Sniveling little coward test

[Simon Meg-Meister]

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

[Simon Meg-Meister]

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.

[Rino]

Thanks for the clarie !

Happy Easter to all!

Cheers !

[Simon Meg-Meister]

Pleasure et Bon Pacques!

[Hunter]

That would not be a break off but a break up!

[jasonbroomer]

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

[Simon Meg-Meister]

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

[jasonbroomer]

Fair enough, can this only take place in the movement phase?

[nikgaukroger]

I'd assume it can take place at any time you can normally move generals.

[Simon Meg-Meister]

indeed and test as it happens.