Slitherine

Please refer to the diagrams on page 65 where a BG of Elephants has charged a BG of evading Light Horse. The rules say, "If all target groups evade out of the original path of the charge, the chargers can wheel in an attempt to catch them."

I believe this wheel is done after the evaders have finished their move and also after the chargers have rolled their VMD. If so, the Elephants know exactly where the Light Horse have fetched up. Must they wheel to follow the same path as the evaders as per the diagram or are they allowed tweak their wheel to give themselves the best chance to catch the evader? In the diagram, the Elephants have wheeled to follow the same path as the Light Horse and have come up short. Is there anything that would prevent the Elephants from wheeling just enough to make sure their left front corner misses the woods? This would give their right front corner a much better chance of contacting the Light Horse.

Thanks.

Terry G.

I don't see anything governing how or when the chargers can wheel - so I believe you're free to wheel as you wish. However, I don't think the elephants could contact the LH simply with their front corner - don't they have to make 'legal' contact with their front edge against either the rear edge or rear corner of the LH?

fsmall wrote:I don't see anything governing how or when the chargers can wheel - so I believe you're free to wheel as you wish. However, I don't think the elephants could contact the LH simply with their front corner - don't they have to make 'legal' contact with their front edge against either the rear edge or rear corner of the LH?

Check page 52 - chargers front corner is a legal contact.

Right, couldn't be clearer. So the original premise is true? If possible, the chargers could wheel the minimum necessary to dink the evaders with its front corner?

Yes.

Is the same true of pursuits?

i.e. if whilst in combat a unit facing two directions breaks - it moves at 45 degrees from the unit in front. When the unit pursues can it wheel by the minimum necessary to catch them or must it wheel fully to contact?

dave_r wrote:Is the same true of pursuits?

i.e. if whilst in combat a unit facing two directions breaks - it moves at 45 degrees from the unit in front. When the unit pursues can it wheel by the minimum necessary to catch them or must it wheel fully to contact?

What, so you can shepherd a routing BG towards its baggage instead of directly away from those making the initial pursuit.

Exactly

dave_r wrote:Exactly

I am not sure I get how this is shepherding? The path of the fleeing BG is predefined so how is any amoutn of wheeling after the initial route going to shepherd them?

expendablecinc wrote:

dave_r wrote:Exactly

I am not sure I get how this is shepherding? The path of the fleeing BG is predefined so how is any amoutn of wheeling after the initial route going to shepherd them?

In Dave's example a BG fighting in 2 directions routs splitting the angle. The pursuers then wheel the minimum to follow. Basically clipping their corner, but themselves facing the enemy camp. If this is allowed the routers then rout away from the pursuers in the JAP, towards the camp.

philqw78 wrote:

expendablecinc wrote:

dave_r wrote:Exactly

I am not sure I get how this is shepherding? The path of the fleeing BG is predefined so how is any amoutn of wheeling after the initial route going to shepherd them?

In Dave's example a BG fighting in 2 directions routs splitting the angle. The pursuers then wheel the minimum to follow. Basically clipping their corner, but themselves facing the enemy camp. If this is allowed the routers then rout away from the pursuers in the JAP, towards the camp.

Its a shame that people even look for this kind of stuff. From here its only a small step to claim you can wheel more than necessary (rather than less than necessary) to slingshot your troops elsewhere on the battlefield when the point of the rule is for dogged pursuit of broken troops at the expense of other battfield opportunity (hence the test to stop pursuing).

expendablecinc wrote:Its a shame that people even look for this kind of stuff. From here its only a small step to claim you can wheel more than necessary (rather than less than necessary) to slingshot your troops elsewhere on the battlefield when the point of the rule is for dogged pursuit of broken troops at the expense of other battfield opportunity (hence the test to stop pursuing).

I explained what a shame it was to Dave at the time. But much less eloquently. I don't think he would try it outside the club

expendablecinc wrote:

philqw78 wrote:

expendablecinc wrote: I am not sure I get how this is shepherding? The path of the fleeing BG is predefined so how is any amoutn of wheeling after the initial route going to shepherd them?

In Dave's example a BG fighting in 2 directions routs splitting the angle. The pursuers then wheel the minimum to follow. Basically clipping their corner, but themselves facing the enemy camp. If this is allowed the routers then rout away from the pursuers in the JAP, towards the camp.

Its a shame that people even look for this kind of stuff. From here its only a small step to claim you can wheel more than necessary (rather than less than necessary) to slingshot your troops elsewhere on the battlefield when the point of the rule is for dogged pursuit of broken troops at the expense of other battfield opportunity (hence the test to stop pursuing).

It can also be used to move an already routing BG into a direction desired to move your troops extra in the JAP.

Interesting how it is perfectly feasible to do this in a charge but not in a pursuit?

Just to pose the other side of the argument, what would happen if because of the distance we move relative to each other I could catch the BG only by clipping it rather than doing the ful wheel?

dave_r wrote:Interesting how it is perfectly feasible to do this in a charge but not in a pursuit?

Just to pose the other side of the argument, what would happen if because of the distance we move relative to each other I could catch the BG only by clipping it rather than doing the ful wheel?

Bear in mind there are charge restrictions (e.g. can't charge so less bases contact).

Re pursuits, it of course depends what the rules say specifically (don't have them on me). I seem to recall there's the slightly vague "follow the routers". I suspect any umpire would take that to mean wheel by the same amount and go after them.

grahambriggs wrote:
Re pursuits, it of course depends what the rules say specifically (don't have them on me). I seem to recall there's the slightly vague "follow the routers". I suspect any umpire would take that to mean wheel by the same amount and go after them.

I certainly would.

The exact wording on page 108 is "Pursuers follow routers, wheeling if neccessary to do so."
There are a couple of restrictions (or enhancements depends on your point of view) "They can contract frontage by dropping back bases if neccessary to avoid friends. If more than one battle group is pursuing the same routing battle group, move the fastest pursuers first........"
So if a router was moved at a 45 degree angle and pursued by a slower pursuer who was of a wider frontage it is possible that the only way the pursuer could maintain contact was by moving at a shallower angle. An example would be a 2 element wide BG of heavy foot who had charged into the flank of a 1 element wide BG of Knights who subsequently routed. When the knights rout it is possible the outflanking element could contact by pursuing in a straight line, but if it wheels through the same angle it is left behind. I feel the foot have an oblication to maintain contact if at all possible, and therefore they pursue in whatever way achieves this.

awesum4 wrote:The exact wording on page 108 is "Pursuers follow routers, wheeling if neccessary to do so."
There are a couple of restrictions (or enhancements depends on your point of view) "They can contract frontage by dropping back bases if neccessary to avoid friends. If more than one battle group is pursuing the same routing battle group, move the fastest pursuers first........"
So if a router was moved at a 45 degree angle and pursued by a slower pursuer who was of a wider frontage it is possible that the only way the pursuer could maintain contact was by moving at a shallower angle. An example would be a 2 element wide BG of heavy foot who had charged into the flank of a 1 element wide BG of Knights who subsequently routed. When the knights rout it is possible the outflanking element could contact by pursuing in a straight line, but if it wheels through the same angle it is left behind. I feel the foot have an oblication to maintain contact if at all possible, and therefore they pursue in whatever way achieves this.

There are benefits to being a wider frontage than your opponent but having a shorter wheel distance is not one of them.

I take "...follow routers, wheeling if necessary...": to mean wheel to face the same angle as the router line of retreat and from there pursue straight ahead to enemy. If you catch them you catch them.
Anything else invites Ruddockilepsy.

Sorry but I don't read it that way. I take "wheeling if neccessary" to mean that if they could stay in contact by a straight move they would do so, wheeling is optional not compulsory. The use of the words "if neccessary" makes it an option.
If the authors intended the pursuers to wheel through the same angle surely they would have written "Pursuers follow routers, wheeling through the same angle" Its simple, straight forward, and unambiguous