Slitherine

How would one handle the following (hope the ASCII art works)
A and C are on the same side and were adjacent but A was further back than C so not in contat with B prior to C routing. A had turned 90 degrees on the assumption, proved correct, that C would rout.

CCC
CCC

AA
AABBB
BBB

C has routed up the page.
B has pursued and ended up in edge contact with A
A is facing to the right

After the pusuit move A and B are touching.
Does B turn a base and fight a melee with A, or must one of them charge the other to initiate the combat?
If A had passed the CMT not to pursue into fresh enemy could it have halted 1 MU short of A?

I assume BB are skirmishers Roger and the diag should have space so BB and CC are behind each other to the right of AA? Let me know if wrong.

I don't think this situation is covered explicitly in the rules however:

1) if AAs move I think it is basically a flank contact but not a flank charge, so I would rule that BB turns to face AA

2) if BBs move then I would argue the side-edge to side-edge part of the rules would sensibly apply, although it is in a section for troops alraedy in melee we should perhaps have called said "in contact" rathert than exsting melee.

To me in both cases BB turns to fight AA and general melee ensues. Otherwise it would be perhaps a bit odd in that if AA had been facing down the page both would turn to fight - so if both turn to fight when side-edge to side-edge it would seem pretty odd for them not to if front edge to side edge.

You may feel AA should have some benefit from being on the side but I would argue that as it has no distance to muster a charge it just a developing messy melee.

Yes if skirmishers they can stop 1MU away -this is covered as contact is a broad concept and the types of contact that are considered a charge are specifically mentioned in that section IIRC

Si

No, the art work went completely wrong. B is directly behind C and pursuing it. During the pursuit, the flank of B 'brushes along' the front of A, which is at 90 degrees to it. This type of contact does not constitute a legal charge because the first contact is corner to corner.

I must try and discover how to do decent diagrams.

rogerg wrote:No, the art work went completely wrong. B is directly behind C and pursuing it. During the pursuit, the flank of B 'brushes along' the front of A, which is at 90 degrees to it. This type of contact does not constitute a legal charge because the first contact is corner to corner.

I must try and discover how to do decent diagrams.

USe "Code", which causes all characters including spaces to have the same width, and preview your message to check.

The diagram shows an incorrect position for B - B stops when it contacts A with its front edge - this includes its front corner as nothing in the glossary, FAQ, or errata, redefines edge to exclude the corner. B's front forner has also contacted A's side edge - NOTE: the front corner is, by definition, where the front and side edges meet - compare this with the redifintion of within, in the glossary, to include the boundary where the OED defines it to exclude the boundary except in the sense of time.

If you take the front corner as not part of the front edge - e.g. you have been applying too much DBM - then you get a very strange situation.
1) this is not legal charge contact, so doesn't result in impact combat.
2) if nothing changes then in the movement phase they don't conform and they can't feed in more bases as they aren't in melee.
3) if nothing changes then in the shooting phase B can be shot at but A can't.
4) if nothing changes then in the melee phase A fights but B doesn't.
5) if nothing changes any CT made by B only benefit from a general if he is with B, but A's CT are modified by any suitable general.
6) if nothing changes then B will conform to A in B's first movement phase after the first melee phase.
7) A can't charge B - it can't move such as one of its bases contacts - i.e. moves INTO contact - with its front edge or corner.
8) B can charge A provided it can wheel 90 - its front edge does move INTO contact with A.

I think it highlights an ommission in the rules - there is no detail of how a BG "follows" a broken BG.

If A was 1mm back from the line of contact could B charge it? I think it should be able to, but how far back does A have to be before B can't charge it. What if charging A allows it to step forward into C, what if this is the only way it can contact C?

What happens if B's path was blocked by friends it can't avoid by contracting - say it was fighting with less than a full base width of contact. What if its friends also have to persue but are moving after?

Diag confused me a bit and coded my asnwer wrong. Have corrected it earlier.

It simply isn't covered explicitlly by the rules so I will post it across to the authors forum.

On edges and corners .... it is common to consider edges and corners as different items ... at bottom of page 52 we keep a clear distinction in a) and b) on definition of charges.

Si

shall wrote: On edges and corners .... it is common to consider edges and corners as different items ... at bottom of page 52 we keep a clear distinction in a) and b) on definition of charges.
Si

The only time I have seen the corner not being on the edges is in DBM(M). It is not the correct, or common, use of edge in English. I think you need to add a definition of edge to the glossary errata.

Back to the problem.
It is possible for the same situation to occur in the impact phase. If B has declared a charge, or failed a CMT to not do so, and C is exactly B's mode distance away and can evade, and wheeling to contact A will result in less bases fighting.

Suggestions.
It is hummanly impossible to position the unit so precisely that it far enough back to not obstruct the path, and also far enough forward for its front edge to contact the path. If the human error can't be determined roll a dice and on 1-3 move A 1mm forward to clarify it is blocking the path, on 4-6 move it 1mm back to clarify it is not close enough to contact the path.

A persuit is conducted like a charge, with the restrictions of target choice of an unordered charge, but won't break through friends. "Straight ahead" is direction it would be facing if it wheeled as near to parrallel with the router's direction as possible and still have part of the router's nearest edge, or corner, directly in front of a base whose path is unblocked by friends.

It would also be helpful to clarify the stopping short rule. Is it that a BG may stop short of a BG it would contact, or is it able to stop short of any fresh BG it gets to within 1 MU of?

sagji wrote:
Suggestions.
It is hummanly impossible to position the unit so precisely that it far enough back to not obstruct the path, and also far enough forward for its front edge to contact the path. If the human error can't be determined roll a dice and on 1-3 move A 1mm forward to clarify it is blocking the path, on 4-6 move it 1mm back to clarify it is not close enough to contact the path.

It is easy to position the unit in such a way. Just put its front edge in contact with the side edge of C before it routs.

shall wrote:

On edges and corners .... it is common to consider edges and corners as different items ... at bottom of page 52 we keep a clear distinction in a) and b) on definition of charges.
Si

The only time I have seen the corner not being on the edges is in DBM(M). It is not the correct, or common, use of edge in English. I think you need to add a definition of edge to the glossary errata.

Maybe so. Taken literally you are probably right in that and edge is literaly a perimeter IIRC. We can add a glossary item next time around. I agree that in this case it makes an unusual amount of difference.

The 1MU is stopping from troops you would contant if skirmishers contacting non-skirmishers while pursuing.

On the rest I will put it over to the authors forum and we'll come ip with something.

Si

Lawrence describes the situation that happened. The rout is expected, the adjacent unit was set back a base depth or so. Rather than add the overlap to what looked like a lost cause, my opponent turned ninety degrees intending to catch the pursuers as they went past.

The pusuit into fresh enemy is clear. Skirmisher halt 1 MU short in most cases. Other troops can CMT to halt short (in this case they did not do so). The issue is that the corner on corner contact that results is not a legal charge contact because 'corner to edge' is required. The diagram (as now correctly re-drawn) assumed the contact not to be a legal charge, so they carried on, their flank edge being in contact with the turned BG's front. It has the feel of the situation where unengaged BG's turn into melee contact but of course is not such.

Lawrence describes the situation that happened. The rout is expected, the adjacent unit was set back a base depth or so. Rather than add the overlap to what looked like a lost cause, my opponent turned ninety degrees intending to catch the pursuers as they went past.

This is only of use if the pursuers manage to pass AA completely (rather than in the example given), in which case they may be able to charge the enemy rear. Of course if BB stays in cntact and makes a second pursuit move, this would likely take them out of range.

In the situation given, my take is as follows:
1) They end in flank to front contact with AA but is not a charge, and no disruption occurs.
2) At the start of the next movement phase BB 'may' make a normal turn to flank to fight AA.
3) They fight in melee as normal. It BB hasn't turned to flank they will likely end up outnumbered because they only get 2 bases. It they turn to flank they can expand to meet an overlap.

There is no actual advantage to AA making this early turn, because they can do it at the start of the next movement phase anyway, and would restrict their alternate movement options.
The only possible advantage is if AA is an undrilled BG, which would have to pass a CMT to turn, and you want to give yourseld 2 attempts to do so.

We will discuss this off-board and give a definitive answer shortly.