Running from Multiple Opponents

[petedalby]

In Case 5, X and A both have to break and one of them has to rout before the close combat between them is done. Therefore, it does matter which side routs first. If A routs first, X will rout directly away from B. If X routs first, it will bisect the angle between A and B.

I'm sorry but I think you continue to be mistaken. You are quoting the correct page but since both opposing BGs are routing, neither can be in close combat. The order in which you move them is immaterial. Check out the sequence of play on page 179. Hope that helps.

[bbotus]

In Case 5, X and A both have to break and one of them has to rout before the close combat between them is done. Therefore, it does matter which side routs first. If A routs first, X will rout directly away from B. If X routs first, it will bisect the angle between A and B.

I'm sorry but I think you continue to be mistaken. You are quoting the correct page but since both opposing BGs are routing, neither can be in close combat. The order in which you move them is immaterial. Check out the sequence of play on page 179. Hope that helps.

How so? In case 5 both X and A have lost the melee. They both test and break. The definition of close combat says it continues until one side breaks and routs. The intial rout moves come after the CT tests. As soon as one of the BGs (either A or X) routs away, the combat between them is over. So X is either facing A and B or just B depending on which side routs first. What am I missing?

[petedalby]

What am I missing?

Well according to page 142, X is only in close combat with B - since A is in rout. So X routs away from B.

As soon as one of the BGs (either A or X) routs away, the combat between them is over.

I guess that's where we differ. I read it that as soon as a unit is broken, it ceases to be in close combat. Whereas you seem to need the routers to move away before you view the combat as over.

Look at Page 179 again. The Melee Phase has 5 steps. Both BGs become broken at step 2. That ends their close combat according to page 142. The initial rout move doesn't occur until step 5.

[grahambriggs]

Initial Rout on pages 106-107 says to rout directly away from the enemy charging, shooting at or in close combat with it. If there is more than one such enemy, bisect the angle between them. In case 5, X engaged in close combat with A and B. So it would rout away bisecting the angle. X tested for taking more hits than it inflicted on both A and B. The book says it is routing from those it fought in close combat. It does not say to rout away from pursuers. What if B had also contacted another enemy BG still in good order and so B could not pursue?

P.S. I think I'm changing my mind about routing based on who is in contact at the moment you rout. Therefore, in cases 1-5, X would rout bisecting the angle between A and B.

No. In case 5, A is no longer in close combat with X the moment that A breaks. And that is an earlier step on the full turn sequence. Hence. by the time it comes to routing, X will rout directly away from B.

Not quite. The definition of Close Combat on page 142 says that, once joined, BGs are deemed to be in close combat until one side breaks off, breaks and routs, or is destroyed.

In Case 5, X and A both have to break and one of them has to rout before the close combat between them is done. Therefore, it does matter which side routs first. If A routs first, X will rout directly away from B. If X routs first, it will bisect the angle between A and B.

I see what you mean, that just breaking doesn't end the close combat, someone needs to rout as well. But routs are simultaneous (or at least I'm unaware of anything that says they are not). So they both rout simultaneously. Hence that's the way I would play it.

[bbotus]

So they both rout simultaneously. Hence that's the way I would play it.

I go with the sentence on page 178 that says, "The active player chooses which side goes first within a step if it matters but is not specified otherwise in the rules." There is a similar sentence on page 114 of the JAP section.

I guess that's where we differ. I read it that as soon as a unit is broken, it ceases to be in close combat. Whereas you seem to need the routers to move away before you view the combat as over.

Look at Page 179 again. The Melee Phase has 5 steps. Both BGs become broken at step 2. That ends their close combat according to page 142. The initial rout move doesn't occur until step 5.

Looks like we are reading the page 142 definition of close combat differently. I read it that combat still exists until one or both units break(s) (step 2, Melee Phase, page 179) and rout(s) (step 5). The definition specifically says "and" so both things need to occur.

[petedalby]

No worries - let's agree to disagree.

I'm sure I mentioned earlier that in 5+ years of playing this game I've never seen this scenario.

[bbotus]

I also doubt it will ever come up. I love these discussions. A lot of times I've read something wrong and this forum makes me dig through the rules over and over. Helps me a lot.

[zoltan]

I turn the BG 90 or 180, wheel to 45 degrees then move (forwards). Just much like an evade move where the evader has to turn.

I tend to do it a little differently. Say I have to rout 4MU and my BG was in 2 ranks with one base turned to flank. I put a 4MU stick down at 45 degrees with one end touching the enemy BGs to show me where the back of my BG will be. Then I move all the bases such that the one that was turned to flank is touching the other end of the stick, and assemble the other bases in a sensible position, with the BG two bases deep. The I ask my opponent if that looks OK to them.

I suspect it ends up about the same.

OK, so you use the base by base approach (unlike Phil and others who use the BG formation approach). You move one 'marker' base and then form the rest of the bases up on the marker as best you can to meet the requirements of a legal formation, drop backs, slides etc.

[petedalby]

as best you can to meet the requirements of a legal formation

Don't have my rules to hand but as this is a compulsory move I don't think you have to maintain a legal formation?

[acl]

Thanks everyone who has contributed to this. The only debate has been about case 5. I included this for completeness but, as has been pointed out, it is a rarity.

Does everyone who has contributed to this (or glanced over it) agree with the early posters in saying that in cases 1 to 4 the routers bisect the angle?

Alan

[grahambriggs]

as best you can to meet the requirements of a legal formation

Don't have my rules to hand but as this is a compulsory move I don't think you have to maintain a legal formation?

Well. you could read it that you shove the entire BG at 45 degrees without any wheeling.

[petedalby]

Does everyone who has contributed to this (or glanced over it) agree with the early posters in saying that in cases 1 to 4 the routers bisect the angle?

The deafening silence is usually a good indicator of agreement. People aren't slow to disagree. Whereas there is little mileage in queuing up to agree.

[bbotus]

as best you can to meet the requirements of a legal formation

Don't have my rules to hand but as this is a compulsory move I don't think you have to maintain a legal formation?

And I think you are correct. Page 23, #2 says that BGs fighting in 2 directions will have bases facing in different directions until it reforms. And reforms happen in the Manoeuvre Phase. On page 77, 1st diamond, says BGs must reform to make any voluntary move. Nothing about involuntary moves.

If you have to make a wheel to bisect the angle, I wouldn't care as long as the base in contact that wheels the farthest doesn't get farther away from the enemy than the total move and the base on the pivot moves the total distance less the distance of the wheel. I just take a stick starting on the point of pivot, angle the stick to 45 degrees, measure, and then move the stick the necessary distance to complete the rout move and then move the BG to the stick. Quick and easy and works well when BGs are not in formation.

We use sticks with alternating colors every 40mm. Easier than trying to wheel 4x2 or 6x2 BGs.

[bbotus]

Case 1. X has already been fragmented before B charges its flank. It fails its morale test for being charged while fragmented.

Case 2. X has already been fragmented before B charges its flank. It passes its morale test for being charged while fragmented, but then automatically breaks when it drops a morale level for being charged in the flank (unit B aren't light troops).

Hmmm. I just noticed something. Cases 1 and 2 (for Version 2) are not stated correctly. Cases 1 and 2 should be combined into one case. Page 65 says fragmented BGs being charged in the flank/rear by troops that would cause them to drop a cohesion level on contact break immediately without testing or waiting to be contacted. Makes sense.