Pursuing routers and defining following them?????

[petedalby]

How do you guys over the pond play this point?

TBH I can't recall it's ever been an issue - at least not in any games I've played - if someone insisted they didn't wish to contract, then I guess they could argue that point, but why wouldn't you wish to hit the routers and remove another base if you had the opportunity to do so? It invariably takes the enemy BG closer to an auto-break.

If it was important and you disagreed then you'd need a ruling. For me the initial pursuit is compulsory and I guess I'd argue that if you have to drop back a base to contact then you should?

[papsterdino]

i reversed the perspective from my original question i put which was the following aspect of pursuit,

1 its the routers responsibility to avoid freinds just behind them.

2 The pursuers responsibility is to try to retain contact, and end up facing the same direction"which would be following"

3 if it contacts something else it wont be by choice, but by its allowance of movement in the sequence.

4 base to base specific is then no longer a requirement.

[peterrjohnston]

Nice photos, very helpful clearing things up in my mind. And I had cavalry BGs in mind when I was thinking about this, you read my mind.

A couple of things though:

When I play, I believe the corner that touches both enemy BGs shold be the one to move the appropriate distance.

Not sure about this, you may end up under or over measuring the distance, as the shift is free (although shifts being free is mentioned only for advances in the movement section, the diagram on p163 implies it's also free for evaders, and thus routers, unless I've missed something in the rules).

In this case I doubt it would makes any difference, but I would argue it's better turn 180 on their rear, and measure straight forward moves and wheels as normal - otherwise you might end up with situations where routers/evaders escape pursuers/chargers when they shouldn't, or vis-versa. Especially important with evaders...

The 3rd photo shows the Thessalians wheeling to hit the routers. The Companions move second and by dropping a base can also hit the routers. This will cause the routers to lose 2 bases.

Surely the Thessalians would wheel on their right corner first until they are following along the routers' "path", ie moving parallel to it? This would block the Companians contacting the routers.

Granted the rules wording "wheel to follow" is a bit loose, but where you placed them would mean they've wheeled beyond that path.

Hasten to add I'm not nit-picking, just I don't think in either case both BG's would stay in contact (much as one might want them too - notice I assume I'm always on the winning side )


Any thoughts on unintentional contact of the first 2 ranks in combat by pursuers or chargers into revealed targets?

[bbotus]

peterrjohnston wrote:

Surely the Thessalians would wheel on their right corner first until they are following along the routers' "path", ie moving parallel to it? This would block the Companions contacting the routers.

Not only that, I worked out the geometry of the wheels. The routing BG turned 180 then wheeled 45 degrees and moved. (Since it is wheeling on its original back right corner, there is no need for a shift right to avoid friends as posted in the original comment--or am I missing something?) Then the Thessalians wheel 45 degrees on their right front corner to match the path of the routers and move. This will carry them into the 2nd rank of the enemy BG in combat converting the pursuit into a charge. The step forward move by the right file would contact the routers, too (assuming a 5 MU rout move).

Note to papsterdino. For your question, the 1st bullet, 2nd column, on page 108 says pursuers normally contact any fresh enemy in their path. IMHO, this situation would qualify for that. And, FWIW, my read on the author is that wheels cannot be used to lessen the amount of impact. He clearly (IMO again) wants to see a general increase in involvement as the battle progresses.

[peterrjohnston]

Then the Thessalians wheel 45 degrees on their right front corner to match the path of the routers and move. This will carry them into the 2nd rank of the enemy BG in combat converting the pursuit into a charge..

So it would.

[papsterdino]

In our game if you look at ist picture ithe unit that ia fighting on the flank had been placed as a potential flank charge for the pursuers and were around 70mm behind but i had placed them arond 3mm to far forward. as the unit of cav routed on a minus 2 it moved the 3mm across and just cleared the flank of the waiting unit, The knights pursuing rolled up 2 so had plenty of movement for its pursuit.

In the Jap phase the cavalry rolled down 2 again and the knighs another big plus, but just clipped the waiting unit by the 3mm we could not decide if the knights in the original rout phase as it had loads of movement, should have stayed corner to corner,(and we may have gone to dbm thinking at this point) or just carried on as it was , as the sentence says follow and then wheeling if neccesary, and as we read the section all 3 of us could argue our original pt down?[/img]

[petedalby]

Hi Peter - I think we're broadly agreeing - the move is at 45 degrees - and I'm sure we would agree over the table in terms of where each unit ended.

Any thoughts on unintentional contact of the first 2 ranks in combat by pursuers or chargers into revealed targets?

I think it is possible and permissible - and covered by the last bullet point on page 57. It would be a charge - but not a flank charge.

But as ever others may disagree!

[bbotus]

papsterdino PostPosted: 17 Jan 2011 19:35 Post subject:
In our game if you look at ist picture ithe unit that ia fighting on the flank had been placed as a potential flank charge for the pursuers and were around 70mm behind but i had placed them arond 3mm to far forward. as the unit of cav routed on a minus 2 it moved the 3mm across and just cleared the flank of the waiting unit, The knights pursuing rolled up 2 so had plenty of movement for its pursuit.

In the Jap phase the cavalry rolled down 2 again and the knighs another big plus, but just clipped the waiting unit by the 3mm we could not decide if the knights in the original rout phase as it had loads of movement, should have stayed corner to corner,(and we may have gone to dbm thinking at this point) or just carried on as it was , as the sentence says follow and then wheeling if necessary, and as we read the section all 3 of us could argue our original pt down?[/img]

That was a little hard to follow but I think I get the meaning. In this game corner to corner and clipping a corner are not the same. Corner to corner is treated as overlap and not committed to combat so you are allowed to move if you want to. Clipping a corner (even by 1/2 mm) is contact and therefore impact.

We had a similar situation Friday. Playing the crusades I enticed some knights to charge my LH and got him behind my line of infantry, hit him in the flank with my cav. The knights routed but rolled -2 mu twice and the back end of my cav were stuck behind the infantry line in pursuit. Then my disrupted infantry unit rolled snack eyes in melee and routed. It did a shift to avoid the cav and the pursuing foot knights just clipped my cav in the flank. Another snake eyes in melee and the cav routed. Oh well.

Point is, the way I understand everyone plays the game is that pursuers don't have to wheel to avoid fresh enemy if their move would normally contact the routers/evaders if the fresh enemy were not there. Maybe one of you very experienced umpires would confirm or correct this response.

[gozerius]

This is how we play it. Otherwise you would have the ridiculous result of being forced to wheel to avoid enemy, thereby exposing your flank to them.