Slitherine

A few questions from the recent Australian champonships:

1. Does a unit in overlap pursue a routing unit that they were overlapping?

2. If a general fights in the front rank of an overlapping unit can that general move away in the joint action phase?
While generals in comabt cannot move away an overlapping unit can move away in it's next turn and is not lcoked in combat. I was just wondering whether the same applied to a general with the unit.

3. If a unit has attacked an unfortified camp is looting the camp (it has not yet passed a CMT to stop looting) and that unit is then charged can it evade or is it considered to be in combat with the camp?


Regards
Martin

1. Yes if it has no unbroken BG's to it's front.

2. Good Question. I would say not unless the BG he is attached to moves away.

3. No evade. It is considered to be busy.

1. They do have to pursue.

2. If he adds to combat I would have said no(ie add re-roll dice)

3. No they can't evade.

general in joint action phase I think would be free to bugger off to his hearts content. being only an overlap does not lock him in place for any melee so I don't see why he can't go for a stroll or head off to someplace he feels he would be of better use.

general in joint action phase I think would be free to bugger off to his hearts content. being only an overlap does not lock him in place for any melee so I don't see why he can't go for a stroll or head off to someplace he feels he would be of better use.

Sorry Dead - I have to disagree with you.

Page 99 - 3rd bullet - once a Commander is declared to be in close combat he must remain with the BG.

Page 90 - defines close combat and includes a BG fighting only as an overlap.

I believe he can't move away in the JAP.

Agreed.

Agree with yes they pursue & no he can't move away in joint action since he put himself in the front rank. He can, however, move away with the BG as it moves out of combat in its movement phase, and then move independently in the following joint action phase.

Camp: troops can't evade if in close combat - neither sacking nor looting is close combat.

MikeK wrote:Agree with yes they pursue & no he can't move away in joint action since he put himself in the front rank. He can, however, move away with the BG as it moves out of combat in its movement phase, and then move independently in the following joint action phase.

Camp: troops can't evade if in close combat - neither sacking nor looting is close combat.

But they cannot move until they have passed a CMT to stop looting.

philqw78 wrote:But they cannot move until they have passed a CMT to stop looting.

Page 107 says that passing a CMT to stop looting means "they are free to move normally in their next turn." Evading is a charge response.

MikeK wrote:Page 107 says that passing a CMT to stop looting means "they are free to move normally in their next turn." Evading is a charge response.

but they are not free to respond until they have stopped looting.

philqw78 wrote:

MikeK wrote:Page 107 says that passing a CMT to stop looting means "they are free to move normally in their next turn." Evading is a charge response.

but they are not free to respond until they have stopped looting.

Where does it say that if they are charged that they may not respond? And if it did would it make sense?

MikeK wrote:

philqw78 wrote:

MikeK wrote:Page 107 says that passing a CMT to stop looting means "they are free to move normally in their next turn." Evading is a charge response.

but they are not free to respond until they have stopped looting.

Where does it say that if they are charged that they may not respond? And if it did would it make sense?

An evade is movement, and they are not free to do that normally. Unless, in your definition, an evade is not normal movement.
Does it make sense if they can't repond? Yes. If they weren't so interested in looting they would have stopped in the prevoius JAP, which they have chance to do in the same move they start looting. Perhaps 2 extra words should have been added. "They are free to move and respond normally..."

Hold on..."free to move normally in their next turn" indicates that they are allowed to move normally (whatever that means) after passing a CMT. That's not quite the same as saying that they are not allowed to move at all without the CMT. You are inferring that. And you might be right, but it is still inference rather than deduction.

Mike's definition is that evading is NOT "normal" movement. Which makes sense to me. It doesn't happen enitrely voluntarily, it doesn't happen in the manoeuvre phase. Another thing to note is that it doesn't happen in that BGs next turn either, another factor that suggests "free to move normally in their next turn" doesn't have a lot to say about whether they can evade or not.

Applying your "well wouldn't they have worded it differently if..." test to it - why bother to put the word normally in if all activity which could be categorised as movement is intended?

I'm undecided on the answer, by the way. From a "realism" standpoint it can be argued both ways also. I think I have a slight leaning towards the looting rabble being too distracted to notice they are being charged until too late, and duie to being disorganised and unco-ordinated if they do run away ity will be in the form of a rout rather than an orderly evade.

I just like arguing with Mike as he's quite good at it. It can be seen both ways and I have had it ruled both ways in competition which is rather disheartening. The last time was by the Doctor, and that was no evade. So my LH got a kicking.

I agree with Phil - until a BG stops looting it is unable to move away.

I've always taken this to represent the troops being too involved in the sacking / looting and other similar activities to respond to orders - including running away from a charge.

They can't evade while looting. (They can if attacking a fortified camp that they have not yet successfully diced to sack).

Mike's argument ignores the previous sentence: "Once a camp is sacked, battle groups in contact with it must pass a CMT in the joint action phase to stop looting. "

>I just like arguing with Mike

And Hammy...and others

But I'm not complaining, I like arguing too!

Anyway, we have a ruling, which is nice. Even more so when it fits our preferences

rbodleyscott wrote:They can't evade while looting. (They can if attacking a fortified camp that they have not yet successfully diced to sack).

Mike's argument ignores the previous sentence: "Once a camp is sacked, battle groups in contact with it must pass a CMT in the joint action phase to stop looting. "

Ok, just also read the turn sequence, that this CMT to stop looting is taken before routers/pursuers move. Thus, if my LH or LF pass said CMT in a JAP and pursuers would contact them, they can evade. If they failed the CMT they get hit.

Better hope they stopped to look up then and get their act together to run away.

rbodleyscott wrote:They can't evade while looting. (They can if attacking a fortified camp that they have not yet successfully diced to sack).

I've added "looting 14788" to my notes on the evades page.

rbodleyscott wrote:Mike's argument ignores the previous sentence: "Once a camp is sacked, battle groups in contact with it must pass a CMT in the joint action phase to stop looting. "

I considered that sentence but it can't be taken as strictly true. There appear to be other ways to displace away from the camp (which presumably stops looting) such as turning to face an attacker, pursuing after combat, routing from combat, or a bad CT while sitting there fragmented. Even if the issue is a voluntary aspect to the displacement, there's no compelling reason to expect troops couldn't choose to evade away if it could do the others. It's all combat related displacement, not normal "movement, which is certainly addressed by the text.

A related question that I didn't check was whether close combat affects CMTs to stop looting.

And here I was trying to post without going on and on.