Slitherine

Being the player that pursued in this particular game has left me raising further questions on this matter.
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!

Try not to get too hung up on this. The rules cannot allow for every situation.

There is a danger that you are mis-using the label of cheese. Cheese is something that you exploit to the detriment of your opponent.

Deploying one BG too closely behind another is not something that you have engineered.

Does it help if you think of the situation this way?

If the routers burst through the Galatians, the Galatians lost their nerve and allowed themselves to be burst through, thus becoming disrupted and in serious trouble when the pursuing Romans arrive.

But if the Galatians have to charge through the routers, they have held their ranks and forced the routers to divert around them, thus presenting a far nastier target for the Romans.

Have fun with the rematch!

Pete

Your 3rd example, the Romans charging the Galatians, can't happen for the same reason as the Galatians being unable to choose to charge the Romans.

Hiya Pete!

The rematch was (shamefully) awful on my part - Mikekh whooped me good! He has been ribbing me on email ever since (as well as all the other lads) so to give credence to their ribbing - i thought i would moan officially on the forum. Bad dice and luck, and generalship on my part!

You popping down this way any time soon?

Paul

I'm sure you'll get the chance to get your own back!

Off to Spain for a long weekend this week - otherwise I would have been off to Helsinki for the IWF - but I am keen to hook up with you guys again.

Please send me a contact number to peterdalby@talktalk.net and I'll give you a bell when I get back.

Cheers

Pete