Unusual Break-Off Situation

[babyshark]

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 something that should go in the next update of the FAQ. There were a lot of attempts at developing an answer in this thread and none of them got it.. Once you laid it out it made perfect sense, but prior to that it is not something that anybody thought of.

Marc

[peterrjohnston]

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 something that should go in the next update of the FAQ. There were a lot of attempts at developing an answer in this thread and none of them got it.. Once you laid it out it made perfect sense, but prior to that it is not something that anybody thought of.

Marc

Except I say, bollocks. In the nicest possible way

Where is this definition of having two "rears"? It was fighting to it's front and side. It has one rear.
By definition you can't have two rears. You have a front, rear, and two sides. Even the Orb formation (how
it moves bit) defines a front and rear.

And there is nothing in the break-off rules says a unit is restricted by a side-contact, nor do any of the
move reductions apply, forcing this cohesion level drop.

I say fudge and big cheese!

[philqw78]

A unit only has one rear, a lot of arses may be there.

sorry, in a strictly military and possibly wargaming sense

[peterrjohnston]

And it also doesn't "feel" like the right outcome.

[babyshark]

And it also doesn't "feel" like the right outcome.

It is admittedly a bit strange that the cav BG is in a better position while fighting in two directions than after it breaks one of its opponents.

Marc

[peterrjohnston]

And it also doesn't "feel" like the right outcome.

It is admittedly a bit strange that the cav BG is in a better position while fighting in two directions than after it breaks one of its opponents.

Marc

Exactly.

And from a feel right perspective:

There is nothing restricting a move straight "back" (whatever that direction is!) in the sense of a physical
obstruction or terrain. There is an enemy BG, but it doesn't block a move even moving parallel to the
front. (I take "block" the term used in the rules to mean physically obstruct).

It's remaining infantry close combat opponents are steady foot, one of the preconditions for break-off,
although it's front rank bases - well, the infantry front rank bases are in contact, it doesn't specify which
in the rules.

[nikgaukroger]

There is nothing restricting a move straight "back" (whatever that direction is!)

Yes there is, this whole thread shows there is as you are incapable of defining straight back in this situation.

Personally I like Terry's solution.

[terrys]

Where is this definition of having two "rears"? It was fighting to it's front and side. It has one rear. By definition you can't have two rears. You have a front, rear, and two sides. Even the Orb formation (how it moves bit) defines a front and rear.

What do you mean 'by definition'? - whose definition?

Here is a quote from the rules:
"If the enemy battle group is facing in more than one direction, it has more than one front edge"

To use your terms - If a unit has more than one 'front' edge, then 'by definition' it has more than one 'rear' edge.

The point of the argument is that if you can't define the 'rear' of a unit, then 'by definition' it can't move to it's (non-defineable) rear.

[peterrjohnston]

Where is this definition of having two "rears"? It was fighting to it's front and side. It has one rear. By definition you can't have two rears. You have a front, rear, and two sides. Even the Orb formation (how it moves bit) defines a front and rear.

What do you mean 'by definition'? - whose definition?

Here is a quote from the rules:
"If the enemy battle group is facing in more than one direction, it has more than one front edge"

Except you failed to complete the sentence, it ends with "for this purpose." The purpose being specifically to
determine the front edge for a flank or rear charge, ie not applicable in other situations.

To use your terms - If a unit has more than one 'front' edge, then 'by definition' it has more than one 'rear' edge.

Your terms, not mine, to be clear...

The point of the argument is that if you can't define the 'rear' of a unit, then 'by definition' it can't move to it's (non-defineable) rear.

Again, I say it has a front, it has a rear, and two flanks!


[To knock any discussion on reforming in a break-off, as I understand it nothing in the break-off rules says you must start
in an aligned formation to be able to break-off, just that you must end "...in a permitted formation of the same frontage as
before". This doesn't preclude a reorganisation of the BG formation, just the frontage must remain the same. Indeed, if
mounted had stepped forward on contact then break-off, they would have to reform their formation so all bases were
in edge and corner contact.]


Anyway, as you want to rule it this way, I agree with Marc, it should be bumped into the FAQ as it's not an obvious outcome,
as this discussion has shown. Although I suspect it's not a very frequent outcome, they were fortunate to break their frontal(? )
opponents in the last round of combat. Next time I'll pray for bad dice, they'd have been better off...

[terrys]

"If the enemy battle group is facing in more than one direction, it has more than one front edge"

Except you failed to complete the sentence, it ends with "for this purpose." The purpose being specifically to determine the front edge for a flank or rear charge, ie not applicable in other situations.

I was using the quote to indicate a precedence in the rules that a BG can have more than one front edge, as opposed to the strict one front, one rear, 2 sides that you prefer.
I'd find it difficult to argue that a BG has 2 front edges in one situation (i.e. the impact phase) but a single front later in the move - even though it is in exactly the same formation.

As rogerg says - the rule would be clearer if fighting was replaced by facing - but we can only go with what's printed.

[peterrjohnston]

I was using the quote to indicate a precedence in the rules that a BG can have more than one front edge, as opposed to the strict one front, one rear, 2 sides that you prefer.
I'd find it difficult to argue that a BG has 2 front edges in one situation (i.e. the impact phase) but a single front later in the move - even though it is in exactly the same formation.

Incidentally, would this also apply in other situations? I can think of two offhand. First, a group of non-shock
cavalry with the end base turned as a result of previous combat, but no longer in combat. It's charged
before reforming. Presumably it can't evade to it's rear as this is not definable. So it can only evade
away from the charge?

And second, does a turned base (now counting as a "front" edge), prevent a threatened flank counting?

As rogerg says - the rule would be clearer if fighting was replaced by facing - but we can only go with what's printed.

Nothing to stop corrections being introduced, surely?

[terrys]

And second, does a turned base (now counting as a "front" edge), prevent a threatened flank counting?

Yes. There has to be a BG of enemy non-skirmishers capable of charging the flank.
In theory you could leave your BG facing in 2 directions for the rest of the game - as long as you don't want to move it.

[peterrjohnston]

And the evade?

[terrys]

And the evade?

The only legal direction would be away from the chargers.

[peterrjohnston]

I thought so, but just to check.


I find these discussions useful; I certainly learn a lot more about the rules than I normally would.

[babyshark]

I renew my call for this to go into the next edition of the FAQ. It is clearly an important clarification, and--just as clearly--is not obvious to all FoG players at first glance.

Marc

[petedalby]

The authors will make their own minds up - but it's a pretty infrequent incident to warrant inclusion in the FAQ's?

Pete

[peterrjohnston]

Perhaps the specific example, which I though unusual, but not impossible (especially strong mounted with a flank
attack by weak foot).

I think it's the principle of not having a defined singular front/rear that matters though, which the discussion
brought out.

[lawrenceg]

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.

Does this mean a BG facing in two directions cannot claim rear support for a cohesion test?

I suspect that mounted BGs fighting in two directions would quite often be

[lawrenceg]

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.

Does this mean a BG facing in two directions cannot claim rear support for a cohesion test?