Break Offs before combat

[marshalney2000]

I thought I had break offs down to a tee other than forgetting to do them regularly but something came up today that threw me.
In the melee phase I broke an enemy unit and in the subsequent pursuit my foot unit hit an enemy cavalry unit in the flank disordering it. There was obviously no combat in that turn but my opponent then declared that he could break off in the jap phase as I was not disordered. My view was that there had to be at least a combat but this was not stated in the Break off section of the rules.
Views please!!
John

[nikgaukroger]

Rules say "close combat opponents" - so if it is in close combat then a break off will happen.

So, who is going to start this round of the debate on what constitutes close combat ...

[SirGarnet]

Rules say "close combat opponents" - so if it is in close combat then a break off will happen.

So, who is going to start this round of the debate on what constitutes close combat ...

Deja vu to the recent thread ADDED LINK: viewtopic.php?t=9731 which confirmed combat is joined when pursuers hit fresh troops, hence it's close combat.

[gozerius]

However, troops hit by pursuers are treated as charged in the next Impact phase combat, so cannot break off before that is resolved.

[deadtorius]

That would have been my take on it too since break offs occur after melee, I thought that was how it worked anyway.

[nikgaukroger]

However, troops hit by pursuers are treated as charged in the next Impact phase combat, so cannot break off before that is resolved.

Is that the wording or a paraphrase? I thought the wording was something like "combat is resolved in the next impact phase" which isn't the same thing.

[SirGarnet]

However, troops hit by pursuers are treated as charged in the next Impact phase combat, so cannot break off before that is resolved.

Is that the wording or a paraphrase? I thought the wording was something like "combat is resolved in the next impact phase" which isn't the same thing.

Yes, though it uses "adjudicated" - and pursuit in the Impact Phase is of course resolved right away.

[SonofTosh]

Note the problem does not arise if the pursuers contact in the impact phase, as the impact combat is adjudicated in the same impact phase (page 108).

A pursuit after the combat phase means the fight has been going on for some time, not a break on impact. So troops in the way may have more notice of the rout and pursuit. So I can see an argument for mounted being able to break off pursuing foot.

Still it seems unfair the mounted get away without penalty.

[petedalby]

As per the sequence of play this does appear to be correct John - but it doesn't seem very satisfactory does it?

If mounted facing in 2 directions could not break off, rather than spefically fighting in 2 directions then the problem would be solved.

I wonder if the authors would like to address the facing vs fighting break off issue and kill both birds with one stone?

Pete

[SirGarnet]

As per the sequence of play this does appear to be correct John - but it doesn't seem very satisfactory does it?

If mounted facing in 2 directions could not break off, rather than spefically fighting in 2 directions then the problem would be solved.

I wonder if the authors would like to address the facing vs fighting break off issue and kill both birds with one stone?

Pete

You may recall me citing Terry's post that in fact they could not break off when facing in two directions since with 2 rears you can't move directly to your rear, but then someone cited a contrary ruling in a competition.

I think the point here on the close combat issue is that mounted on either side of a mounted/foot contact as a result of pursuit after Melee may be able to break off before an Impact is fought, with the rationale SonofTosh mentioned.

[DaiSho]

Rules say "close combat opponents" - so if it is in close combat then a break off will happen.

So, who is going to start this round of the debate on what constitutes close combat ...

I'd vote for 'they can break off'. Although I don't think it is in keeping with the concept of the cavalry breakoff manouver and it seems odd, but it is in keeping with the previous threads where close combat was defined as enemy troops in hand-to-hand combat even though no dice had been rolled.

It's only EVER going to happen in pursuit, as a flank charge that disorders enemy is going to have an Impact AND Close Combat before it gets the chance to do a JAP break-off.

Ian

[terrys]

I've raised this on the authors forum - and I'm waiting for Richard & simon to respond.

At the moment I'm thinking that they should break off - as a literal interpretation of the rules.
It all revolves around whether or not the BGs are considered to be 'in combat'
Since no combat has occured (or is possible) this move are they in combat this move or next?

[jcmedhurst]

Logically, though, the requirement to fight the combat in the next impact phase is just a game design convenience to avoid resolving combats in any old phase, so shouldn't prevent the cav getting a whopping before they break off

John

[dave_r]

I've raised this on the authors forum - and I'm waiting for Richard & simon to respond.

At the moment I'm thinking that they should break off - as a literal interpretation of the rules.
It all revolves around whether or not the BGs are considered to be 'in combat'
Since no combat has occured (or is possible) this move are they in combat this move or next?

They are in Close Combat - otherwise they could potentially evade if charged.

[shall]

We have kicked this one around a bit. Probably and FAQ as below to reflect out inent... views?

Si



Can a BG break off if it pursues into something but hasn't yet fought the impact phase yet?

No. We intended that anything hitting something in a pursuit stayed there and resolved the combat in the next impact phase. So no breaking off first - it must stay and resolve its impact in the next impact phase.

[Fulgrim]

We have kicked this one around a bit. Probably and FAQ as below to reflect out inent... views?

Si



Can a BG break off if it pursues into something but hasn't yet fought the impact phase yet?

No. We intended that anything hitting something in a pursuit stayed there and resolved the combat in the next impact phase. So no breaking off first - it must stay and resolve its impact in the next impact phase.

Just to clarify (to myself atleast) - does this mean that a fresh BG of Cv contacted by a BG of foot pursuing in the melee phase does not break off, and have to wait until the next round to be ablr to do soo? I read the above to just apply for BGs persuing, not the ones hit by a pursuit..

[hazelbark]

We have kicked this one around a bit. Probably and FAQ as below to reflect out inent... views?

Si



Can a BG break off if it pursues into something but hasn't yet fought the impact phase yet?

No. We intended that anything hitting something in a pursuit stayed there and resolved the combat in the next impact phase. So no breaking off first - it must stay and resolve its impact in the next impact phase.

Just to clarify (to myself atleast) - does this mean that a fresh BG of Cv contacted by a BG of foot pursuing in the melee phase does not break off, and have to wait until the next round to be ablr to do soo? I read the above to just apply for BGs persuing, not the ones hit by a pursuit..

I think they think it works both ways. The CV hit by someone else would not break off.

[petedalby]

Might need a bit more work Si? How about?

Can a mounted BG break off if it pursues into something but hasn't yet fought the impact phase yet?

No. A mounted BG that contacts or is contacted by an enemy steady foot BG during a pursuit move, will not Break Off at least until after the next impact phase. So no breaking off first - it must stay and resolve its impact in the next impact phase.

Pete

[TERRYFROMSPOKANE]

Since break offs only occur in the JAP, shouldn't this be "it must stay and resolve combat in the next Impact and Melee Phases"? In the normal progression of events a mounted BG must fight in both these phases before it faces the break off issue in the JAP.

Terry G.