Re: Version 3 Errata
Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 9:26 pm
Super - thanks Terry - I'm only up to page 21 - haven't got as far as 97 yet!
V2 and V3 are the same for this.Had an interesting situation come up in a game at Plymouth. Admittedly this was a v2 game, but I believe it is the same as in v3.
A unit broke and some foot pursued which meant they charged another BG of Cavalry in the melee phase. The foot were steady and therefore the Cavalry broke off in the Joint Action Phase without having fought either an impact or melee.
Just confirming that is the intention.
Thanks Terry - I had seen this before, but these foot plodders aren't used to Cavalry armies and it caused some consternation at the time. Probably one for the FAQ's or Umpire Clarifications.terrys wrote:V2 and V3 are the same for this.
I agree with you that you made the correct move. (I doubt if this was the intention though).
Had it been the cavalry that pursued into infantry they wouldn't break off.
It's a bit of an anomaly, but not worth amending at this stage.
It could benefit either side depending on the situation.
I don't think that's what the rules are (no matter what the intention).dave_r wrote:Had an interesting situation come up in a game at Plymouth. Admittedly this was a v2 game, but I believe it is the same as in v3.
A unit broke and some foot pursued which meant they charged another BG of Cavalry in the melee phase. The foot were steady and therefore the Cavalry broke off in the Joint Action Phase without having fought either an impact or melee.
Just confirming that is the intention.
Page 132 defines close combat:grahambriggs wrote:I don't think that's what the rules are (no matter what the intention).dave_r wrote:Had an interesting situation come up in a game at Plymouth. Admittedly this was a v2 game, but I believe it is the same as in v3.
A unit broke and some foot pursued which meant they charged another BG of Cavalry in the melee phase. The foot were steady and therefore the Cavalry broke off in the Joint Action Phase without having fought either an impact or melee.
Just confirming that is the intention.
P106. Mounted troops break off if at least half their close combat opponents are steady foot.
They are steady foot, but are they close combat opponents? I would say not:
P109. If pursuers contact...this is treated as a charge... Combat is adjudicated in the next impact phase.
This implies there is no Combat until the impact phase, and so they don't have close combat opponents yet. So when exactly does close combat start?
P88 tells us two things:
P88 'close combat' is a general term for impact and melee combat.
so are they in impact combat then?
P88 gives the sequence for combat, which starts with: "The non-active player declares which of his commanders is fighting in combat".
P162 full turn sequence makes it clear that making charge moves is the step before Commit Commanders to combat.
So I think the way it works is:
Pursuers charge into the mounted.
Mounted do not break off because they do not yet have any close combat opponents.
An impact combat is fought next bound.
I disagree. You only break off from close combat opponents. And they are not close combat opponents.dave_r wrote:Page 132 defines close combat:grahambriggs wrote:I don't think that's what the rules are (no matter what the intention).dave_r wrote:Had an interesting situation come up in a game at Plymouth. Admittedly this was a v2 game, but I believe it is the same as in v3.
A unit broke and some foot pursued which meant they charged another BG of Cavalry in the melee phase. The foot were steady and therefore the Cavalry broke off in the Joint Action Phase without having fought either an impact or melee.
Just confirming that is the intention.
P106. Mounted troops break off if at least half their close combat opponents are steady foot.
They are steady foot, but are they close combat opponents? I would say not:
P109. If pursuers contact...this is treated as a charge... Combat is adjudicated in the next impact phase.
This implies there is no Combat until the impact phase, and so they don't have close combat opponents yet. So when exactly does close combat start?
P88 tells us two things:
P88 'close combat' is a general term for impact and melee combat.
so are they in impact combat then?
P88 gives the sequence for combat, which starts with: "The non-active player declares which of his commanders is fighting in combat".
P162 full turn sequence makes it clear that making charge moves is the step before Commit Commanders to combat.
So I think the way it works is:
Pursuers charge into the mounted.
Mounted do not break off because they do not yet have any close combat opponents.
An impact combat is fought next bound.
"'Close Combat' is a general term for impact and melee combat. Once such a combat has been joined, battle groups are deemed to be in close combat until one side breaks off, breaks and routs, or is destroyed (or a battlegroup fighting only as an overlap moves away)."
Page 106 also gives some examples of when a battle group does not break off, namely:
- Elephants
- Any battle group with bases facing in more than one direction
- Any battle gropu which pursued into contact with fresh enemy but has not yet fought any combat with them
Therefore as a break off can be deemed to end close combat and it is not one of the specific examples then they must break off.
Any evidence to back up this opinion?grahambriggs wrote:I disagree. You only break off from close combat opponents. And they are not close combat opponents.
It's not an opinion. See my post above. You break off only from close combat opponents. So to be able to break off, you must have a close combat opponent. Being in close combat is defined in the close mechanism section. In there it says:dave_r wrote:Any evidence to back up this opinion?grahambriggs wrote:I disagree. You only break off from close combat opponents. And they are not close combat opponents.
Page 84 states:grahambriggs wrote:It's not an opinion. See my post above. You break off only from close combat opponents. So to be able to break off, you must have a close combat opponent. Being in close combat is defined in the close mechanism section. In there it says:dave_r wrote:Any evidence to back up this opinion?grahambriggs wrote:I disagree. You only break off from close combat opponents. And they are not close combat opponents.
"Combat between unbroken battle groups...uses the same combat mechanism. This always has the following sequence:" And then you are given the sequence which is essentially decide whether to commit commanders, work out dice and hits, death rolls, cohesion tests, etc. The one thing that is not in that sequence is charging. So to be in close combat you need to get further into the sequence than charging. And without that you don't break off.
If the breaking off rules didn't include the words "their close combat opponents" I'd agree with you. But they do. They have no close combat opponents yet, so they don't break off.
It's a good point and what ultimately swayed the original discussion.MLB wrote:Page 106 also gives some examples of when a battle group does not break off, namely:
- Elephants
- Any battle group with bases facing in more than one direction
- Any battle gropu which pursued into contact with fresh enemy but has not yet fought any combat with them
Surely if pursuers who contact fresh enemy have not fought any combat until the impact phase, then a unit contacted by pursuers will also have not fought any combat until that time. If they have not fought they cannot break off. If a unit is deemed to be in combat from the moment of contact then the last bullet point above is completely superfluous.
Fight an impact next bound.dave_r wrote:It's a good point and what ultimately swayed the original discussion.MLB wrote:Page 106 also gives some examples of when a battle group does not break off, namely:
- Elephants
- Any battle group with bases facing in more than one direction
- Any battle gropu which pursued into contact with fresh enemy but has not yet fought any combat with them
Surely if pursuers who contact fresh enemy have not fought any combat until the impact phase, then a unit contacted by pursuers will also have not fought any combat until that time. If they have not fought they cannot break off. If a unit is deemed to be in combat from the moment of contact then the last bullet point above is completely superfluous.
Although I suspect we will never get full agreement.
So what _should_ happen?
Another good point - so what you are saying is that the BG should break off.terrys wrote:While I can see Graham's point of view - it would change how we treat generals who fought with a BG that is now pursuing the enemy.
Assuming the pursuit into contact was made during the melee phase (and not the JAP) - Since, according to Graham, they are now not in combat - then they should be able to leave the BG during the JAP phase.
We currently don't allow them to leave the BG until it is no longer in contact with the enemy - although I think the wording in the rules is 'in combat'.
My 'opinion' is that they should break off.Another good point - so what you are saying is that the BG should break off.
He's stuck with the BG until it is "no longer in close combat and no longer in contact with enemy routers". So, if it's a melee phase pursuit and the routers run fast then as currently written, he can move away in the JAP. You could resolve that by just deleting the "routers" at the end of that sentence.terrys wrote:My 'opinion' is that they should break off.Another good point - so what you are saying is that the BG should break off.
I'm surprised that this has only come up now. The rule has been the same since V1.
Which means one of 2 things:
1) It's extremely rare
2) When it has occurred players have agreed on what they 'assumed' was the correct interpretation. (whatever that was !).
I quite agree. It's worth hearing all the arguments for either side though.It really depends what, as author, you want to happen in such circumstances and then make a change to fit that.