Slitherine

1 Is a hapless BG of poor LF facing down. 2 Is a BG of cav facing up the page.
A is a BG of Armd MF Sw, B is a BG of Prot MF Sw Uphill, C is a BG of Armd Sw cav, all facing up.

The LF where fighting at treble minus against B. But survived to be overlapped in my next turn by the Cav and Armd MF, A and C. So fighting at treble minus fragmented, 2 dice v's 10.

They didn't survive that turn of combat.

Now when the LF break all three pursue. The 2 BG of MF pursuers rolled short so did not contact. The Cavalry, C, rolled normal so moving 5 MU would take them into the back of the enemy cav and keep them in exactly the same contact with the LF.

Should the Cav have deviated, moving first, to contact the LF in rear? Or was it quite alright to carry on forward, smash the cav and take a base from the LF?

My understanding is that they follow the pursuers. I would suggest that they deviate. Interested to see other views.

The fact they are a column complicates matters.

If they had been at least two wide then they deviate by enough to have the routers in front of them and then slam into the back of the Cavalry when they step forward - here it largely depends on the geometry. C must deviate to follow the routers - but all that means is that they wheel so that "1" is to their front and then move forward. If this means they hit the cavalry then so be it.

Are we assuming BG '2' was not in single line so could not evade?

stenic wrote:Are we assuming BG '2' was not in single line so could not evade?

yes, otherwise I'm sue he would have.

A is in Column, B is 3 wide and 2 deep, C is in column, 1 is 3 wide and 2 deep, 2 is 2 wide 2 deep

If you are pursuing and contact new enemy it is treated as a charge.
The fastest pursuing units, after all VMD rolls move first, which sounds like it would be the cav, there is no where in the rules that specify they have to avoid new enemy, they just have to try to maintain contact which they would by moving forwards, keeping the same contact that they originally had.
Really bad luck for the cav, a lesson here, don't turn your back when friendly lights are fighting at a treble minus and you are pretty close to the action. Lucky opponent not so lucky for you.

Only reason pursuers would stop is going off table edge, if they would enter terrain that would severly disorder any of their bases, or wheeling to follow the routers if they change direction.

There is no such thing as treble minus. "--" is the worst you can go.

But it sounds so much more ominous for the poor light foot if you say it that way....

I'm going to shut up now. I'm taking this stuff WAY too seriously.

(Cheering erupts across the globe)

gozerius wrote:There is no such thing as treble minus. "--" is the worst you can go.

Yes there is, downhill, worse armour and bare fists against swords.

It only counted as double minus though :>(

do troops pursue that only fought as an overlap? I thought they had to be in frontal contact with enemy to pursue. Will have to remember to have a look when I have my book.

deadtorius wrote:Ithere is no where in the rules that specify they have to avoid new enemy, they just have to try to maintain contact which they would by moving forwards, keeping the same contact that they originally had.

Agreed. They just need to maintain contact (p101 col 2). They may wheel if necessary to follow routers (and may contract if necessary to avoid friends) and may choose to CMT to stop short of fresh enemy. (p108)

In this case they do not need to wheel to maintain contact so move straight ahead and happily this turns out to be a rear charge on the fresh enemy.

Moving parallel to routers is not what I would describe as 'following'.'Following' to me implies 'taking the same path as', 'coming on behind'.
It is true that if they move parallel they would end in edge contact. However this is not ending in contact as in close combat because they are not an overlap. If the light foot were contacted by another BG and the column formed an overlap, this would be OK. There would be nowhere else to go.
Rule wording can never cover every situation. Where ambiguity arises, things need to be interpreted in terms of the intention implied. Rout and pursuit is about one group chasing another. The column is intended to follow and catch the light foot. Running parallel to gain another advantageous contact does not seem correct.

But in this situation, if this was not a game, the cav would lap around in front of the LF ensuring that they were surrounded and get help slaughtering them from there slower friends.

Coming on behind would mean slowing down to follow them?

The requirement is contact, not close combat. You follow if you can't maintain contact, and the wheel is authorized to follow (and hopefully contact) if necessary since the routers did not route straight back.

In the normal vanilla case, 3 BGs fighting or overlapping an enemy all go directly forward regardless of which one moves first. Here the cav maintain front corner and side edge contact.

I think you are mistaken in focusing on following and thinking routers must wheel to hit the rear of the routers.. It would certainly leads to a mess very quickly. The Cavalry would wheel an infinitesimal amount to tag the back end of the routers. This would mean the adjoining friends can't contact by moving straight forward, so need to wheel, and so on down the line, everyone at a slight angle. All very "fiddly."

The bullet on p108 could be reworded to avoid misinterpretation, but I don't see how to do so in few words.

All a bit fiddly, true, but a requirement if the overlappers are the first to move in the pursuit.

In this example, I presume the LF would rout again in the JAP, so the pusuers would still contact the cavalry.

Interpretations on 'what would happen in reality' are too subjective to use. Rule intentions may sometimes be a bit vague but are les disputable.

I agree overlap is still contact. This is not in dispute. What we are discussing is the use of the word 'follow'. To me this involves 'taking the same path as'. There is also some sense of followers being 'behind' those who are followed. Moving alongside when one can be behind is not following. If the rules had said 'move in the same direction as the routers' that would be different.

looking at theis from a different point of view, If the pursuers are not required to wheel to follow, then, with suitable VMD rolls, it is possible that pursuers who started in overlap could actually overtake the pursued.

"Follow" on a hike through treacherous terrain means "step where I step", but in the tactical context means either shadow without engagement or, more usually, pursue with the intention of doing them injury.

No wheeling unless necessary - doubtless intended to prevent abuse of the wheel.

Can you think of language that would make it clear that the wheel is only if necessary to contact or to follow to approach, but not reach, the router?

Your emphasis is wrong I believe. There is nothing to exploit by wheeling.
After some more thought, I would suggest the only time that pursuers need to wheel is if they are in an overlap position. An author view would answer this. Perhaps I might get one at Warfare in a couple of weeks.

rogerg wrote:Your emphasis is wrong I believe. There is nothing to exploit by wheeling.

Unless your "follow" is rigidly defined geometrically, you can choose your "follow" wheel to set up for next move, pinning enemy, etc.

My experience is routers not routing directly away from the pursuers can require wheels to contact them.

Won't routers always rout away from the pursuers. I haven't got the rules with me, but I believe this is a requirement. If the routers were facing in two directions then there would be an exception.

I have remembered that a friend had an issue with this rule in a competition. Pursuers did not follow the exact direction of the routers and hit a different BG. This changed the course of the game.

I don't know whether this issue is important enough to want a FAQ entry. In a competition I would probably ask the umpire if it made a difference. It's nice to have had it raised here. At least I know the pros and cons if it comes up.