Slitherine

Richard et all

I have a rules question from a game tonight.
A Bg of 'O'Sp is if in contact with 2 groups- MF Bow to the front and MF Auxillia which initally charged in on their flank. The bow break in the melee phase due to the failure of a CT and then the Auxillia break as they fail their CT for seeing the bow go. The turn sequence says they break at the same time, but which do the spear persue, as they don't reform into their original formation until the JAP?

4) MELEE PHASE
Resolve melee combats.
Resolve post-combat cohesion tests, then death rolls, then roll to inflict commander losses.
Assault fortified camps.
After the above is completed for all combats, resolve cohesion tests for seeing friends break or commanders lost.
Make initial rout moves for troops broken this phase. Make initial pursuits. Remove bases if pursuers remain in contact at the end of the rout move. Roll to inflict commander losses. Resolve cohesion tests for seeing commanders lost."

the something else is that there are 2 points in the Melee phase where you test when a commander is lost, is this intentional? (see above I have hilighted them in bold!)

Steve

spike wrote:Richard et all

I have a rules question from a game tonight.
A Bg of 'O'Sp is if in contact with 2 groups- MF Bow to the front and MF Auxillia which initally charged in on their flank. The bow break in the melee phase due to the failure of a CT and then the Auxillia break as they fail their CT for seeing the bow go. The turn sequence says they break at the same time, but which do the spear persue, as they don't reform into their original formation until the JAP?

An interesting situation, which I don't think the rules cover as such. As they cannot split to pursue both, I would rule that the player can choose which they pursue.

4) MELEE PHASE
Resolve melee combats.
Resolve post-combat cohesion tests, then death rolls, then roll to inflict commander losses.
Assault fortified camps.
After the above is completed for all combats, resolve cohesion tests for seeing friends break or commanders lost.
Make initial rout moves for troops broken this phase. Make initial pursuits. Remove bases if pursuers remain in contact at the end of the rout move. Roll to inflict commander losses. Resolve cohesion tests for seeing commanders lost."

the something else is that there are 2 points in the Melee phase where you test when a commander is lost, is this intentional? (see above I have hilighted them in bold!)

Yes. Otherwise you would not have to test if a commander was lost at the end of a pursuit move. Note that BGs that have already tested for seeing a break or a lost general do not have to test again.

Here is a possible amendment to cover Spike's first point:

Initial Pursuits:

If a battle group should pursue enemy in more than one direction, its player chooses which it pursues. All its bases turn to face that direction.

It might be possible to have groups at non-90 degree angles in a situation like this as well. Maybe the wording needs to be more like the evade move wording to allow for turning and wheeling to allow alignment with routing enemy?

P.S. Yup I'm still alive and now playing again!

bddbrown wrote:It might be possible to have groups at non-90 degree angles in a situation like this as well. Maybe the wording needs to be more like the evade move wording to allow for turning and wheeling to allow alignment with routing enemy?

P.S. Yup I'm still alive and now playing again!

The rules already allow wheeling to follow routers. Is that not sufficient?

Welcome back.

Revised version to make them pursue in the majority direction, and to cope with the situation where one of the breaking enemy BGs is of a type they do not pursue:

If a battle group that is fighting in two directions should pursue, it pursues in one direction only. Its other bases turn to face that direction. If the broken enemy in both directions are of a type it should pursue, it pursues in the direction the majority of its bases are facing; if the number of bases facing in each direction are equal, its player chooses which enemy it pursues.

(The use of the semi-colon is to indicate that the equal bases sentence - as well as the majority sentence - only applies if both enemy are of a type it should pursue).

rbodleyscott wrote:Revised version to make them pursue in the majority direction, and to cope with the situation where one of the breaking enemy BGs is of a type they do not pursue:

If a battle group that is fighting in two directions should pursue, it pursues in one direction only. Its other bases turn to face that direction. If the broken enemy in both directions are of a type it should pursue, it pursues in the direction the majority of its bases are facing; if the number of bases facing in each direction are equal, its player chooses which enemy it pursues.

(The use of the semi-colon is to indicate that the equal bases sentence - as well as the majority sentence - only applies if both enemy are of a type it should pursue).

I like this. It is BTW exactly what we ended up doing last night via the common sense approach.

Hammy

Terry has come up with a more succinct version:

If a battle group should pursue broken enemy in two directions, it pursues in the direction the majority of its bases are facing, its other bases turning to face that direction. If the number of bases facing in each direction are equal, its player chooses which enemy it pursues.

However, it does not explicitly allow the BG to turn if if should only pursue one of the broken enemy. (e.g. it was foot and one of the enemy was mounted).

However, this could be said to be implicit and hence not necessary to spell out. What say you?

rbodleyscott wrote:Terry has come up with a more succinct version:

If a battle group should pursue broken enemy in two directions, it pursues in the direction the majority of its bases are facing, its other bases turning to face that direction. If the number of bases facing in each direction are equal, its player chooses which enemy it pursues.

However, it does not explicitly allow the BG to turn if if should only pursue one of the broken enemy. (e.g. it was foot and one of the enemy was mounted).

However, this could be said to be implicit and hence not necessary to spell out. What say you?

Hmm,

This means that if you are mostly fighting someone you wouldn't pursue and break them and another enemy you would pursue then you don't pursue either. To be honest that sounds sensible, most of the BG ar breathing a sigh of relief, they are not that likely to worry about haring off after a minor annoyance.

Hammy

hammy wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote:Terry has come up with a more succinct version:

If a battle group should pursue broken enemy in two directions, it pursues in the direction the majority of its bases are facing, its other bases turning to face that direction. If the number of bases facing in each direction are equal, its player chooses which enemy it pursues.

However, it does not explicitly allow the BG to turn if if should only pursue one of the broken enemy. (e.g. it was foot and one of the enemy was mounted).

However, this could be said to be implicit and hence not necessary to spell out. What say you?

Hmm,

This means that if you are mostly fighting someone you wouldn't pursue and break them and another enemy you would pursue then you don't pursue either. To be honest that sounds sensible, most of the BG ar breathing a sigh of relief, they are not that likely to worry about haring off after a minor annoyance.

Hammy

But it doesn't actually explicitly say they don't pursue the ones to the side, and the rules say they have to pursue. Hence it reintroduces ambiguity.

Perhaps the less succinct version is safer.

If there is space for a few more words then great.

Looking at the pursit rules in detail if a BG of foot is fighting two mounted BG in different directions and breaks them both then allowing the BG to elect not to pursue one would still leave the option of pursuing the other.

To be honest I think pursue the one that most bases are fighting is clearest and less likely to be exploitable.

There is a vague argument that with the same number of bases fighting each it should pursue neither and just reorganise itself.

Hammy

The simplest alternative is to say that battle groups fighting in 2 directions never pursue. (They sigh with relief and reform instead).

 A battle group that was fighting enemy in two directions does not pursue.

For clarity the first paragraph on Initial Pursuits would become:

 An unbroken battle group, all of whose close combat opponents (except those only fighting it as an overlap) have broken and routed this phase, always pursues unless:
--o It is foot who have broken mounted opponents, in which case:
----• Non-shock foot can choose to pursue mounted by passing a CMT.
----• Shock foot must pass a CMT not to pursue mounted.
--o It was fighting enemy in two directions.
--o It is battle wagons or artillery.

That is also perfectly clear and justifiable.

rbodleyscott wrote:For clarity the first paragraph on Initial Pursuits would become:

 An unbroken battle group, all of whose close combat opponents (except those only fighting it as an overlap) have broken and routed this phase, always pursues unless:
--o It is foot who have broken mounted opponents, in which case:
----• Non-shock foot can choose to pursue mounted by passing a CMT.
----• Shock foot must pass a CMT not to pursue mounted.
--o It was fighting enemy in two directions.
--o It is battle wagons or artillery.

That seems simple and sensible.

Do you want to add something to cover a BG that routed two BGs that were both fighting its front, but rout in different directions due to not having conformed yet? Allow the owning player to choose, perhaps, as the simplest option?

lawrenceg wrote:Do you want to add something to cover a BG that routed two BGs that were both fighting its front, but rout in different directions due to not having conformed yet? Allow the owning player to choose, perhaps, as the simplest option?

That will be a fairly rare occurence.

If it does occur, the present rules would presumably make the pursuers initially attempt to pursue both (which is probably the most realistic historical behaviour, even though it increases the chance of failing to catch either). If they succeed in catching both, they could knock a base off each. If they lose contact with one, but not the other, they would presumably pursue the one still in contact in the JAP.

This seems reasonable to me, do you disagree?

Richard just a thought on interpretation,

 An unbroken battle group, all of whose close combat opponents (except those only fighting it as an overlap) have broken and routed this phase, always pursues unless:
--o It is foot who have broken mounted opponents, in which case:
----• Non-shock foot can choose to pursue mounted by passing a CMT.
----• Shock foot must pass a CMT not to pursue mounted.
--o It was fighting enemy in two directions.
--o It is battle wagons or artillery.

If the enemy fighting was steady foot and it routed a BG to its front or flank, whilst a BG of mounted from another direction pulled back (as it cant remain in contact with steady foot), would the foot unit still not persue the routing unit?

steve

spike wrote:Richard just a thought on interpretation,

 An unbroken battle group, all of whose close combat opponents (except those only fighting it as an overlap) have broken and routed this phase, always pursues unless:
--o It is foot who have broken mounted opponents, in which case:
----• Non-shock foot can choose to pursue mounted by passing a CMT.
----• Shock foot must pass a CMT not to pursue mounted.
--o It was fighting enemy in two directions.
--o It is battle wagons or artillery.

If the enemy fighting was steady foot and it routed a BG to its front or flank, whilst a BG of mounted from another direction pulled back (as it cant remain in contact with steady foot), would the foot unit still not persue the routing unit?

steve

No. Even if they weren't fighting in 2 directions they wouldn't, because the mounted don't break off until the JAP, whereas the foot rout in the melee phase. So at the time the foot rout the enemy have not broken all their close combat opponents.

This seems historically reasonable to me.

I like the not pursuing idea as tghey stand and sort themselves out as a BG

Si