Hi!
A question from tonight game.
We have a charging lancer fighting in melee an enemy.
The general is fighting.
The unit is doing a break off.
Since the general was front line should the charging lancer unit make a KAB test for quitting combat (sniveling little coward test) assuming that the general is quitting combat as a result of the break off ?
Thx for the confirmation.
Cheers
Rino
in my view not as it is the UG breaking off, not 'just' the general, the general is not leaving the battle on its own
This is also the way I understand it but I don't want ending up during a tournament with such question (too critical on the way using an army and too much time wasted getting the umpire around while we barely have 3h game)
An official clary would be welcomed
Thx in advance
Cheers
Snivelling coward : the general leaves the file that is in combat
If the TUG break off no test 8)
Quote from: Rino on April 13, 2019, 12:39:12 AM
This is also the way I understand it but I don't want ending up during a tournament with such question (too critical on the way using an army and too much time wasted getting the umpire around while we barely have 3h game)
An official clary would be welcomed
Thx in advance
Cheers
Think about it this way. The general is leaving the TuG to their own devices, having been fighting shoulder to shoulder with them in the front line. This action sends a shock through the TuG and a test is needed.
Quote from: badhabum on April 14, 2019, 07:48:46 PM
Snivelling coward : the general leaves the file that is in combat
If the TUG break off no test 8)
Is correct.
If the whole UG is moving he is simply following the "general may always move with an UG" rule.
Of course if you'd prefer to leave him behind ... ;)
S
S
Thanks for the clarification Simon
Quote from: badhabum on April 14, 2019, 07:48:46 PM
Snivelling coward : the general leaves the file that is in combat
If the TUG break off no test 8)
he must have a KAB !! the rules chapter 9.8 B 2.2.3.5 page 97 "if an opposing general plays a card to leave combat then you get a KAB test on the UG (whether staying with the UG or not)."
you play a card to break off, so KAB!
No - the general plays a card for the unit to break off.
Richard
Basically the KaB is for a general being a coward and leaving the unit in the lurch - breaking off they are still all in it together.
On the whole, a break off is more likely to raise a rousing cheer rather than disdain. Especiall6 if the cavalry were fighting an elephant.
Quote from: lionheartrjc on April 17, 2019, 06:03:16 PM
No - the general plays a card for the unit to break off.
Richard
so if I break off with a unit who is fighting, I Don't leave the combat??
Quote from: nikgaukroger on April 17, 2019, 06:34:25 PM
Basically the KaB is for a general being a coward and leaving the unit in the lurch - breaking off they are still all in it together.
it's not what is written in the rules page 97 but I can make a mistake when I read it.
Gilles "the elephant :)"
I think RJC has covered it in the technical way:
Quote from: lionheartrjc on April 17, 2019, 06:03:16 PM
No - the general plays a card for the unit to break off.
Richard
As opposed to playing a card for the general to leave combat which is what the KaB section talks about.
Quote from: nikgaukroger on April 17, 2019, 09:54:08 PM
I think RJC has covered it in the technical way:
Quote from: lionheartrjc on April 17, 2019, 06:03:16 PM
No - the general plays a card for the unit to break off.
Richard
As opposed to playing a card for the general to leave combat which is what the KaB section talks about.
the opposing general plays a card when the opposing general leaves the front when he break off with the TUG or not ???
why using the whether or not in this case ???
Nellie the elephant ;)
The intent certainly is that he is "leaving a combat" - which means said combat must be still exist and be left behind.
So no KaB for a break off which is not doing the above as there is no combat left behind.
I will try to improve the wording on the next version and add a clarry for now.
S
Added to clarries ...
Snivelling little coward Kab test.
Is intended for leaving troops fighting. Thus
a) A break off is not leaving a combat as the entire combat is stopped, so there is no KaB test.
b) A fighting general may move to another file within and UG by paying to move, and if then committed immediately to combat there is no KaB.
Thanks for the clarie !
Happy Easter to all!
Cheers !
Pleasure et Bon Pacques!
That would not be a break off but a break up!
To commit a general to combat when the general is positioned in the same file costs no cards.
Yet to pull a general out of combat, while remaining with the same file seems to cost a card...
Illogical in my view, and needs to be clarified in the rules
Why illogical?
Depends on direction one takes the logic from.
Extricating one self from a fight is rather harder then getting involved in one.
I see it more comparable with:
a) free to charge within 1BW
b) costs to break off
Look at it that way end entirely consistent.
S
Fair enough, can this only take place in the movement phase?
I'd assume it can take place at any time you can normally move generals.
indeed and test as it happens.