Slitherine

In dementia land a unit of cavalry C which broke was pursued by some knights K a unit of medium foot was behind the cav intent on becoming a flank charge on the knights but while facing (W) had been placed slightly to far across by around 3mm (sigh) the cavalry diverted around the foot on the initial rout just passing the front right corner with the front of the bases, the knights remained in contact. in the JAP the cavalry carried on towards the rear the owner of the knights while rolling enough to remain in contact chose to hit the foot with his front left corner on the right side of the mediums foot base. 1 is this correct as i read routers must follow pursuers wheeling to do so and therefore would have remained corner to corner contact so would have followed cavalry past medium foot the knights did roll up in pursuits both times apologies for poor diagram (how do you do those boxes).....Dino
(N)

KK
KK
CC

(W) MF (E)
MF
MF


(S)

I have seen a couple of disputes on this issue. The view I have seen accepted most, is that the pursuers need not change direction if the routers are still partly ahead of them.
I'm not sure there is an official view with this one.

I would view it that they have to follow the shortest route. So if straight ahead is still contact that is what they do.
I think most would play it that way.

I would define the shortest route rather as just pursuing, and following as taking the same route hence wheeling if neccessary as in the bullet in bullet point. otherwise it should say shortest route to retain contact in rules????

"Pursuers follow routers, wheeling if necessary to do so."

So if they can maintain contact with the routers without wheeling, the wheel is not compulsory. Further on we have :

"Pursuers normally contact any fresh enemy in their path."

Hitting the MF with the knights seems reasonable to me. Why would they avoid such a juicy target that has been revealed by the Cavalry's rout?

IMO pursuers follow the routers directly forwards, as routers move directly away from them. They only wheel when necessary, and certainly do not avoid fresh enemy that the routers have shifted or dropped to avoid, unless lights who stop 1 MU short, this probably causing the pursuit to cease.

good pts there but come up short, pursuers follow routers wheeling if neccessary (not when neccessary) to follow by definition "is to go along the same track" so must mean if you started corner to corner and rolled enough to stay in contact you would remain in contact corner to corner, also in the JAP you move routers and pursuers not routers then pursuers as no one owns this phase units then are moving at the same time so why the option to deviate from following? (or corner to corner)the only deviation is not retaining contact. you should in reality only be able to contact fresh enemy in the case of a burst through, or contraction by routers ..... regards

Okay - I think the bit you're missing is 'the path'.

Assuming the Knights charged the Cav - the path is the direction of the Knights' charge. The Cav rout directly away fron the Knights - following the same path.

They are allowed to shift to avoid friends - but they do not wheel away from the path. When the Knights pursue - they follow the same path - they have no no reason to wheel and will hit the MF if they so choose.

You are of course free to ignore this view - but you've had the same response from 4 very experienced players - one of whom was the umpire at the IWF in the USA - Hazelbark.

You've asked the forum for advice - but you don't have to take it if you don't want to.

Best of luck.

i see by path you mean away pursuers, and in response to your comments forums are about debating not telling somebody i know better than you regards Dino

It becomes complex if the routers are routing from contact in more than 1 direction, e.g. flank and front. Then read the rules and debate. It is only clear cut if both players have the same 'understanding' of English.

Then its Umpire Call.

i have no problems with playing with the gener consensus. but these pts i will make

1 i put a question on behalf of a group of players to get a definative answer.

2answered pts by what was writen by text in the rule book. to entice debate!

3 was misquoted the rules, as an answer.

4 i did not say that what i was expressing was the correct way to play

5 did not tell any one i have been wargaming for nearly 30 years so i must be right!

6i put a question on the forum for members of my club, a forum is a debating platform and debated is what i did, you cannot prove a pt by just saying i
know better than you, and i am certain that v.2 will change the written text to shortest route for pusuers,

if you cannot debate by other than attacking, someones understanding of grammar as a point of argument, then what chance has the novice got by asking a question? some people believe that if you make a counterpoint it is a personal attack, thats not the case i am very dissapointed in some peoples conduct in talking a pt over a set of rules. I have been on the competition circuit for nearly thirty years, and you will be hard pressed to find people i have played against do anything but say i have been nothing but polite and civil to them in victory and defeat. learn some humility gentlemen!!!!!! regards Dino Monticoli

You really have a persecution complex. Did the English do something bad to you at some point?

I have a different understanding of English than someone who lives 10 miles away or went to a different school. And a very different understanding of it to Non-English English speakers, such as Americans.

***Moderator edit to remove inappropriate comment***

philqw78 wrote:I have a different understanding of English than someone who lives 10 miles away or went to a different school.

I wondered why you could'nt understand me its all clear now......

philqw78 wrote:It becomes complex if the routers are routing from contact in more than 1 direction, e.g. flank and front. Then read the rules and debate. It is only clear cut if both players have the same 'understanding' of English.

Then its Umpire Call.

I think Phil here is alluding to the fact that the wording could be interpreted in different ways, not accusing anyone of not understanding English.

The rules don't say anything more than "follow" which means do anything that a reasonable person could reasonably describe as following. This is quite subjective, hence the need to call an umpire if players cannot agree what is reasonable.

IF straight ahead could reasonably regarded as following then you can't wheel because it is not necessary. Personally, if part of the pursuing BG has part of the routing BG straight ahead of it, then I would say it is following it.

If you take "going in the same path"as the definition then that would mean the same path as the routing BG, not the same path as the pursuers were on last time they pursued. In that case if you started corner to corner then that would not be the same path (in my opinion) but any move that would get your BG onto the piece of ground that the routers had trodden on and then wheel until facing the direction of the routers' movement would be following.

Phil - some restraint please.

Dino - what Lawrence said. I'm afraid you have misinterpreted a bit, people have offered a view based on their understanding and are trying to assist. Please take the comments in the spirit they were intended.

All - decorum please.

philqw78 wrote:It becomes complex if the routers are routing from contact in more than 1 direction, e.g. flank and front. Then read the rules and debate. It is only clear cut if both players have the same 'understanding' of English.

Then its Umpire Call.

This is open to debate and I've never been sure on this. For example

______C
XXXYYYC
XXXYYYC
AAABBB

If Y routs at the usual 45 degree angle, in which direction to B and C go? At what point do they wheel to follow the routers?

Does B wheel immediately and so now count as charging X*? Or does it go past X's rear then wheel? Or can it go forward a bit then wheel to count as a charge into X's flank (and is that a legal flank charge given the it's a pursuit, not a declared charge)?

Can I go forward a bit with C then wheel so I hit X in the flank? Or even just go straight forward? But then are they wheeling to pursue?


* Which brings up another unclear point. The FAQ says you can't charge the first two ranks in combat if it's not a flank charge. But it doesn't cover when the charge is the result of pursuit and so "unavoidable".

i am not happy about philqw78 comments regarding perscution problems and did the english do something bad to me, he can choose to apoligise now or if he is at usk i will ask him for one?

See you next weekend

This is open to debate and I've never been sure on this. For example

______C
XXXYYYC
XXXYYYC
AAABBB

If Y routs at the usual 45 degree angle, in which direction to B and C go? At what point do they wheel to follow the routers?

I'll have a go at answering this Peter.

Hopefully the photos will replicate your scenario.

The first photo shows the combat positions.



The 2nd photo shows the routing BGs intial rout move. I have assumed 5 MU - it has turned 180 degrees, wheeled to bisect the angle and then shifted to the right to avoid bursting through its friendly BG. When I play, I believe the corner that touches both enemy BGs shold be the one to move the appropriate distance.



As we have 2 pursuers, roll both VMDs to determine which will pursue first. I have assumed that the Thessallians have the higher VMD and move before the Companions.

The 3rd photo shows the Thessalians wheeling to hit the routers. The Companions move second and by dropping a base can also hit the routers. This will cause the routers to lose 2 bases.



If the Companions are the faster of the 2 pursuers I believe they will go straight forward - they have no reason to wheel since they can hit the routers with both bases - nor do they have a reason to drop a base back. This means that the Thessallians can not maintain contact with the routers. I believe they wheel onto the path of the rout and go as far as they can but cannot interpenetrate or burst through the Companions.

This is shown in the last photo - sorry it's a bit dark.



I don't believe either pursuer has the option to hit the non-routing enemy BG - but if the Companions pass a CMT to stop pursuing in the JAP then they could provide an overlap.

Hopefully what I've described is broadly how most people play it? But who knows?

Thanks, Pete, great photos. That answered a question of mine, too.

And another question: Page 108, 3rd bullet, says the Companions 'can' contract frontage by dropping back bases if necessary to avoid friends. In the spirit of this discussion , I must announce that I have not studied the Queen's English. To me the word 'can' implies that I may do so but am not required to contract frontage. How do you guys over the pond play this point?