Slitherine

Had a fairly normal situation in a game - my general is fighting in the front rank of a unit and the enemy BG breaks. I pursue and maintain contact with the enemy BG in the melee phase.

During the JAP phase can this general now influence other Cohesion / CMT tests? (in this case to try to stop another BG from continuing to pursue)

We decided it could due to the following logic:

Pg 142: Close Combat. 'Close Combat' is a general term for impact and melee combat. Once such a combat has been joined, battle groups are deemed to be in close combat until one side breaks off, breaks and routs, or is destroyed.

Therefore this pursuing BG is no longer in close combat.

Pg 105: A commander can be declared to be fighting in the front rank of a single battle group in close combat.

Therefore since the BG was not in close combat the general could not be fighting in the front rank.

Also on Pg 105: Once declared as fighting in the front rank, the commander cannot leave the front rank of that battle group until it is no longer in close combat and no longer in contact with enemy routers.

And also Pg 106: A commander who is fighting in the front rank can only influence the complex move test of cohesion tests of the battle group he is with. He cannot affect those of other friendly battle groups.

So because he is not fighting in the front rank during the JAP phase following the initial pursuit we believe he was able to influence other BG's test.

Does anybody disagree with that synopsis?

Your reading is certainly reasonable, but consider:
that quote from page 105 says he can't leave the front rank, so he's still in the front rank while pursuing. Agreed?
Page 106 says 'fighting in the front rank', not 'fighting in close combat'. When pursuing routers he is still fighting in the front rank, just not in combat (as it says on page 105), therefore he has no influence.

pyruse wrote:Your reading is certainly reasonable, but consider:
that quote from page 105 says he can't leave the front rank, so he's still in the front rank while pursuing. Agreed?
Page 106 says 'fighting in the front rank', not 'fighting in close combat'. When pursuing routers he is still fighting in the front rank, just not in combat (as it says on page 105), therefore he has no influence.

He is in the front rank, but can't be "Fighting in the front rank". To fight in the front rank the BG must be in close combat, which it isn't.

This is to prevent the Commander leaving the BG, rather than to prevent his influence on other BG's I believe.

As quoted above, the rules say a commander can be 'declared' to be fighting in the front rank for close combat. Ipso facto, if it's not close combat you can't 'declare' your commander as fighting in the front rank. If he's not fighting in the front rank during close combat, surely a commander can do anything otherwise permitted by the rules?

Does anybody disagree with that synopsis?

Yes - (sigh) - me.

Page 52 - penultimate bullet point. Once declared as fighting in the front rank, the Commander cannot leave the front rank of that BG until it is no longer in close combat and no longer in contact with enemy routers.

In your example, the BG is still in contact with routers, so the Commander is still declared as fighting in the front rank.

And therefore unable to influence events.

My take on it is that the commander is declared as fighting in the front until the BG ceases pursuit. Since he can't move away it doesn't seem very reasonable that he can influence others.

But I do agree that it is open to interpretation and can quite understand why it could be taken as you propose.

Pete, nothing in the rules contradicts Dave, and the rest backs him up. Unfortunately

He is in the front rank but not in close combat

I'll have to read the rules and don't have them with me at present.

However, it seems to hinge around whether when you declare the general to be fighting in the front rank in close combat what happens when the close combat ends. The general still has some restrictions; he can't leave the front rank until it's no longer in contact with routers.

So he's still in the front rank. But the issue is whether he is "fighting" in the front rank or not. i.e is it only fighting if there is a close combat or is there more ways of fighting than close combat. Is a pursuit 'fighting'? It's certainly doing damage becaue of the base losses.

philqw78 wrote:Pete, nothing in the rules contradicts Dave, and the rest backs him up. Unfortunately

He is in the front rank but not in close combat

And the rule on page 106 says:
A commander who is fighting in the front rank can only influence the complex move test of cohesion tests of the battle group he is with. He cannot affect those of other friendly battle groups.

It doesn't say anything about being in close combat here. Just that he's fighting in the front rank.
The rules on page 105 says he can't leave the front rank so long as he is in contact with routers.
So Dave's reading is perfectly reasonable, but I think the rules on page 105 and 106 do contradict it.

pyruse wrote:

philqw78 wrote:Pete, nothing in the rules contradicts Dave, and the rest backs him up. Unfortunately

He is in the front rank but not in close combat

And the rule on page 106 says:
A commander who is fighting in the front rank can only influence the complex move test of cohesion tests of the battle group he is with. He cannot affect those of other friendly battle groups.

It doesn't say anything about being in close combat here. Just that he's fighting in the front rank.
The rules on page 105 says he can't leave the front rank so long as he is in contact with routers.
So Dave's reading is perfectly reasonable, but I think the rules on page 105 and 106 do contradict it.

But it does say that a general can only fight in the front rank if the battle group is in close combat - which it isn't. So those rules done't contradict it at all, in fact they back up my statement.

dave_r wrote:

pyruse wrote:

philqw78 wrote:Pete, nothing in the rules contradicts Dave, and the rest backs him up. Unfortunately

He is in the front rank but not in close combat

And the rule on page 106 says:
A commander who is fighting in the front rank can only influence the complex move test of cohesion tests of the battle group he is with. He cannot affect those of other friendly battle groups.

It doesn't say anything about being in close combat here. Just that he's fighting in the front rank.
The rules on page 105 says he can't leave the front rank so long as he is in contact with routers.
So Dave's reading is perfectly reasonable, but I think the rules on page 105 and 106 do contradict it.

But it does say that a general can only fight in the front rank if the battle group is in close combat - which it isn't. So those rules done't contradict it at all, in fact they back up my statement.

It says a general can only be *declared* to be fighting in the front rank if he is in close combat. So you can only put him there when in close combat.
It doesn't say a general can only fight in the front rank when in close combat.
Page 105 makes it clear that a general can still be in the front rank even when not in close combat - when he is in contact with routers (and fighting them, of course, just not fighting in close combat).
So it's not as clear as you make out.

pyruse wrote:It says a general can only be *declared* to be fighting in the front rank if he is in close combat. So you can only put him there when in close combat.

Agreed.

It doesn't say a general can only fight in the front rank when in close combat.

Yes it does - clearly on page 105 - "A commander can be declared to be fighting in the front rank of a single battle group in close combat." Therefore he cannot fight in the front rank of a battle group unless it is in close combat.

Page 105 makes it clear that a general can still be in the front rank even when not in close combat - when he is in contact with routers (and fighting them, of course, just not fighting in close combat).
So it's not as clear as you make out.

[/quote]
Yes - but the bit about influencing other battle groups clearly states "fighting in the front rank", not simply being "in the front rank".

Actually guys I think we are all looking in the wrong place on this. Page 28 has the answer, I think: "unless he is fighting in the front rank in close combat he can influence other BGs in command range and not in close combat". So i think that makes it clear that a pursuing general can influence the tests of other BGs, as long as they are not in close combat.

grahambriggs wrote:Actually guys I think we are all looking in the wrong place on this. Page 28 has the answer, I think: "unless he is fighting in the front rank in close combat he can influence other BGs in command range and not in close combat". So i think that makes it clear that a pursuing general can influence the tests of other BGs, as long as they are not in close combat.

Thanks Graham - I hadn't found that bit, a mere 77 pages from the other part of the rule book concerning generals in close combat

Thanks Graham - as 'Close Combat' clearly ends when one side routs I am happy to run with that.

I hate you all.


Perhaps the Ruddock parsing is correct. It I suspect is contrary to the intent and probably contrary to the way the game has been played everywhere since its inception.

I don't have my rules so can't review the section, but fighting in the front rank and being stuck there for pursuit is I suspect worded that way for more than just to carry the command figure forward.

I'm with you Haze'

Sorry Dave but to me this fails the giggle test.
The BG the general is with is fully occupied chasing the routers and hacking them into little pieces, he himself is presumably joyfully wielding his sword or mace to kill his enemies. But you believe he has time and inclination to send messengers to other units to influence their actions. I find that hard to believe, and am happy to continue to play it that he is busy until the pursuers are no longer in contact with the routers.
Andre

Sorry Dave but to me this fails the giggle test.
The BG the general is with is fully occupied chasing the routers and hacking them into little pieces, he himself is presumably joyfully wielding his sword or mace to kill his enemies. But you believe he has time and inclination to send messengers to other units to influence their actions. I find that hard to believe, and am happy to continue to play it that he is busy until the pursuers are no longer in contact with the routers.

I agree the general shouldn't be able to send commands to other BG's and that that may well have been the authors intent. But I'm persuaded by previous posts that its not what the rules actually say.

I don't think this happens very often so personally I'm not too worried.

Without an author's input we are where we are. Play it as you prefer.

petedalby wrote: Play it as you prefer.

People prefer to play so they win. That's why we have rules.

Not that they make much difference to you Pete.