Break Offs before combat

This forum is for any questions about the rules. Post here is you need feedback from the design team.

Moderators: hammy, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Moderators, Field of Glory Design, hammy, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Moderators, Field of Glory Design

Post Reply
marshalney2000
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1175
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 10:14 am

Break Offs before combat

Post by marshalney2000 » Wed Apr 15, 2009 6:27 pm

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
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Post by nikgaukroger » Wed Apr 15, 2009 6:57 pm

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 ... :?:
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk

SirGarnet
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2186
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2008 10:13 am

Post by SirGarnet » Wed Apr 15, 2009 7:37 pm

nikgaukroger wrote: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.
Last edited by SirGarnet on Thu Apr 16, 2009 3:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

gozerius
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1117
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 12:32 am

Post by gozerius » Thu Apr 16, 2009 2:29 am

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

deadtorius
General - Elite King Tiger
General - Elite King Tiger
Posts: 4176
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 12:41 am

Post by deadtorius » Thu Apr 16, 2009 2:34 am

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

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Post by nikgaukroger » Thu Apr 16, 2009 9:10 am

gozerius wrote: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.
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk

SirGarnet
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2186
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2008 10:13 am

Post by SirGarnet » Thu Apr 16, 2009 10:20 am

nikgaukroger wrote:
gozerius wrote: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
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Wirral

Post by SonofTosh » Thu Apr 16, 2009 10:41 am

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
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3040
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:23 pm
Location: Fareham, UK

Post by petedalby » Thu Apr 16, 2009 11:43 am

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
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2186
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2008 10:13 am

Post by SirGarnet » Thu Apr 16, 2009 5:33 pm

petedalby wrote: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
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
Posts: 792
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 10:02 am
Location: Australia

Post by DaiSho » Thu Apr 16, 2009 7:12 pm

nikgaukroger wrote: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
Viking (15mm)
Syracusan (15mm)
Palmyran (10mm - 15mm basing)
Horse Nomad (15mm)

terrys
Panzer Corps Team
Panzer Corps Team
Posts: 4189
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 11:53 am

Post by terrys » Fri Apr 17, 2009 10:22 am

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
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 64
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2008 10:20 pm

Post by jcmedhurst » Fri Apr 17, 2009 10:24 am

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
General - King Tiger
General - King Tiger
Posts: 3792
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 3:58 pm

Post by dave_r » Fri Apr 17, 2009 10:31 am

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
Field of Glory Team
Field of Glory Team
Posts: 6137
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 9:52 am

Post by shall » Thu May 14, 2009 7:17 am

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.
Simon Hall
"May your dice roll 6s (unless ye be poor)"

Fulgrim
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 119
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2008 6:06 pm

Post by Fulgrim » Thu May 14, 2009 7:36 am

shall wrote: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
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4957
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: Capital of the World !!

Post by hazelbark » Thu May 14, 2009 5:11 pm

Fulgrim wrote:
shall wrote: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
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3040
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:23 pm
Location: Fareham, UK

Post by petedalby » Thu May 14, 2009 6:07 pm

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
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 212
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 2:44 pm

Post by TERRYFROMSPOKANE » Fri May 15, 2009 12:29 am

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.

Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions”