Break away combinable with Charge

[dmcgee1]

And it is worth noting that all the rest of the cav units in the game don't have an auto-break away. So that factor isn't part of being cav, it's just the MH special mount rules.

thatīs not the full truth....
Dragonriders can go into the CC with their Naginataīs up to one inch away from the enemy model.
Since they arent in B2B then when trying to leave the Target, they only leave....

Further we are talking here of all the troops leaving CC, inlcuding the ones that do it automatically as flyers and the ones that simply get lucky by rolling. You have to be able to reach B2B, thatīs important.

Just one thing. Does this work for the Fenris bike in the same way or is it no problem in anyway because it is a vehicle? As far as I know the Fenris is the only 100% Close Combat Vehicle.
The Fenris bike can attack after a 1" movement the target it just left (drive by attack) and because of this it can ignore the first target (still in CC caused by the drive by attack) and can attack the next target. Sounds correct in my opinion.

Not so easy.

Since the Fenris Bike is a vehicle you leave and be done with your last target.
Now you want to hit the last target again using the special rule of charging for FenrisBikes within one inch of the model (not that you lose the strenght of the vehicle for the charge if you donīt move at least.
 3".
I would say that this doesnīt work, because you leave the target and thus the facing isnīt right. you canīt attack an enemy in your rear facing, remember vehiclas arenīt allowed to make turns freely.

BUT, have a look here, bolding the important parts:

The driver of a Fenris may move and attack an
enemy within one inch of the bike with hls
sword using a single action. The attack my be
launched at any time during the move. lf the 1
fenris moves a minimum of 3 inches before
the attack, the damage is determined by using
the vehicle's STR instead of the drivers, this is
the unit's primary attack. If the fenris has
adaquate movement remaining atter its attack
to reach basecontacl with another model, it
may attempt a secondary natural attack by
rarnmlng the new target. This is effectively a
charge, with a successful CC roll Indicating the
ram was elfective.

So if you phrase it otherwise it works 

Just turn and hit, drive on and ram......

You would lose the strenght of the Bike anyway if wanting to hit the model you leave.

I believe that Lopis is correct.

[Enker]

I know this goes up in circles, but why are you ignoring the word another in the rulebook dmcgee1?

Rulebook page 49
"Unless otherwise stated in a model's profile, a model
must Charge the closest enemy model within its LOS. The only
exception to this rule is if the closest enemy model is already
engaged in Close Combat with another model."
So if you may charge away from CC you have to attack the same model again since it is the closest one!
You only can charge away from CC to another model, if you have two models in CC at the current model.

[Lopis]

I think you misinterpret the wording another with another (of your own/friendly or anything)....

Iīm not sure if it was ever intended as this, but I read it as follows:

1. the enemy model is in CC with the one wanting to leave per definition (either by b2b or special rules)
2. there is no reference to another friendly/enemy model or anything in your quoting
3. that means that the closest enemy model has only to be engaged in CC with any model ...
4. the direction of the phrase (the causal chain of events/position/condition) in your quoting goes from the target away to another (any other !) model (sorry for the wording, canīt get in better in english...)
5. In the moment you begin the action your enemy/or CC adversary is actually engaged in CC --> with the model leaving it ;-)
6. It is also automatically the closest enemy model
7.  meeting all the requirements of your quoted paragraph you are allowed to explicitly ignore this enemy model you leave

[Enker]

I think you misinterpret the wording another with another (of your own/friendly or anything)....

Iīm not sure if it was ever intended as this, but I read it as follows:

1. the enemy model is in CC with the one wanting to leave per definition (either by b2b or special rules)
2. there is no reference to another friendly/enemy model or anything in your quoting
3. that means that the closest enemy model has only to be engaged in CC with any model ...
4. the direction of the phrase (the causal chain of events/position/condition) in your quoting goes from the target away to another (any other !) model (sorry for the wording, canīt get in better in english...)
5. In the moment you begin the action your enemy/or CC adversary is actually engaged in CC --> with the model leaving it ;-)
6. It is also automatically the closest enemy model
7.  meeting all the requirements of your quoted paragraph you are allowed to explicitly ignore this enemy model you leave

1. Yes
2. Yes, but in generell you have to attack the closest enemy model. Thats the reference.
3. Not any. Another (Please dont see the colour as a shout. It just should indicate how important this word is)
4. I'm sorry. I don't know what you are meaning here or why this is an argument.
5. Yes
6. Yes and that is why you have to attack it again in this action.
7. No, because the enemy is not engaged with another model and therefore you cant ignore the target priority.

[Pax]

I'm also questioning this, if there was two of your own models fighting one enemy model then I would see no trouble. But alone?

If you get a auto-break away it should still be required to declared in my opinion. And the moment you do the one you are in base to base contact with becomes your closest free enemy. The rules of target priority and that you attack the closest enemy in any squad should then just force you to attack the enemy you just broke from since you have to attack the closest enemy within LOS, 360 degrees.

Or are you saying that the declared charge action, is declared before the break away happen, but then happen after the break away is successful?

Could I in this way just take any CC model, declare that I want to charge a first into a enemy group and target the first closest enemy.
After that attack I can declare I charge another next to it with the same model (given my break away succeeds) and then once my second charge action is complete I could charge a third enemy the same way?
In effect letting me jump up along the enemy line with 3 actions hitting three different targets with full charge bonus on each attack?

Since a charge is a move and attack action and a unit who automatically succeed in the break away is able to combine it with a charge, what prevents my other troops who just have to contest from doing it?

[Enker]

I think you misinterpret the wording another with another (of your own/friendly or anything)....

This line you edited after or while I wrote my answer.
But now I understand what you are meaning.
You can interprete the another as you do or as I do.
Another  open discusion. I think this leads to nothing.

The rulebook is a bible here where you can interpret a lot of things.
And we still havent answered the question if the auto break away is a break away with auto sucess or a move action as per vehicle auto break away.

[Lopis]

OK weīre clear on that you answered while I was typing....
Donīt want to erase it, perhaps someone else needs it to understand what I mean:

I think you misinterpret the wording another with another (of your own/friendly or anything)....

Iīm not sure if it was ever intended as this, but I read it as follows:

1. the enemy model is in CC with the one wanting to leave per definition (either by b2b or special rules)
2. there is no reference to another friendly/enemy model or anything in your quoting
3. that means that the closest enemy model has only to be engaged in CC with any model ...
4. the direction of the phrase (the causal chain of events/position/condition) in your quoting goes from the target away to another (any other !) model (sorry for the wording, canīt get in better in english...)
5. In the moment you begin the action your enemy/or CC adversary is actually engaged in CC --> with the model leaving it ;-)
6. It is also automatically the closest enemy model
7.  meeting all the requirements of your quoted paragraph you are allowed to explicitly ignore this enemy model you leave

1. Yes
2. Yes, but in generell you have to attack the closest enemy model. Thats the reference.
3. Not any. Another (Please dont see the colour as a shout. It just should indicate how important this word is)
4. I'm sorry. I don't know what you are meaning here or why this is an argument.
5. Yes
6. Yes and that is why you have to attack it again in this action.
7. No, because the enemy is not engaged with another model and therefore you cant ignore the target priority.

Ad 2:
Yes itīs right that in general you attack the closest enemy, but what I meant was that there is no reference for an explanation of "another" as you like to quote.
It only says "another" (2 models), not "another XXXXX" [set here the friendly/enemy] ( making it more than the 2 models).
So still no reference in my meaning.

Points 3 and 4 go together in a way:

Ad 4: Point 4 means that the passage doesnīt refer to a group of 2 models already in CC with another model  coming to add (making them 3).
Thereīs written about the enemy and another model (thatīs two models, the minimum needed for a CC).
Since you gave me the point in 5 where you accept that in the moment of decision (which one to attack) the enemy is engaged with another model.

Ad 3:
Truly that word is the decision point. And I think you interpret too much in the meaning of the word.
The explanation above explains it. You read the "another" (for me meaning 2 models: the one enemy who is charged and the charging one) as "another model apart from the the two [again the charging and the charged one] we are talking about"  (making it 3 models, which I think isnīt derivable from the passage). It only goes from enemy to another --> that was the circumscription of the direction of the phrase.
My talking of any should make it a bit easier as the short form for any other ( an[y]-other --> another)
The dictinction is truly if you read another as 2 models in the whole lot or as 3 and thatīs where we differ.

Ad 6:
Yes if you read another as 3 models you would have to circle and attack the left enemy again.

Ad 7:
in your answer to 5 you already accepted that the enemy is engaged in CC in the moment of decision which model to atttack --> consequence is that its ignorable  

[Lopis]

Or are you saying that the declared charge action, is declared before the break away happen, but then happen after the break away is successful?

I "see" it in a bit different way but in the essence the outcome is the same as that what you decribe.
The causalchain for me is:

Get away from the enemy-->coming into b2b with the movement--> that making it a charge by definition-->hitting the enemy.

The charged model should get the possibilities per a declared charge. The declaration is a bit weird... Since normally you charge and if the enemy wants to countercharge you accept it and be done with it.
The declaration business is not absolutely necessary in my eyes anyway, but thats another issue....

Thereīs only one point where this could lead to differences:
The movement resulting the charge goes short because you misjudged the distance. Only in this case it could be interesting to declare it in advance, because you couldnīt hit normally, but only with a countercharging model !.
No wait action - no problem, enemy canīt do anything
withdrawal - no problem, normally canīt reach the enemy anyway; noone withdraws if he canīt get to safety....
countercharge - normally no problem, if you judge distances right ;-)

a. Could I in this way just take any CC model, declare that I want to charge a first into a enemy group and target the first closest enemy.
After that attack I can declare I charge another next to it with the same model (given my break away succeeds) and then once my second charge action is complete I could charge a third enemy the same way?

b. In effect letting me jump up along the enemy line with 3 actions hitting three different targets with full charge bonus on each attack?

a: if the third model is nearer than the first one you left...yes. If you follow my way of argument and Iīm right...
b: with the exception stated in a. and you judge the distances right to get in b2b with the targets : yes (remember you have to be able to leave CC, either by special ability, special rules or die roll

Since a charge is a move and attack action and a unit who automatically succeed in the break away is able to combine it with a charge, what prevents my other troops who just have to contest from doing it?

Nothing.
Thatīs what I said some times already. That isnīt for a special model. It concerns Close Combat in general.

[Archer]

*headdesk*

Can someone explain to me why you would want to break away only to charge another model?

From what I recall, CC can only be entered via a Charge Action.
A Break Away action is NOT a charge action.

THEREFORE, one cannot break away and go right into CC on  the same action.

[Pax]

That's way too literal of a translation of Target Priority.  The Charge is declared while still in CC, therefore the model with which you are in CC may be ignored.  Moving away from it does not, then, make it the closest enemy model for purposes of Target Priority.

The clearest way that I know how to say this is the following:

It is perfectly legal to be in CC, declare a Charge against an enemy model model that is in LOS, break from CC(whether by test or auto-break) and, subsequently, Charge the targeted model.

[Lopis]

Can someone explain to me why you would want to break away only to charge another model?

Mostly tactics I think:

Charge bonus, ferocity, and bonus gained from moving into a charge (strength bonus etc)

- Use DIRE effects to better range
- cut off enemies from their Squad leaders
- joineing the fray in the middle of enemies, just for the fun of it
- opening the line for the following models which would come short to noe effect ( yeah you could circumvent that by moving them first, but perhaps there isnīt enough room ? )
- getting out off CC for the following up Rifles, since you could be hit when they shoot on you in CC; the Fusiliers havenīt the opprotunity to let go of targets with friendly models engaged when they are the nearest ones....

just coming to my mind now, let me think of some more...

Last but not least:

having is better than needing..
And the fun of getting to the bio-giant (the real threat) through a bunch of mutants...

[Enker]

*headdesk*

Can someone explain to me why you would want to break away only to charge another model?

From what I recall, CC can only be entered via a Charge Action.
A Break Away action is NOT a charge action.

THEREFORE, one cannot break away and go right into CC on  the same action.

That is the big question.
If you go to the auto brakeaway rules of the vehicles, the auto brakeaway is a MOVE Action, not a brake away action (as I have mentioned before).
So vehicles could move away from CC and Charge, since Charge is a combined move with attack.
The question is should we use the same rules for the Mounted Hussars?
Problem, Mounted are not vehicles so can they just move away as vehicles can do?
But we have no other rule since no where is mentionend that a auto brake away still is a break away action.

[Lopis]

For the mounted its more complicated as i have thought.
The charge action is not a action for itself, it is a combined action of a move and an attack action.
But:
Rulebook page 49
"Unless otherwise stated in a model's profile, a model
must Charge the closest enemy model within its LOS. The only
exception to this rule is if the closest enemy model is already
engaged in Close Combat with another model."
So if you may charge away from CC you have to attack the same model again since it is the closest one!
You only can charge away from CC to another model, if you have two models in CC at the current model.

But this doesnt aswerif the auto break away is an move or an attack action for the mounted.
It only answers how it works if it is considert a move action

A Charge must be declared prior to a Move Action.  In order to Charge a model, the attacker must have line of sight, and be able to Move into base to base contact with the target.  Therefore, if a players declares that the auto-breaking model is going to conduct a Charge, has the new target model in LOS (prior to breaking from CC), and can legally Move into base to base contact with the target, then the Charge takes place.

Does that clear it up?

No, because you have to charge the nearest target and that is the one you are leaving by autobreak. So you have to charge him again.
And thats so wirded that I think it isnt possible to break away and charge in the same action

It's valid, if the target your first in CC with is attacked by another one of your troops. So from what dmcgee1 say if you have:

2 mounted hussars in CC with 1 enemy.
Then 1 mounted hussar is able to perform a auto-break away and charge another enemy, using the rule to ignore a enemy in close combat with another of your units.

Your description is accurate, but even one Mounted Hussar may auto-break (or any other model wich successfully tests to break from CC) may, indeed, charge another model.

It all comes down to a Move Action that ends in CC - this, by definition, is a Charge.  Charges must be declared.  Nowhere in the rules (of which I am aware) does it state that a Charge may not be declared while in CC.  If one can perform an auto-break or test to break from CC, then one may perform a charge if able to break from CC.

Since a charge is a move and attack action and a unit who automatically succeed in the break away is able to combine it with a charge, what prevents my other troops who just have to contest from doing it?

Nothing.
Thatīs what I said some times already. That isnīt for a special model. It concerns Close Combat in general.

[Pax]

p. 91

Vehicles are units that are unable to attack in CC if they don't have a specific ability that let them.
Vehicles do not need to test to break away from CC with enemies.
Enemies do not need to test to break away from Vehicles in CC.
Vehicles do not gain charge bonuses.

p. 210
Mounted hussars got the following line:

May Automatically Break from CC

these are the two rules about breaking away that is mixed up in it while:

p.40
Actions:
Move Action
Attack (Close/Range) Action
Break Away Action

these are three given actions that cost 1 AC to perform each.

A Break Away is a Attack Action that let you leave CC.
p 42
The description for break away say:

If the model attempting to Break Away succeeds, it is moved away from the engaged enemy model up to it's MV in inches.

Below for note:

If a Flyer wishes to Break Away from Close Combat, it does not need to roll anything, even if an enemy model wishes to prevent it. Flyer needs only to expend one Action to Break Away and can then Move Freely. Most Vehicles may Break Away without testing--They simply drive over the opposition

On the quote above: Could think if a Mounted Hussar count as a flyer and must spend a action to perform a Break Away that is automatically successful or as a vehicle and just use a Move Action to leave and end up in base to base contact with another enemy.

A Charge is a Attack Action that let you enter CC.
Base Contact p.45

A model can only move into base contact with an enemy model by either Charging or Countercharging, both of which are described further in the Close Combat section

Charging: p. 49

A Charge is a combination Move and Attack action. Unless otherwise stated, the only way to enter Close Combat is to Charge.

I believe this sums up the rules about the discussion.

[dmcgee1]

I know this goes up in circles, but why are you ignoring the word another in the rulebook dmcgee1?

Rulebook page 49
"Unless otherwise stated in a model's profile, a model
must Charge the closest enemy model within its LOS. The only
exception to this rule is if the closest enemy model is already
engaged in Close Combat with another model."
So if you may charge away from CC you have to attack the same model again since it is the closest one!
You only can charge away from CC to another model, if you have two models in CC at the current model.

The use of the word, "another," in this instance does not assume that the model is breaking from CC to Charge.  It assumes that model is Charging from an unopposed position.  Further, it also means that when you disengage, you may ignore other models already engaged in CC, if they are the clostest model(s), even when breaking from CC.

We are, really, at this point, making way more of this than should be made.

I stated it earlier, and I will, again; it is legal to break away from CC to charge another model.*

* - (By my reading/understanding of the rules)