Unusual Pursuit

[philqw78]

This happened in a game last night. This is what we think should have happened. Very unusual, anybody any thoughts?

My LF were fighting some enemy LF and winning. Just to make sure I moved some LH into overlap, facing the opposite direction to my own LF. see below


The LF broke away from the direction of the pursuers but this was the odd thing. A BG of cataphracts had moved up behind the LF facing my LH



So we, Dangerous Dave Ruddock, said the LH wheel 180 and stop 1 MU from the cats, the LF stop 1 MU from the cats. leaving my LH still pinned. Luckily my turn next. How do the LH get away. They must end in front of the cats. Turning 90 puts them we think here and than move froward to get back in front



very wierd

[hammy]

Good one Phil

I think I would have ruled much the same.

[philqw78]

Good one Phil

I think I would have ruled much the same.

It was Dave. I was confused.

[sagji]

There are several inaccuracies.
NOTE: The second diagram only occurs if the LH pursue first - if the LF's variable move is more than the LH's then the LF must move first, and the result is different (the LF can't contract so are full width, and then the LH stop behind them as they can't interpenetrate do to insufficient space beyond.)

The turning point for the LH's wheel is their initial front right corner - no base may turn before reaching this point.
The diagram shows more than 3 LH base depths between the front of the LH and the cataphracts.

Assuming the distance between the front of the LF and the cataphracts is more than 3 LH base depths.
The first base wheels right 180 (through the LF) and advances to 1 MU from the cataphracts (this should be slightly more than 2 base depths.)
The second base advances 1 base depth wheels and advances to contact the first (this should be slightly more than 1 base depth.)
As the second base has fully passed the wheel point then the third base will advance 2 base depths and wheel 180 and advance slightly.
As the third base has not advanced past the wheel point the final base will advance 3 base depths and wheel 90.
This is an incomplete interpenetration so the third base is pushed forward to clear the LF (the assumption above is to ensure there is sufficient space.

If there is insufficient space the interpenetration isn't possible, and the LH have to wheel the other way.
In this case the front base wheels 180 left and advances one base depth, the secont advances and wheels 180, the thris advances and wheels 90, and the final one advances to the orrigional position of the first. As the first has now cleared the tail of the column it wheels again to target the LF and advances with any remaining move accross the front of the cataphracts.


All this assumes the LF that routed would rout away from only the LF - however they rout away from all in close combat, and as the LH counted as an overlap they are in close combat. Thus the LF should have routed at 45 and probably pased behing the catapharcts.

In terms of getting away from the cataphracts presuming diagram 2.
The rules don't give guidence on how a extremely kinked column turns - do you use the front edge of the front base which may be near the back of the BG, what is the "length" of the side edge (the distance between the font and rear of the column, the sum of the base depths of the bases, the distance measured along the side of the column)
The soultion is to read the rules in terms of the smallest bounding rectangle with an edge parrallel to the front edge of the column.

In this case the front edge runs along the rear edge of the last base of the column - which results in the LH still being slightly in front of the cataphracts after the turn, at which point they can wheel and move away - though they have to remian in front of the catphracts as they were pinnned at the start of the move.

[philqw78]

There are several inaccuracies.>>>>>>>>>>>
Blah,

Blah,

Blah

..............of the move.

This all assumes that I passed my GCSE technical drawing. Which taking 2 minutes to put the pictures together from memory obviously I did not. I shall be more careful next time, and show my working or get some CAD software.

I thought I had too much time on my hands

[philqw78]

All this assumes the LF that routed would rout away from only the LF - however they rout away from all in close combat, and as the LH counted as an overlap they are in close combat. Thus the LF should have routed at 45 and probably pased behing the catapharcts.

The routers should according to other threads split the angle between the facing of the persuers, so should have turned 90 right and gone that way. But my brain already hurt by then.

Also the LH and LF rolled equal pursuit distances so I could choose which moved first

[hazelbark]

All this assumes the LF that routed would rout away from only the LF - however they rout away from all in close combat, and as the LH counted as an overlap they are in close combat. Thus the LF should have routed at 45 and probably pased behing the catapharcts.

The routers should according to other threads split the angle between the facing of the persuers, so should have turned 90 right and gone that way. But my brain already hurt by then.

Also the LH and LF rolled equal pursuit distances so I could choose which moved first

Interesting observation. People get used to overlap being lined up with the front. And usually the rout bisecting from those in contact. But if an overlap is past the front edge ... Interesting.

I suspect a lot of people have not played it that way to do overlaps.

[sagji]

All this assumes the LF that routed would rout away from only the LF - however they rout away from all in close combat, and as the LH counted as an overlap they are in close combat. Thus the LF should have routed at 45 and probably pased behing the catapharcts.

The routers should according to other threads split the angle between the facing of the persuers, so should have turned 90 right and gone that way. But my brain already hurt by then.

Also the LH and LF rolled equal pursuit distances so I could choose which moved first

However the rules say away from the pursuers - not in the direction the pusuers are facing.

If the LH had continued moving after decoming an overlap, and had wheeled left 90, then the facing basis would have the routers rout down and left - i.e. through the LH. This is obviously wrong.

[philqw78]

However the rules say away from the pursuers - not in the direction the pusuers are facing.

If the LH had continued moving after decoming an overlap, and had wheeled left 90, then the facing basis would have the routers rout down and left - i.e. through the LH. This is obviously wrong.

Thats why my brain hurt