charge and pursuit

[Kretus]

I'm afraid  no stand and shoot. You can shoot at charging enemy only.
But let's wait for Lex to be sure.

[Lex]

Coming into option that one stand only is flanked. This is very risky:

Warriors player may wound goblins maximum 6 times. While three wounds are almost certain (to a lone stand), three remainng to fresh unit are rather disputable: only 3 atacks from flank to front. So lets consider only 1 is scored.

It means 4 wounds to goblins. And Gobbos will strike back with 1+4 attacks i.e ~1 wound and 1 supporting stands. Close to a draw.

Rmember that you cannot inflict more wounds than the remaining stand(s) actually have (or has). So the attacking power of two Warrior stands is very much lost in this case.

The above is a VERY valid point !!!  EVEN if you are attacking with Chaos Warriors

Lex - what about stand-and-shoot here? No s-t-s while charged accidentally? I don't remeber at the moment...

No stand&shoot on accidental contact. And of course the gobs moved to make way, so they would loose defensive bonuses if they had those....

[Guthwine]

Yeah its true but you still have 3 Attacks of the flanked chaos stand to allocate at the supporting unit, because you should be able to kill the one goblin stand with the 14 attacks of the other 2 chaos stands.

[Getlord]

That is why it is rather better to allocate 7 (or less if pursuing distance is not so huge) into last goblin stand and another six into new enemy. It is highly probable that you will inflict 6 wounds in the combat instead of ~4-5 and you'll deny the last supporting stand. The gobbos will have then 7 attacks in total which can cause ~2 wounds on your warriors. Seems like won...

This was the idea of my comment.

The calculation will change dramatically if instead of Gobbos you have Black Orcs for example

[wmchaos2000]

Why not:

MMM

  W
WNW
GGG

and allocate 7 attacks on N (because it only has 3 hits left) and the remaining 8 attacks on the new, un-charged unit G?
Doing this by facing the Warriors fronts towards new unit G and therefore negating the flank-bonus for both sides.
In this way the Warriors will kill of both units (which will take one more round of combat) without any problems and still have there Advance left.

Note: If Warriors were to face the flank of goblin unit N with their two flanking stands, they would get one attack less. The goblin N looses one attack yes, but the Warriors looses two by getting their flanks of their flanking stands in base to base with the new unit G. Bad decision.

[Lex]

if the unit IN pursuit can make frontal contact then it must

[wmchaos2000]

Quote:
Once stands that can pursue directly
forward have done so, other stands from the
same unit are also moved into edge contact.
This includes stands that would only contact
corner-to-corner by moving directly forward,
as well as stands that would not contact at
all. Where possible, these stands must also
be positioned against the same enemy unit
as stands that have already pursued directly
forward. Pursuing stands must be
positioned so that their front edge contacts
at least part of the edge of a retreating stand
where possible – but note that there is no
obligation to maximise frontage as there is
during a charge. See Diagrams 42.3 & 42.4

We interpret this: as long as a part of the front edge (front corner) of the second and third stand comes into contact with any part of the retreating unit, it is ok.

Or more directly: Second and third stand can move any way they like as long as they stay in formation and try to contact pursued unit where possible.

[Guthwine]

Well I would say that corner contact is not edge contact. But it doesnt matter,with chaos warriors thats still enough attacks.

[Lex]

Quote:
Once stands that can pursue directly
forward have done so, other stands from the
same unit are also moved into edge contact.
This includes stands that would only contact
corner-to-corner by moving directly forward,
as well as stands that would not contact at
all. Where possible, these stands must also
be positioned against the same enemy unit
as stands that have already pursued directly
forward. Pursuing stands must be
positioned so that their front edge contacts
at least part of the edge of a retreating stand
where possible – but note that there is no
obligation to maximise frontage as there is
during a charge. See Diagrams 42.3 & 42.4

We interpret this: as long as a part of the front edge (front corner) of the second and third stand comes into contact with any part of the retreating unit, it is ok.

Or more directly: Second and third stand can move any way they like as long as they stay in formation and try to contact pursued unit where possible.

Pursuing stands must be positioned so that their front edge contacts at least part of the edge of a retreating stand, also note that moving forward into ONLY corner-to-corner is not OK, as these stand are aslo obliged to make frontal contact, which by you logic they would.

So, where possible, you MUST make frontal contact, but you are not obliged to maximize that contact, allowing you to avoid drawing fresh units into battle.

[wmchaos2000]

Guthwine: is not the corner part of the edge? Actually two edges. This is the way we have been reading it, but we may very well be wrong. 
I agree on the Chaos part, but one should always try to maximise attacks. 

Lex: you wrote "also note that moving forward into ONLY corner-to-corner is not OK".
I have been looking but can not find where it says so. Do you know side and section? Maybe an example. 

[Lex]

That line came from your own qoute !!!

see example below (sorry for the crappy GFX, I worked with what was at hand)

[wmchaos2000]

No.
No, no.

If you are talking about this:
"This includes stands that would only contact corner-to-corner by moving directly forward"
I believe there is an interpretion err from your side.

That line refers to which stands that are not allowed a move only straight forward, not how they shall move or be positioned finally.
How they move comes in the next part and there is nothing about corner to corner mentioned there.

This is our way of reading it, but we may of course be totally wrong. 

On the other hand I believe that the intention of the text may be in your way to interpret, after have reading it back and forth several times.
But it is more fun if the pursuer can move stands in any way that he/she pleases. The unit is after all on the winning side!

Your GFX was totally clear, I got your point.

[Getlord]

Guys, there is no discussion about this case. Lex is right. IMHO really disputable situation is:

[Lex]

For Gets last example I think that is the ONLY one where corner2corner would be alowable to move in a stand that has no other (legal) way to get in contact, and that would leave the 3th stand out of the combat-after-pursuit

But indeed, that is one of the real quirky situations.

[jchaos79]

Hi, today we have a play empire vs empire... anyways during the game it came a situation which cause us little problem, but I would like to show to you:

A halberdiers unit brigaded to knights unit (red one) attack to a brigade of two halberdiers units (A and B blues), one of them supporting the other. (see scheme)

The blue brigade have luck and win because the support. No stands are eliminated. My question is:

Can the A-blue halberdier pursuit?

I assume B-blue is only supporting, so they can no pursuit. A-blue is legal to pursuit to  red-infantry but not to red-cavalery. if A-blue pursuit to red-infantry they end corner to corner in contact with red-cavalary.

We resolve it as A-blue could pursuit. Did we do right?

thanks in advance