Slitherine

Played my third FoG game last night and we were at a loss on how to deal with the following situation.



Roman Cav charged Fragmented Gallic Cav in the flank who were already fighting a second Roman Cav BG.

The Gallic Cav took their CT and failed, went Broken and immediately routed.

1. Which way do they go? Is there a choice?
2. Do I play this like an Evade?
3. Do the chargers still charge? If so they couldn't get around their friends.
4. Can the Roman cav that were already fighting pursue? Is so when?
5. If the CT was passed, the charge would have hit and the automatic cohesion drop for flank charge would have Broken them anyway. How would this change any answers to the above questions?

Help! Please!

I try to answer some questions:

1)
It routs away from the charger (p. 100)

2)
You play it like a rout (p. 100), which is similar to an evade in some circumstances.

3)
Yes, the chargers are still moved (p. 61), I assume it's without VMD roll (AFAIR only when pursuing or when all targets evaded)
They can drop back bases to get past friends (p. 54)

4)
Good question. Initial pursuits happen at the end of the phase but BGs that broke because of being charged while fragmented rout immediately and not at the end of the phase as normal. But the condition for initial rout (p.101) is met, so I'd say they pursue. In that case, they will move after the chargers. As I write this, it seems very odd to me. I'm not sure here!

5)
As far as I can see, the BG would make their initial rout at the end of the phase instead of immediately and therefore would bisect the angle between the two Roman BGs to determine rout direction. Both Roman BGs would make an initial pursuit, moving the one that rolled higher before the other.

Mehrunes wrote: 2)You play it like a rout (p. 100), which is similar to an evade in some circumstances.

I guess I asked for that. I was suggesting that where rout rules seem vague treating them like evades seems to work.

Thankyou for the help. More by luck than design, we got most of it right, but we missed the chargers being able to drop elements back however.

If we'd known they could get past we might have granted them a VMD roll however, they seem to come in pairs.

Actually, the previous poster got it wrong

It splits the angle of the charger and the unit it is already in contact with. The unit in contact then takes a VMD and the charger doesn't. The person making the charge decides which unit to move first, with both units wheeling to attempt to catch the routing BG.

Just to reiterate - if a unit charges and an opponent breaks it doesn't take a VMD! It simply moves it's normal move distance unless there are other BG's which also evade and it pursues them.

dave_r wrote:Actually, the previous poster got it wrong

It splits the angle of the charger and the unit it is already in contact with. The unit in contact then takes a VMD and the charger doesn't. The person making the charge decides which unit to move first, with both units wheeling to attempt to catch the routing BG.

Just to reiterate - if a unit charges and an opponent breaks it doesn't take a VMD! It simply moves it's normal move distance unless there are other BG's which also evade and it pursues them.

Could you tell me where in the rules the chargers still count as chargers and not as pursuers, given their target broke on the CT?

If I remember correctly, pursuers are only mentioned in the rules as BG's in contact with troops who break. Chargers whose fragmented target fails a CT are still only chargers. Not having been in contact with the broken troops, they cannot be pursuers.

Routers move away from the threats (p100). They split the angle. Both their current opponents and the new chargers are the threats (2nd bullet).

Full sequence page 168:
1) Rout moves for the broken troops failing the CT when charged.
2) The chargers (no VMD, this only applies if the targets have evaded p68) who will continue in their declared path.
3) Final line of the impact phase sequence, initial pursuits.

(You almost got it right Dave. Keep trying.)

rogerg wrote:If I remember correctly, pursuers are only mentioned in the rules as BG's in contact with troops who break. Chargers whose fragmented target fails a CT are still only chargers. Not having been in contact with the broken troops, they cannot be pursuers.

It doesn't, it says if you are in contact, you must pursue, [unless...]

I can't find anything about defining pursuers as only those in contact, and to do so would seem to be very counter-intuitive. Their only target has routed, they are pursuing!

The target of the chargers may have routed. This doesn't change the fact that the chargers are charging. If all the targets evade, the chargers are still chargers. An observer might describe the activity as a pursuit. However, in the rules we need the precise definition. A charge is a specific type of move that occurs in the impact phase. A pursuit is a specific type of move that is initiated by enemy in contact routing.

rogerg wrote:However, in the rules we need the precise definition. A charge is a specific type of move that occurs in the impact phase.

Yes, but this is as a consequence of the CT caused by the charge declaration. Things have moved on

rogerg wrote:A pursuit is a specific type of move that is initiated by enemy in contact routing.

Except I can't find anything that says this! I've looked for something to support either interpretation.

The difference of course, being whether or not the chargers/pursuers throw a VMD, and who moves first. If both count as pursuers, then the fastest moves first, rules are quite clear on that.

Also, if they count as chargers, could one argue they must charge in the declared direction, ie the flank of the original position (and are thus likely to interfere with the pursuit of the BG in combat)? It says chargers can wheel to follow evaders, not routers...

I think it would be much simpler to treat them as pursuers.

The rules may not specifically state that 'pursuits are initiated by enemy in contact routing'. This is implicit. Pursuers only get mentioned when opponents in contact rout. Likewise, there is nothing that states chargers become pursuers if the target routs prior to contact. It is the common usage of the word 'pursuer' that has led to the difficulty that initiated this thread.

I would contest the assertion that it would be easier if the chargers were treated as pursuers. Not all the targets might be fragmented troops who break. We would then be in deep water with pursuing one group and charging another. The two types of move are carried out differently.

The rules as written are straight forward. The turn sequence on p168 is very useful. The routers rout. The chargers make a charge move. The troops initially in contact make the initial pursuit move. Each type of move is well defined. If the chargers did make contact, they will now become pursuers and it is fastest pursuer first.

There is a similar problem of players being loose with definitions when chargers meet fresh enemy. In this case pursuers, do become chargers. This allows stepping forward. I have seen problems with players trying to step forward with pursuers into new enemy, which is not permitted until the enemy is contacted. Being precise with the rules is important.

So you agree the chargers must charge towards and only in the direction of the original router's flank (as the implicit declared charge direction), and cannot wheel towards the routers, and are thus likely to block the pursuit?

rogerg wrote: I would contest the assertion that it would be easier if the chargers were treated as pursuers. Not all the targets might be fragmented troops who break. We would then be in deep water with pursuing one group and charging another. The two types of move are carried out differently.
...
There is a similar problem of players being loose with definitions when chargers meet fresh enemy. In this case pursuers, do become chargers. This allows stepping forward. I have seen problems with players trying to step forward with pursuers into new enemy, which is not permitted until the enemy is contacted. Being precise with the rules is important.

Haven't you just covered the first problem by your following paragraph...

Yes, I am agreed that the chargers will continue the charge in the original declared direction of the charge. I do not think they can wheel to follow, the target is not evading. (P68 about evaders moving out of the path permits a wheel, nothing about routers). They can drop back one base to pass their friends. Assuming they do not make contact, the friends pursue. Pursuers can drop back any number of bases to avoid friends and follow pursuers. (P108 bullet 3). If the chargers obstruct the left hand base of the would be pursuers, I think the pursuit ends when it meets the chargers. There is no provision for bursting through friends in a pursuit, only dropping back bases to pass them.

I might also state that I do not find the result is not entirely satisfactory. Intuitively, one would expect the two groups to be chasing off after the unfortunate Gauls. However, the question was about how the rules say the figures should be moved. If we allow opinions of 'what ought to happen' there is bound to be an argument.

I agree, the conclusion reached would seem counter-intuitive, which is why I was saying treating as pursuers seems better from an intuitive point of view

We are agreed then. Just so long as players never actually do go for the intuitive approach!

Well that makes me feel better! When obviously experienced players still struggle with / need to debate the problem I musn't be such a muppet after all.

Having digested the above I think it boiled down to...

1. CMT failed so Rout, bisecting angle
2. Chargers move, no VMD, dropping back bases and unable to wheel
3. Pursuers eventually move, with a VMD, so long as they can get past the chargers, dropping back bases / wheeling if necessary.

That does make sense!

We left the game, to continue another night, with the following simpler situation playing out. Let me see if I can get this one right on my own...



A Roman Cav BG charges Fragmented Numidian LC already engaged with another Roman Cav BG.

The LC fail their CT and Rout. The chargers make their full move without VMD failing to catch them.
This is where we left it.

So next time the fighting Cav get to pursue with VMD. Job done?

rogerg wrote:We are agreed then. Just so long as players never actually do go for the intuitive approach!

Well, I agreed the conclusion reached is counter-intuitive, but I'm not sure it's the right conclusion

However, we do both agree Dave got it wrong

RollsDice wrote: 1. CMT failed so Rout, bisecting angle

Yes

RollsDice wrote: 2. Chargers move, no VMD, dropping back bases and unable to wheel

All chargers can make a single wheel up to 90 degrees (with the restrictions listed in item 2 on p53). The point was in this case the charge was declared in the direction of the routers flank, so you charge in that direction. (I thought you pursued, apparently not!).

RollsDice wrote: 3. Pursuers eventually move, with a VMD, so long as they can get past the chargers, dropping back bases / wheeling if necessary.

Yes.

RollsDice wrote: So next time the fighting Cav get to pursue with VMD. Job done?

You always make an initial pursuit, unless one of the exceptions listed in the first bullet point on p101.

(It doesn't apply here, but be aware overlaps will also pursue, providing they have no unbroken frontal combat opponents themselves. You need to see the FAQ for that one [item 16] http://www.fieldofglory.com/file/FAQ_ver5.01.pdf)

peterrjohnston wrote:

RollsDice wrote: 2. Chargers move, no VMD, dropping back bases and unable to wheel

All chargers can make a single wheel up to 90 degrees (with the restrictions listed in item 2 on p53). The point was in this case the charge was declared in the direction of the routers flank, so you charge in that direction. (I thought you pursued, apparently not!).

Yes, I just meant unable to wheel in this situation due to reasons described earlier in the thread. My chargers wheel all the time!

Thanks for the help folks. Time for another thread and another question.

Refering to the original diagram: The fragmented Gauls will rout, either by failing a CT or by dropping a further level for being hit in the flank. The chargers can drop back one file to avoid friends. The charge will initially contact only one base of the Gallic BG whether a wheel is made or not, so a wheel can be made if the chargers begin more than 1MU away from the Gauls. Therefore, at the time of charge declaration, the charging BG could declare the charge direction to include a wheel so that the left front corner of the charging BG touches the Gauls near their rear left corner. This wheel might increase chances of catching the routing Gauls and of leaving a clear path for the other Roman BG to pursue. Is all that correct?

Thanks, Terry G.

Yes, assuming the charge is from more than 1 MU away, this looks to be fine. Page 53 permits a wheel if it does not reduce the number of bases that would fight in the impact phase. It seems unlikely more than one base will be contacted with a straight ahead charge. Clipping the rear corner would fine.

FoG is nice like that. When you know what you are doing, the rules usually get the result that you want.

Thinking about it again, if the charge is from less than 1 MU it might be argued that the charge blocking the pursuers is more realistic. The two groups getting thoroughly disorganised attempting to move in perpendicular directions. It's all a matter of opinion when the discussion starts "In real life they would..."