Persuers chasing routers

[titanu]

We had an instance last night where a unit of light horse was in combat to the front with Lh and to the side with infantry. To their other side was a unit of their own cavalry. The Lh routed and fled. They turned round and pivoted on their back corner to bisect the angle between enemy horse and foot. This they could do and made their rout move. The enemy Lh persued first - now thier path DIRECTLY to the routers was through the enemy cavalry. This being because the routers turned and wheeled about what was their old back corner. What options do the pusers have:
1) to stop 1MU from the enemy cavalry
2) to move/wheel round the enemy cavalry to follow the path of the routers
3) Any other

[philqw78]

Depends on if the LH contact could be a legal flank contact on the cavalry. If not stop 1 MU away, if so can crash in. They cannot deviate pursuit for enemy.

[jfnavarro]

I think that it makes no difference whether the LH contact the flank or front of a enemy battle group.
In both situations the LH stop 1 MU away of the enemy CV. (page 108, right column).

Regards.

[philqw78]

Pursuers can choose to stop 1 MU away from fresh enemy if skirmishers. (others CMT) However if its a legal flank or rear contact it is a legal charge for the LH so they can do it, or choose not to. If it was a frontal contact they would need a CMT to do it as it is, again, treated as a charge. (IMO they would be foolish to do so unlesss the Cav were fragmented.)

[jfnavarro]

Pursuers can choose to stop 1 MU away from fresh enemy if skirmishers

Sorry, I overlooked the most important word.

Thanks.

[titanu]

If I could clarify do the persuers follow the PATH of the routers and so miss the cavalry or follow a path DIRECTLY towards the routers thus NOT missing the cavalry.

[lawrenceg]

If I could clarify do the persuers follow the PATH of the routers and so miss the cavalry or follow a path DIRECTLY towards the routers thus NOT missing the cavalry.

The rules say

Pursuers follow routers, wheeling if necessary to do so.

Personally (and in the absence of any other official guidance), I would allow pursuers to move around an obstructing BG, provided that any reasonable person would agree that they were following the routers. Or they could hit the obstruction if that could also be construed as following. The owning player would have the choice. I would insist on the chosen path being one that contacts the routers, if this is possible.

[terrys]

The pursuers always wheel in the direction that the routers move.
Routers will only wheel if moving away from 2 enemies, or if avoiding table edge or impassable obstruction.
After wheeling in that direction pusuers must contact enemy in their path or stop 1mu away if skirmishers. Note that skirmishers need not take a test to contact even non-skirmishers.

In theory there is no option that non-skirmisher pursuers can take to avoid - or not - other enemy in their path.
They wheel in the direction of route - if required. They move straight forwards. They can't drop bases back.
If this contacts enemy they fight them in the next impact phase.

[lawrenceg]

The pursuers always wheel in the direction that the routers move.
Routers will only wheel if moving away from 2 enemies, or if avoiding table edge or impassable obstruction.
After wheeling in that direction pusuers must contact enemy in their path or stop 1mu away if skirmishers. Note that skirmishers need not take a test to contact even non-skirmishers.

In theory there is no option that non-skirmisher pursuers can take to avoid - or not - other enemy in their path.
They wheel in the direction of route - if required. They move straight forwards. They can't drop bases back.
If this contacts enemy they fight them in the next impact phase.

So to clarify "the direction that the routers move":

If the routers do not wheel, the pursuers wheel until parallel to the direction the routers moved.

IF the routers wheeled initially, the pursuers wheel until parallel to the direction the routers are moving at the end of their wheel.

IF the routers change direction on meeting the table edge or impassable terrain, the pursuers wheel until parallel to the final direction the routers moved in.

Pursuers start their move with the wheel and thereafter do not change direction.

Would that be correct?

[terrys]

Would that be correct?

Looks good to me......

The reason why the pursuers get to wheel at the begining is to give them a better chance of catching routers/evaders who have to wheel to avoid the table edge or impassable terrain.

[MCollett]

IF the routers change direction on meeting the table edge or impassable terrain, the pursuers wheel until parallel to the final direction the routers moved in.

Pursuers start their move with the wheel and thereafter do not change direction.

Would that be correct?

This could lead to the pursuers going straight past the routers.

To me, 'pursuers follow routers' might mean either:
(i) that the pursuers wheel at the same point on the table that the routers did; or
(ii) that the pursuers wheel at the beginning of their move so that they are facing directly towards the nearest part of the routers.

So far, I think I've always played it as (ii).

Best wishes,
Matthew

[lawrenceg]

IF the routers change direction on meeting the table edge or impassable terrain, the pursuers wheel until parallel to the final direction the routers moved in.

Pursuers start their move with the wheel and thereafter do not change direction.

Would that be correct?

This could lead to the pursuers going straight past the routers.

I suspect it could, but haven't tried to find (or construct) an example to prove it.

To me, 'pursuers follow routers' might mean either:
(i) that the pursuers wheel at the same point on the table that the routers did; or
(ii) that the pursuers wheel at the beginning of their move so that they are facing directly towards the nearest part of the routers.

So far, I think I've always played it as (ii).

Best wishes,
Matthew

I also like (ii) but it needs clarification. The front of the pursuers is of finite width, so you need to define which part of the front is facing directly towards the nearest part of the routers.

e.g. stop wheeling as soon as any part of the pursuing BG is facing directly towards the nearest part of the routers, or wheel until the midpoint of the front of the pursuing BG is facing directly towards the nearest part of the routers.

I suspect that this may result in the pursuers occasionally using up all their movement wheeling towards the nearest part of the routers when going straight ahead would have contacted some other part.

In fact I suspect that any simple mathematical prescription would yield strange results in special cases. FOG's representation of out-of-control troops is not very good because it forces them to remain in a solid formation, which in reality they would not. So we should expect it to give some strange-looking results on occasion.

[terrys]

In fact I suspect that any simple mathematical prescription would yield strange results in special cases. FOG's representation of out-of-control troops is not very good because it forces them to remain in a solid formation, which in reality they would not. So we should expect it to give some strange-looking results on occasion.

We did try a system where routers and evaders ended up with the bases not aligned, but defining where they went under different circumstances became so complicated that we had to abandon it.

[terrys]

(ii) that the pursuers wheel at the beginning of their move so that they are facing directly towards the nearest part of the routers.

It's a very difficult to write the rules to cover every situation.

The idea is that once the routers have moved, the pursuers wheel at the earliest opportunity that allows them to contact the routers with the most number of bases (or to get as close as possible). They are, after all, supposed to be trying to keep contact with them (and kill them!!)
If there is an enemy in the path between the pursuers and the routers, then they will be contacted (with the skirmisher exception).