Routing Leaders

jamespcrowley · Post by **jamespcrowley** » Mon Jan 25, 2010 5:48 pm

Having leaders permanently attatched to a BG can lead to a slightly paradoxical situation.

If the said BG routs, the leader obviously moves with it. While doing so, the leader still exerts 'command' over other BGs within its sphere of influence thus granting them the requisite battle advantages. And yet the leader has clearly been unable to influence his 'own' BG not to rout (or is himself routed along with the BG).

Should there be a case for leaders, in the circumstance of routing, not having an active command range until such time as the BG passes a cohesion test and reverts to fragmented; if indeed it ever does.

Paisley · Post by **Paisley** » Mon Jan 25, 2010 5:53 pm

I'd say yes. A leader who is routing can't extert effective command, even if he's just being 'swept along' rather than fleeing in gibbering terror himself.

I feel rather the same about a leader in combat, except he could be skulking just behind the lines rather than charging boldly in the front rank, so it's fair enough to have him still exerting command in a way.

jamespcrowley · Post by **jamespcrowley** » Wed Jan 27, 2010 2:53 pm

Recently had a game in which my opponents inspired leader routed (Leader wasn't killed). The BG retreated as normal but as it did so, and because of the wide command radius of an inspired leader, several other routing and fragmented BGs passed their cohesion tests and were, therefore, freed up to return to the battle against me. Very frustrating!

I'm still of the opinion that a leaders' zone of influence should be negated if attatched to a routed BG.

deadtorius · Post by **deadtorius** » Wed Jan 27, 2010 5:19 pm

Makes sense, panic is an epidemic of sorts so why should the boss be immune to it, especially since his staff is also joining in the free for all running for ones life during a rout.

As for being forced into the front ranks if he joins in combat, in the TT rules putting you commanders into the fight is optional, but if you do choose to do so he can be killed and has to remain in that fight till it is over, can't just pull out when he feels like it. The PC game assumes that if his unit charges into melee, guess who was in the front rank trying to make a name for himself?

jamespcrowley · Post by **jamespcrowley** » Thu Feb 18, 2010 2:13 pm

Just happened again in a MP. Routed enemy inspired-commander still exerting a command radius (judging by no sign of out-of-control units in the vicinity); several routed/fragmented enemy BGs gained a cohesion upgrade. Can't prove that they all did so as a result of the inspired commander but must have been a good chance for that to have happened.

I still think that this just feels wrong. If, as I believe from my memory of reading another post, Allied commanders in RoR can only influence allied BGs and not those of the main army, then cannot routed commanders be prohibited from influencing any BG's?

Epicouros · Post by **Epicouros** » Fri Feb 19, 2010 4:37 am

I Agree, I think they should lose their command radius as long as their unit is routing. However, I would not be against the unit itself getting the attached commander's bonus to the rally test. They are assumed to be some of the most loyal and steadfast soldiers in the army, after all.

batesmotel · Post by **batesmotel** » Fri Feb 19, 2010 1:45 pm

The TT rules assume that a leader will rout for the first rout move if a unit he is with breaks. After tha he is free to leave the routing unit and to move normally. Since the PC game has made the simplifying assumption that the leader is permanatly attached to a BG, allowing the leaders command radius to continue to apply seems a reasonable compromise. Note that for rallying units, the leader must be adjacent to them or with them for his bonus to apply so he effectively only has a one hex command radius in that respect. A routing IC isn't likely to rally more friendly BGs than a lower quality commander other than the extra +1 on cohestion tests.

Chris