Slitherine

I had BG of impact foot with friendly routers directly in front of them. The routers were being pursued and the pursuers were in contact with the routers.
The pursuers were in charge range of the impact foot. Are the impact foot allowed to charge the pursuers? i.e. charge the pursuers and burst through the routers. We reckoned that the routers were not in melee (they have no combat dice) so the impact foot could charge the pursuers. The alternative would be to have said no to the charge and the impact foot would have been burst through and then, no doubt, contacted by the pursuers. In fact, to me, the second option seems slightly more 'realistic' but there are arguments for both cases.

Which is correct?

Thanks

Mike

Hi Mike - an unusual situation and one which I don't recall seeing posted before. A diagram would help understand the relative positions?

For a definitive answer you need to hear from one of the authors - but I suspect the answer is no - you can't voluntarily charge through friends - even if they're routing. But routers are not in melee - so if the enemy BG can be legally charged as per page 52 then you are okay.

But if you can't declare a charge you might still have to test for an uncontrolled charge - see page 58.

Pete

petedalby wrote:Hi Mike - an unusual situation and one which I don't recall seeing posted before. A diagram would help understand the relative positions?

For a definitive answer you need to hear from one of the authors - but I suspect the answer is no - you can't voluntarily charge through friends - even if they're routing. But routers are not in melee - so if the enemy BG can be legally charged as per page 52 then you are okay.

But if you can't declare a charge you might still have to test for an uncontrolled charge - see page 58.

Pete

Hi Pete,

Something like this:

PPPP
RRRR


IIIIIIII

Friendly routers (R) are routing down the page towards my impact foot (I).
The routers are being pursued by pursuers (P) who are in contact with the routers.
The pursuers are in the charge range of the impact foot.

Cheers for the diagram Mike - looks like a charge without orders would be your only hope. You can't voluntarily charge through friends.

But I stand to be corrected by the authors.

Pete

I concur, as there is no pursuer base against which you have a legal charge in your example. If they charge uncontrolled, you burst through the routers.

The impact foot have a viable target within charge reach and either charge or take a CMT to not charge. However, the section about shock troops and charging through friends says that 'They do not test (and will not charge) if the friends are shock troops or already in melee'
So my point is that if the routers count as in melee then there is no test and no charge, if the routers are not counted as in melee then they can charge or test not to do so.

Cheers
Mike

Aye. They ceased to be in close combat when the break occurred (p134) and losses are inflicted by the one-base-per-BG pursuit mechanism rather than melee. Shock troops that fall to fragmented cease to be shock troops, so logically they should be even less shocky when routing.

I can see where this would lead to.
If the legions can charge then burst through the routing body they would not drop a cohesion level,
the routed body would move back behind the legions where they could regroup or continue there rout.

But if the routers burst through the legions (and they were not light foot) then the legions would drop a level of cohesion.

If the bases are touching they are still in melee, maybe the routers are not in melee but the pursuers are.

But I could be wrong?

bilugo wrote:I can see where this would lead to.
If the legions can charge then burst through the routing body they would not drop a cohesion level,
the routed body would move back behind the legions where they could regroup or continue there rout.

But if the routers burst through the legions (and they were not light foot) then the legions would drop a level of cohesion.

If the bases are touching they are still in melee, maybe the routers are not in melee but the pursuers are.

But I could be wrong?

Exactly, that's what I'm getting at. There is an opportunity for cheese here.

It would be cheesy for the pursuers *not* to pursue, instead they should just follow the routers keeping a small distance behind them and wait for the routers to burst through their friends and disrupt them - at this point they then charge the disrupted enemy.
If the pursuers do pursue then there is a chance that the impact foot can avoid being disrupted by charging the pursuers and bursting through the routers.

mikekh wrote:Exactly, that's what I'm getting at. There is an opportunity for cheese here.

It would be cheesy for the pursuers *not* to pursue, instead they should just follow the routers keeping a small distance behind them and wait for the routers to burst through their friends and disrupt them - at this point they then charge the disrupted enemy.
If the pursuers do pursue then there is a chance that the impact foot can avoid being disrupted by charging the pursuers and bursting through the routers.

Having formed troops advance to counterattack rather than remaining in position in the path of a rout also seems justified as ordered activity forward rather than remaining in place in the tide of rout is better to keep the men steady and under control, although moving out of the path of rout is vastly better. If this encourages a counter-attack, that is to the good. So I see it as ice cream rather than cheese.

MikeK wrote:

mikekh wrote:Exactly, that's what I'm getting at. There is an opportunity for cheese here.

It would be cheesy for the pursuers *not* to pursue, instead they should just follow the routers keeping a small distance behind them and wait for the routers to burst through their friends and disrupt them - at this point they then charge the disrupted enemy.
If the pursuers do pursue then there is a chance that the impact foot can avoid being disrupted by charging the pursuers and bursting through the routers.

Having formed troops advance to counterattack rather than remaining in position in the path of a rout also seems justified as ordered activity forward rather than remaining in place in the tide of rout is better to keep the men steady and under control, although moving out of the path of rout is vastly better. If this encourages a counter-attack, that is to the good. So I see it as ice cream rather than cheese.

But the cheesy bit is having the pursuers follow up from a 'safe' distance rather than having them pursue and try to stay in contact.

Perhaps I am missing the cheese that you are talking about. In order to "pursue from a safe distance," the previously victorious BG must pass a CMT to stop pursuing. They can then follow the routers in subsequent maneuver phases, as the routers approach and burst through their friends. This seems perfectly fine to me; nary a whiff of gorgonzola in the air. Am I misunderstanding?

Marc

And that's assuming the routers can't avoid the burst through by collapsing a file or with a shift. It doesn't seem cheezy to me.

Back to the original question.

Can a unit charge through their own routers to come in contact with the routing units pursuers who are touching in base to base contact?

bilugo wrote:Back to the original question.

Can a unit charge through their own routers to come in contact with the routing units pursuers who are touching in base to base contact?

Conclusion above was:

No, unless it's due to failing a Complex Move Test to charge without orders, in which case they burst through.

So there is a roll you would want to fail.

Aye, failure is a matter of perspective. Having a Commander in range or attached is the main modifier to be concerned about, so in the preceding JA Phase I would want to move mine off accordingly.

i agree with the fact that the only way to charge through friends is to fail the test. And in many situation we may want it.

what i can't understand is why the steady BG is obliged to wait that the routers burst though it? can't it contract one base so a patth is made for routers. They'll then use this space and rout in column, not bursting through friends. They can even slide a bit to try to have a 2 base space.

domblas

Since the situation assumes it is the friendly Impact Phase, if they don't uncontrolled charge there is the chance to contract or make other moves in the Manoeuvre Phase.

babyshark wrote:Perhaps I am missing the cheese that you are talking about. In order to "pursue from a safe distance," the previously victorious BG must pass a CMT to stop pursuing. They can then follow the routers in subsequent maneuver phases, as the routers approach and burst through their friends. This seems perfectly fine to me; nary a whiff of gorgonzola in the air. Am I misunderstanding?

Marc

It's just that having the pursuers pursue and stay in contact can help prevent the steady impact foot from being disrupted. That's where I think the cheese is.