1. The routers could not contract enough, they wrere a huge unit and very wide.
2. The pursuers were in contact,(being Roman legion) and had just removed another base having stayed in contact.
3. The steady shock warband of Galations were in charge range of the pursuers, but were blocked from sight by a routing unit (line of sight count at all?).
This is where the questions have arisen from. However, i have found myself wondering possible outcomes here.
1. The routers flee again and disrupt a steady warband, follwed by a legion charging into them (providing a VMD allows them to).
2. The warband bursts through the routers and contacts the legion. The routers are 'catapulted' behind the legion and can be rallied. Now for the pursuer isnt that a disadvantage and somewhat cheesy? The pursuer is no longer hacking into fleeing troops, who somehow 'jump' behind a steady charging unit?
3. An interesting one this...The pursuer, being not in melee(despite being in contact) charges the steady unit and ignores the fleeing unit in the JAP phase? I think im twuddled now - its all too complicated...
It makes sense for both sides of the argument that the Steady warband burst through the fleeing unit, thereby taking some initiative rather than stand still and be disrupted. And it makes sense that the pursuer surely has the initiative on the fleeing unit and reaps the benefits of winning combat?
Surely 'disrupted' means a loss of cohesion on the troops, whether through combat and people breaking a solid shieldwall, or through marching over terrain. And if this is the fact, then why not disrupt the warband if they burst through the fleeing unit and contact the legion. Dont the attackers who win combat gain initiative rather than being penalised?
Or is the warband who wish to burst through somehow still solid by the time they contact the legions, despite working their way against a routing horde? Just trying to think logically here...
Thanks guys - oh, and by the way, it was a fantastic fight that night. Rematch tonight!
