Commanders leavign routing units in the JAP ?

Keith · Post by **Keith** » Sat Mar 07, 2009 8:39 am

Should a commander that has been fighting in the front rank be able to leave a unit that is routing and the enemy are still in contact in the JAP ?

Petefloro · Post by **Petefloro** » Sat Mar 07, 2009 12:04 pm

No. And I believe the commander has to roll two dice - 10,11 or 12 and he's gone! Is that correct?

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Sat Mar 07, 2009 12:47 pm

Should a commander that has been fighting in the front rank be able to leave a unit that is routing and the enemy are still in contact in the JAP ?

Why a poll?

The rules answer is yes.

p.50

Once declared as fighting in the front rank, the commander cannot leave the front rank of that battle group until it is no longer in close combat and no longer in contact with enemy routers.

P.134

‘Close Combat’ is a general term for impact and melee combat. Once such a combat has been joined, battle groups are deemed to be in close combat until one side breaks off, breaks or is destroyed (or a battle group fighting only as an overlap moves away).

As the routing BG is neither in close combat, nor in contact with enemy routers, the commander can leave in the JAP.

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Sat Mar 07, 2009 1:31 pm

rbodleyscott wrote:
Should a commander that has been fighting in the front rank be able to leave a unit that is routing and the enemy are still in contact in the JAP ?
Why a poll?

I suspect that Keith is actually looking at the concept of whether it should be allowed rather than what the rules say. Just starting a discussion would probably have been better than a poll though.

Petefloro · Post by **Petefloro** » Sat Mar 07, 2009 1:46 pm

Didn't the original poster say that the enemy was still in contact with routing BG??

plewis66 · Post by **plewis66** » Sat Mar 07, 2009 1:53 pm

Nope.

He said the unit itself is routing, and is still in contact with enemy, i.e. is contacted by persuers.

TERRYFROMSPOKANE · Post by **TERRYFROMSPOKANE** » Sat Mar 07, 2009 1:58 pm

Yes, but the rules say "no longer in contact with enemy routers" - not "routing with enemy pursuers still in contact". So the rules say a commander fighting in the front rank must rout during the initial rout phase and take a chance on being lost if pursuers remain in contact. However during the JAP the routing unit is no longer in close combat and is not in contact with enemy routers, so the commander is free to leave.

Terry

plewis66 · Post by **plewis66** » Sat Mar 07, 2009 2:01 pm

True.

But that wasn't the question.

Keith · Post by **Keith** » Sun Mar 08, 2009 6:37 am

This was the original question perhaps I should have worded it better.

"Should a commander that has been fighting in the front rank be able to leave a unit that is routing and the enemy are still in contact in the JAP ?"

I know by the rules as worded he is allowed to leave the unit , but is that the intention ? Was it a mistake to allow a commander to simply leave a routing unit that is still being hacked upon by the enemy and just trot away and join another unit.
The commander of the unit doing the hacking/pursuing can't leave his unit , why should the commander in the routing unit be allowed to abandon ship ?

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Sun Mar 08, 2009 10:03 am

Keith wrote:I know by the rules as worded he is allowed to leave the unit , but is that the intention ?

Yes

Was it a mistake to allow a commander to simply leave a routing unit that is still being hacked upon by the enemy and just trot away and join another unit.
The commander of the unit doing the hacking/pursuing can't leave his unit , why should the commander in the routing unit be allowed to abandon ship ?

The pursuing one is having fun, the other isn't.

Obviously we could have gone either way on this rule, we chose to allow the routing commander to leave after the initial rout move. I doubt if it would be possible to find sufficient historical evidence to "prove" whether this rule is "correct" or not. Is it such a big deal?

MadBanker · Post by **MadBanker** » Sun Mar 08, 2009 10:38 am

rbodleyscott wrote:I doubt if it would be possible to find sufficient historical evidence to "prove" whether this rule is "correct" or not. Is it such a big deal?

What comes to my mind is Ptolemy leaving his routing cavalry to join the phalanx at Raphia.

Keith · Post by **Keith** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 1:54 am

rbodleyscott wrote:
Obviously we could have gone either way on this rule, we chose to allow the routing commander to leave after the initial rout move. I doubt if it would be possible to find sufficient historical evidence to "prove" whether this rule is "correct" or not. Is it such a big deal?

No I guess it's not a big deal , I just thought it strange and wondered why they could just leave the unit in trouble.

lawrenceg · Post by **lawrenceg** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 9:29 am

In general I would expect a commander who has survived the losing combat and the initial rout to be able to escape on the basis that he has the fastest horse.

deadtorius · Post by **deadtorius** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 2:48 am

I would say that if a commander is with a routing unit and its in contact with pursuers or within 6MU of enemy even, he would recognize a lost cause and decide to use his talents elswhere on the battlefield. A live general is much more useful than a dead or fleeing one after all.

I am sure there was some required ancient military training for higher officers when to bolt and leave your troops to their fate....