| Auteur |
Message |
Andy Fyfe
Vétéran
Inscrit le: 14 Fév 2024
Messages: 152
|
 Posté le: Lun Jan 19, 2026 1:58 pm Sujet du message: Disengage and Multiple Attacks |
 |
Hi Guys,
I have seen this manoeuvre a few times and just wanted to check that it is allowed.
Example:
A heavy cavalry unit is in frontal melee with a heavy spear.
Another heavy cavalry unit contacts the heavy spear in the flank in a position of melee support.
The original heavy cavalry unit in the front disengages and moves back 2 UD.
1. Does the heavy spear experience a multiple attack and take a cohesion loss?
2. Is the melee now fought with the flanking cavalry as the primary unit?
Andy |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
MarkK
Auxiliaire
Inscrit le: 07 Nov 2024
Messages: 72
|
| Posté le: Lun Jan 19, 2026 2:32 pm Sujet du message: |
|
| It would take a cohesion hit from the initial hit, I would assume it would turn and face the HC still in contact to it's flank. |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
SteveR
Centurion
Inscrit le: 21 Mar 2018
Messages: 405
|
| Posté le: Lun Jan 19, 2026 2:35 pm Sujet du message: |
|
| This is pretty common - the answer is yes and yes |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Three
Prétorien
Inscrit le: 20 Déc 2017
Messages: 225
|
| Posté le: Lun Jan 19, 2026 2:58 pm Sujet du message: |
|
That's how I was used to playing it, but it came up in a game yesterday and both Andy and I independently had doubts and a shared recollection of this being discussed fairly recently where the decision was that it didn't cause the hit for multiple combats.
We couldn't find it then and I can't find it now, but I doubt we'd have the same recollection unless it had been a topic of conversation.
Any help appreciated. |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
madaxeman
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 01 Nov 2014
Messages: 1725
Localisation: Londres Centraal.
|
| Posté le: Lun Jan 19, 2026 6:55 pm Sujet du message: |
|
| Three a écrit: | That's how I was used to playing it, but it came up in a game yesterday and both Andy and I independently had doubts and a shared recollection of this being discussed fairly recently where the decision was that it didn't cause the hit for multiple combats.
We couldn't find it then and I can't find it now, but I doubt we'd have the same recollection unless it had been a topic of conversation.
Any help appreciated. |
First bullet, p61. The use of the word "immediately" in this bullet makes it rather hard to argue against the cohesion loss being taken, erm, immediately.
Third bullet p61 also supports this reading by saying the attack can take place during a "charge".
Fourth and Fifth bullets on p61 further support this same reading, by referring to this happening during a "phase"
The sixth bullet also supports this reading by making it clear that the cohesion loss occurs before the melee phase, ie "immediately" the contact occurs.
I'm not sure what conversations you both may have had in the privacy of your own homes that might have skipped over these 5 bullet points in the section headed "Multiple Attacks", but even so, I really don't see any wiggle room at all for debate on this one.
_________________
www.madaxeman.com |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Zoltan
Légat
Inscrit le: 18 Jan 2015
Messages: 538
Localisation: Wellington, New Zealand
|
| Posté le: Lun Jan 19, 2026 9:14 pm Sujet du message: |
|
| MarkK a écrit: | | It would take a cohesion hit from the initial hit, I would assume it would turn and face the HC still in contact to it's flank. |
Yes and no. The spear do not turn (it's the cav's phase) and are now the victims of a flank attack by the second cav unit.
I guess there's a question about whether this is treated as a continuing melee (no charge factors for the cav) or a fresh charge (cav has full rights).
At the first point of contact by the flanking cav, they have not charged the spear's flank - they have simply moved into a melee support position. But after the frontal cav has disengaged, the flanking cav are now the primary cav unit in the melee. |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Andy Fyfe
Vétéran
Inscrit le: 14 Fév 2024
Messages: 152
|
| Posté le: Lun Jan 19, 2026 10:26 pm Sujet du message: |
|
All understood. I can't see why we thought otherwise.
Follow on questions:
1. You can disengage from melee or melee support and it can be a group move. What happens to units in simple support?
- Can they disengage along with the unit(s) which were in melee / melee support?
2. If you disengage from melee and leave a unit in simple support does that unit then conform to the unit you disengaged from?
- Does it have to conform?
Thank you |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
madaxeman
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 01 Nov 2014
Messages: 1725
Localisation: Londres Centraal.
|
| Posté le: Mar Jan 20, 2026 1:05 am Sujet du message: |
|
| Andy Fyfe a écrit: | All understood. I can't see why we thought otherwise.
Follow on questions:
1. You can disengage from melee or melee support and it can be a group move. What happens to units in simple support?
- Can they disengage along with the unit(s) which were in melee / melee support?
2. If you disengage from melee and leave a unit in simple support does that unit then conform to the unit you disengaged from?
- Does it have to conform?
Thank you |
Units in simple support can always move awayÂ
The criteria for when units who are in contact with an enemy but are not in combat are required to conform are set out clearly in the section of the rules that specifically addresses this exact scenarioÂ
_________________
www.madaxeman.com |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Andy Fyfe
Vétéran
Inscrit le: 14 Fév 2024
Messages: 152
|
| Posté le: Mar Jan 20, 2026 7:47 am Sujet du message: |
|
| madaxeman a écrit: | | Andy Fyfe a écrit: | All understood. I can't see why we thought otherwise.
Follow on questions:
1. You can disengage from melee or melee support and it can be a group move. What happens to units in simple support?
- Can they disengage along with the unit(s) which were in melee / melee support?
2. If you disengage from melee and leave a unit in simple support does that unit then conform to the unit you disengaged from?
- Does it have to conform?
Thank you |
Units in simple support can always move awayÂ
The criteria for when units who are in contact with an enemy but are not in combat are required to conform are set out clearly in the section of the rules that specifically addresses this exact scenario |
So just to be totally clear:
1. Units in simple support can disengage with the disengaging units as a group move?
2. Units left behind who were in support conform to the unit which was disengaged from as long as the usual restrictions with MTE and ZoCs are obeyed?
Andy |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
MarkK
Auxiliaire
Inscrit le: 07 Nov 2024
Messages: 72
|
| Posté le: Mar Jan 20, 2026 9:31 am Sujet du message: |
|
| Zoltan a écrit: | | MarkK a écrit: | | It would take a cohesion hit from the initial hit, I would assume it would turn and face the HC still in contact to it's flank. |
Yes and no. The spear do not turn (it's the cav's phase) and are now the victims of a flank attack by the second cav unit.
I guess there's a question about whether this is treated as a continuing melee (no charge factors for the cav) or a fresh charge (cav has full rights).
At the first point of contact by the flanking cav, they have not charged the spear's flank - they have simply moved into a melee support position. But after the frontal cav has disengaged, the flanking cav are now the primary cav unit in the melee. |
I read it as Spear was hit on front and flank by cav. Cav on front broke off so it must be the spear's turn next at which point it would turn and face the threat on its flank non? |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Zoltan
Légat
Inscrit le: 18 Jan 2015
Messages: 538
Localisation: Wellington, New Zealand
|
| Posté le: Mar Jan 20, 2026 10:02 am Sujet du message: |
|
| MarkK a écrit: | | l read it as Spear was hit on front and flank by cav. Cav on front broke off so it must be the spear's turn next at which point it would turn and face the threat on its flank non? |
Non.
During the cavalry movement phase two things occur:
1. A HC contacts the spear’s side edge while there is already a HC in contact with the spear’s front edge. The spear immediately loses 1 cohesion point.
2. The HC in contact with the spear’s front edge now disengages.
We now move to the cavalry’s melee phase. The HC in contact with the spear’s side edge fights the melee with +1 for attacking the spear’s flank.
The remaining cavalry phases are completed.
It’s now the spear’s phase (and possibly a new turn). During the spear’s movement phase it can now turn to face the HC front edge to front edge. |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
madaxeman
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 01 Nov 2014
Messages: 1725
Localisation: Londres Centraal.
|
| Posté le: Mar Jan 20, 2026 1:42 pm Sujet du message: |
|
| Andy Fyfe a écrit: |
So just to be totally clear:
1. Units in simple support can disengage with the disengaging units as a group move?
2. Units left behind who were in support conform to the unit which was disengaged from as long as the usual restrictions with MTE and ZoCs are obeyed?
Andy |
Aaaah - I think I now see what you were actually asking..
If a unit disengages, can other units who are grouped with it, but who are not in melee or melee support also disengage as part of the same Group Disengage move?
I think the rules (on p40) are not 100% explicit on this (or certainly not as explicit as you might want), but given the two options here, choosing "only those units actually in melee/melee support can disengage as part of a group, so simple support overlaps would always be left behind" would create loads of mess with resulting mandatory conformations etc, whereas "the whole lot can disengage" is clean and simple.
So on that basis, if asked as an umpire I'd be minded to allow overlaps and non-engaged units in the group to move back as well.
_________________
www.madaxeman.com |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Andy Fyfe
Vétéran
Inscrit le: 14 Fév 2024
Messages: 152
|
| Posté le: Mar Jan 20, 2026 5:09 pm Sujet du message: |
|
| madaxeman a écrit: | | Andy Fyfe a écrit: |
So just to be totally clear:
1. Units in simple support can disengage with the disengaging units as a group move?
2. Units left behind who were in support conform to the unit which was disengaged from as long as the usual restrictions with MTE and ZoCs are obeyed?
Andy |
Aaaah - I think I now see what you were actually asking..
If a unit disengages, can other units who are grouped with it, but who are not in melee or melee support also disengage as part of the same Group Disengage move?
I think the rules (on p40) are not 100% explicit on this (or certainly not as explicit as you might want), but given the two options here, choosing "only those units actually in melee/melee support can disengage as part of a group, so simple support overlaps would always be left behind" would create loads of mess with resulting mandatory conformations etc, whereas "the whole lot can disengage" is clean and simple.
So on that basis, if asked as an umpire I'd be minded to allow overlaps and non-engaged units in the group to move back as well. |
Thank you Tim - I agree. It seems the logical option.
Andy |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
Andy Fyfe
Vétéran
Inscrit le: 14 Fév 2024
Messages: 152
|
| Posté le: Mar Jan 20, 2026 5:13 pm Sujet du message: |
|
| madaxeman a écrit: | | Three a écrit: | That's how I was used to playing it, but it came up in a game yesterday and both Andy and I independently had doubts and a shared recollection of this being discussed fairly recently where the decision was that it didn't cause the hit for multiple combats.
We couldn't find it then and I can't find it now, but I doubt we'd have the same recollection unless it had been a topic of conversation.
Any help appreciated. |
First bullet, p61. The use of the word "immediately" in this bullet makes it rather hard to argue against the cohesion loss being taken, erm, immediately.
Third bullet p61 also supports this reading by saying the attack can take place during a "charge".
Fourth and Fifth bullets on p61 further support this same reading, by referring to this happening during a "phase"
The sixth bullet also supports this reading by making it clear that the cohesion loss occurs before the melee phase, ie "immediately" the contact occurs.
I'm not sure what conversations you both may have had in the privacy of your own homes that might have skipped over these 5 bullet points in the section headed "Multiple Attacks", but even so, I really don't see any wiggle room at all for debate on this one. |
Hi Tim,
Possibly our discussion was about what happens to the unit left on the flank during that round of combat.
Namely; is it a first round of melee so impact, furious charge, javelin etc. would all be active or is it a continuing melee as the flank unit was (briefly) in melee support.
Andy |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
madaxeman
Magister Militum
Inscrit le: 01 Nov 2014
Messages: 1725
Localisation: Londres Centraal.
|
| Posté le: Mar Jan 20, 2026 6:17 pm Sujet du message: |
|
| Andy Fyfe a écrit: |
Hi Tim,
Possibly our discussion was about what happens to the unit left on the flank during that round of combat.
Namely; is it a first round of melee so impact, furious charge, javelin etc. would all be active or is it a continuing melee as the flank unit was (briefly) in melee support.
Andy |
p63 Melee Combat Factors / Special Abilities / First round of a melee : "These abilities are only effective ... if the unit charges or is charged by an enemy on its front edge"
p42 Charge / Definition / Special Cases : 2nd bullet : "Contacting an enemy already in melee to support a friendly unit is not a charge ..."
Those two are (in combination) very clear.
_________________
www.madaxeman.com |
|
| Revenir en haut de page |
|
|
|
FAQ
Rechercher
Liste des Membres
Groupes d'utilisateurs
S'enregistrer
Profil
Se connecter pour vérifier ses messages privés
Connexion
