Slitherine

HI,







broken ennemy facing left
pike facing left
CV sup facing up
empty space

during the joint phase the pike purse the broken troop and touch them. DUring the impact phase the CV charge the flanck of the pike.

did the pike leave the broken troop to conform during the manoeuvre phase or did they stay in close combat vs the broken troop and fight in 2 directions?

Thanks

Hi Olivier - I don't think this is explicitly covered in the rules....but Reforming is covered on Page 70. The 2nd to last bullet says that a BG in close combat with enemy in 2 directions can't reform.

However Close Combat is defined in the glossary on p134 as impact or melee - no mention of pursuit here though.

So my interpretation would be that the Pike are not 'fighting' in 2 directions and the whole pike BG can reform to fight against the cavalry.

Others may of course disagree.

Hi pete,

thanks for the reply

P70 reforming last bullet :

"a battle group that has some of its bases facing the ennemy currently in contact with its flank or rear ( and no ennemy in contact to is front ), is not forced to reform."

In this case their is ennemy to is front ( ennemy in contact, not specified in combat ) . So for me it cannot reform.

DID it fight in 2 directions ? it depends on "Contact with routers" must be considerate as COMBAT or not ?? I think it must be , as you cannot leaving front rank with your generals when you are still in contact with routers ..... so still in combat...

I dont understand the argument that the pikes are fighting in two directions. In the melee phase the routing unit does nothing and the pursuing unit doesn't inflict any casualties on it either. In the JAP the routing unit moves away the pursuing unit cannot pursue as it is in contact with another unit. I would treat it as a normal flank charge.

Athough nothing is adjudicated in the Impact or Melee phases where routers are concerned, I don't think that means that the pursuers are not in close combat with the routers. After all, if I pursue in my opponent's turn and remain in contact, I am not free to then make a move in my following manoeuvre phase.

Like I said - I think the rules are vague and it would be down to an umpire's call - but for me the key is the definition of close combat - and nowhere in there does pursuit count as close combat.

And I think it passes the "common sense" test too. (As much as some people would argue that is a matter of opinion, and/or has no place in rules discussions )

You're chasing broken enemy, who do not (effectively) fight back and hence do not pose a threat to you for the forseeable future, especially if you keep hunting them down. You are effectively impetuous at this point - movement restrictions whilst still in contact reflect this state, until unit officers can bring you under control once more.

But before this happens you are hit in the flank, which throws you into some disarray. This enemy does pose a very serious and immediate threat to you.

Wouldn't you expect everybody in your formation to quickly reappraise the situation, decide they are likely to be all dead very soon if they don't present as united a front as possible to the dangerous flank enemy before it is too late, hence quickly sober up and leave the routers alone?

zeitoun wrote:Hi pete,

thanks for the reply

P70 reforming last bullet :

"a battle group that has some of its bases facing the ennemy currently in contact with its flank or rear ( and no ennemy in contact to is front ), is not forced to reform."

In this case their is ennemy to is front ( ennemy in contact, not specified in combat ) . So for me it cannot reform.

DID it fight in 2 directions ? it depends on "Contact with routers" must be considerate as COMBAT or not ?? I think it must be , as you cannot leaving front rank with your generals when you are still in contact with routers ..... so still in combat...

Pursuit is not close combat. Further, a BG can only pursue if all its close combat opponents have broken. Since the BG in question is A) in close combat with unbroken enemy, and B) facing more than one direction, it is no longer eligible to pursue. The reform rules state that a reforming BG must reform so that its bases in contact with the front edge of enemy bases remain in contact. The formerly pursuing BG is in contact with the rear edge of the broken BG, so there is no restriction on reforming to face away.

but if it's physically impossible to reform without pushing the broken troop. How can you do it?

zeitoun wrote:but if it's physically impossible to reform without pushing the broken troop. How can you do it?

Turn on the front corner as normal

thanks Phil

Could you please put up a diagram or photo showing exactly the formation the pike is in after impact? Since reforming occurs before conforming, I don't see any reason the pike cannot reform to face the cav. The cav would then conform to the frontage of the pike normally

in fact I forget that reforming occurs before conforming. So Pike have place to turn, then Cv conform.

Thanks for all

elysiumsolutions@fsmail.n wrote:I dont understand the argument that the pikes are fighting in two directions. In the melee phase the routing unit does nothing and the pursuing unit doesn't inflict any casualties on it either. In the JAP the routing unit moves away the pursuing unit cannot pursue as it is in contact with another unit. I would treat it as a normal flank charge.

I think you have the timing wrong of their sequence. The scenario i presume is that the pike pursued and stayed in contact through a JAP phase. Now it is the immediately following IMpact phase so no separation can have occured yet.

ShrubMiK wrote:And I think it passes the "common sense" test too. (As much as some people would argue that is a matter of opinion, and/or has no place in rules discussions )

You're chasing broken enemy, who do not (effectively) fight back and hence do not pose a threat to you for the forseeable future, especially if you keep hunting them down. You are effectively impetuous at this point - movement restrictions whilst still in contact reflect this state, until unit officers can bring you under control once more.

But before this happens you are hit in the flank, which throws you into some disarray. This enemy does pose a very serious and immediate threat to you.

Wouldn't you expect everybody in your formation to quickly reappraise the situation, decide they are likely to be all dead very soon if they don't present as united a front as possible to the dangerous flank enemy before it is too late, hence quickly sober up and leave the routers alone?

No i would "hope" everybody would quickly reappraise, but that does not mean they will notice in time. I think you could rule either way and justify it in real life. It is what do the rules say.

Agreed, but...

I wouldn't dispute that they didn't notice "in time" - they did get hit in the flank after all!

Now we're beyond that point, damage done, time to move on...certainly some of the formation have probably noticed by now and be reacting if they are still upright How long should it take the rest to react? If there was nothing in front of them they would be assumed (by the rules) to automatically notice in time to turn around and fight the melee at no further penalty beyond what resulted in impact. My question is, should routers in front of them delay their reaction to the threat? I obviously think not. Impetuosity/bloodlust I think goes out of the window as an explanation for self-harmful behaviour in this situation. Perhaps there would be justification for asking them to take a test to turn in time.

If the rules are clear, no contest, play as RAW unless there is an errata on the subject. (There are plenty of things I personally disagree with that fall into this category )

If they are unclear, and in the absence of authors clarifying, then a consensus can be reached. And it is not unreasonable IMO to consider what you think the rules should be trying to achieve, what is realistic, what is best for gameplay, cheese avoidance, etc. and throw that into the pot. I personally prefer to see debate along these lines than trying to take the imperfect text, subject it to some sort of fuzzy logic exercise, and presumably tease out the clarity that doesn't really exist by some form of "adjust, add to, or delete from the text by the minimum amount possible so it has no holes or contradictions" process.