the mounted break off.
2) None of the reductions in distance apply, so they don't loose a cohesion level, and they end a normal move away in facing the enemy in a permitted formation.

While back doesn't have a well defined meaning for the BG at the start of the move, if you do the formation change before the move it does.

Alternatively move each base back, and then reform into a permitted formation facing the oposition broken off from. This has a similar effect to the previous version.

The rules say that it moves straight back, but also defines where it ends. So long as the BG ends up where it says it should it could be considered that the BG has moved straight back.

[SirGarnet]

Don't forget same frontage. The only frontage fighting is one base so the only permitted formation will be a column facing and ready to charge the base now still in contact. No wiggle room there.

The opportunism would be for the enemy setting up flank/rear charges or blocking positions, or getting friendly troops to the right of this BG out of the way.

[grahambriggs]

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

Perhaps this is where the umpire says "did you read the rules before calling me?"

Fighting in two directions is defined in the glossary and does not apply here. They break off.

"Ends the break off move separated from its oppnent by a full normal move". So, five MUs to the right.

", facing them, in a permitted formation of the same frontage as before". So, pointing towards the flank guys, in a normal formation. 'same frontage as before' might give some wiggle room as it raises the question "before what, exactly?". but I think most would say "before teh break off" and count the frontage that was actually fighting the flankers, so a one base wide column.

[pbrandon]

FWIW (which is very little I know), I ruled as, and essentially for the reasons, Graham has set out above; well without the first sentence anyway.

Paul