Fighting in Multiple Directions

[Francis Small]

Just came back from Kubla Con. I had great fun, and ended up with a string of dice rolls that was so hot it started a minor brush fire.

As always, it generated a string of rules questions, one which is: what constitutes fighting in multiple directions? This affects if you can break off or not, and if when you rout you are simply picked up, granting the opponent the choice of pursuing or not. The relevant rules look to be on p. 150 (K 1.5) and p. 167 (C 4), and both refer to "fighting in two or more of front, flank and rear".

One proposal put for was that if you are hit in the flank (and combat qualifies for the flank bonus) and you do not turn to face, then you are eligible to break-off since all your files are facing the same direction. I believe this to not be true and that you are fighting multiple directions (front and flank) even though you did not turn to face because you have one enemy fighting you frontally and another enemy fighting on your flank - it doesn't matter that all of your files are facing the same direction.

In contrast, UG A in the following diagram is not fighting in multiple directions even though its two files are turned 90 degrees to each other. Even if A was hit in the flank, because it turned file #A2 to face UG C it is now only fighting frontally and therefore is eligible to breakoff in this position - forming on either file A1 or A2, moving directly to its rear and sliding past the front of one or the other UGs fighting it.



I'd be interested in comments on this. It seems to be consistent with the rules as written, although it feels a bit dodgy.

[nikgaukroger]

In respect of whether you can break off what prevents a break off is whether the UG is fighting in two or more of "front, flank or rear" per 150 K 1.5, and a base can fight in a direction other than the one it is facing. However, a break off move is "Directly backwards" per the QRS and if bases are facing in different directions I do not believe you can define a single "directly backwards" and so cannot break off even if bases are all fighting to their front - from discussion I understand this to be the author's intention in such cases (but could be corrected) and the UG hoping to break off does not have a choice of which rear to break off to. A short clarry may be useful on this.

For removing an UG rather than it routing Page 165 B 2 says that an UG with enemy in contact with two or more of front, flank and rear does not rout but is removed.

In respect of page 165 I believe the intention is that a rout does not happen if there are enemy fighting against two of front/flank/rear as it is not the intention that, say, a supporting file in edge to edge contact with the flank of an UG prevents a rout move which Page 165 appears to say. A clarry may be needed here.

In your diagram UG A only has enemy fighting it to the front of the bases as you say and thus, the logic is that it will make a rout move. However, this leads to some decisions on the direction of the rout and Page 166 B 4.2 and 4.2.1 will apply.

Page 167 C 4 is about Pursuit moves and is worded slightly differently as it talks about opponents who were fighting in 2 or more of front/flank/rear. Whether they were fighting depends on whether they were rolling dice in that direction. A base could have enemy fighting against its flank, for example, but not actually fighting itself in that direction as it was fighting to its front.  I suspect that the intention is that this section should apply when an enemy a unit was fighting to its front is destroyed per 165 B 2 as I describe above and that the wording is a tad wonky. Again may need a clarry.

[Francis Small]

In respect of whether you can break off what prevents a break off is whether the UG is fighting in two or more of "front, flank or rear" per 150 K 1.5, and a base can fight in a direction other than the one it is facing. However, a break off move is "Directly backwards" per the QRS and if bases are facing in different directions I do not believe you can define a single "directly backwards" and so cannot break off even if bases are all fighting to their front - from discussion I understand this to be the author's intention in such cases (but could be corrected) and the UG hoping to break off does not have a choice of which rear to break off to. A short clarry may be useful on this.

My thought was that the unit breaking off must immediately reform into legal formation, and after reforming it will be clear in which direction the breakoff must go.

In the case where all files of a unit a facing in the same direction, it sounds like you can break off even if there is fighting on your flank - as long the unit breaking off only rolled combat dice for fights to its front.

[nikgaukroger]

In respect of whether you can break off what prevents a break off is whether the UG is fighting in two or more of "front, flank or rear" per 150 K 1.5, and a base can fight in a direction other than the one it is facing. However, a break off move is "Directly backwards" per the QRS and if bases are facing in different directions I do not believe you can define a single "directly backwards" and so cannot break off even if bases are all fighting to their front - from discussion I understand this to be the author's intention in such cases (but could be corrected) and the UG hoping to break off does not have a choice of which rear to break off to. A short clarry may be useful on this.

My thought was that the unit breaking off must immediately reform into legal formation, and after reforming it will be clear in which direction the breakoff must go.

The rules do not say that.

In the case where all files of a unit a facing in the same direction, it sounds like you can break off even if there is fighting on your flank - as long the unit breaking off only rolled combat dice for fights to its front.

This is correct.

[accard]

If a UG contacted to its flank can break off as long as it doesn't turn to flank, what happens if it is still in contact with the flanking unit after the break off?

I also would have thought that under page 150 1.5 "UGs fighting in two or more of front , flank etc" would have prevented a break off, as in para 1.2 it says "so a player with a base fighting in two directions must choose the direction in which they want to roll their dice" suggesting that even though rolling to the front it is fighting in both directions.

[nikgaukroger]

If a UG contacted to its flank can break off as long as it doesn't turn to flank, what happens if it is still in contact with the flanking unit after the break off?

If you are still in contact you haven't broken off 

I also would have thought that under page 150 1.5 "UGs fighting in two or more of front , flank etc" would have prevented a break off, as in para 1.2 it says "so a player with a base fighting in two directions must choose the direction in which they want to roll their dice" suggesting that even though rolling to the front it is fighting in both directions.

As "fighting" is defined as rolling combat dice, if you roll them in one direction you cannot be rolling them in another and so only fighting in one direction.

[accard]

p150 para 1.2 may need amending then.

[accard]

Perhaps interestingly, I went back to a previous version of the rules - clarifications issued 15-11-19

There it specified any UG with bases turned to flank or rear cannot break off.

So at that stage, in the diagram shown in the original post - the UG 'A' could not break off.

Hopefully that shows the authors intention at that stage in time.

[AntiokosIII]

p150 para 1.2 may need amending then.

Amen to that. As long as you refuse to roll melee dice against the flankers you can beak off? This is counter intuitive and seems destined to spawn manipulation.