Pursuit

[jchaos79]

Hi, another question araise with pursuing units.

Here is the combat



So sphinx loose and have to retreat. The direction is determine with the max number of enemies stands touching the unit. As wolf raiders touch with 3 stands the direction is the following, and the final position of sphinx is in the scheme.



How should the orc and wolf radiers pursuit?

I understood that sphinx have an accidental combat with ogres. Wolf raiders pursuit in the same direction, but what happens with orcs? they are isolated from combat? could envelop and attack the rear of the sphinx?

[Guthwine]

If the wolf riders pursue and block the direct path of the orcs, than the orcs can swing around the wolf riders and reestablish contact with the sphinx.

Occasionally, you will find that no stands can pursue
by moving directly forward. When this happens take
the stand that is closest to the retreating unit and
move it against the closest accessible edge of the
closest enemy stand. In this case, place the stand
centre-to-centre where possible in the same way as if
it were charging – though note that it does not
necessarily have to see its enemy. Note also that the
stand still needs a clear path past other units or
obstructions. Having placed the first stand, position
the remaining stands as described above.

p.47

So in this case the next accesible edge for the orcs would be rear of the sphinx for the first stand and then the second stand could swing into the flank of the sphinx.

Pursuit often doesnt make much sense but I think that would be the correct way to do it. From what I read, as long as some part of the enemies front/side/rear-edge is accessible pursuits are possible. No matter how far the pursuing unit would have to go or how silly it seems.

[jchaos79]

Wow, thank you very much Guthwine, I was not able to find those lines  !

+1 to Guthwine!

[wmchaos2000]

Follow-up "question".
Isn´t the Sphinx killed due to retreating into "new" enemy stands (ogres)?
At least it retreats and ends up touching the ogres, which we count-as into.

[frogbear]

My take is that the sphinx us dead. As it cannot get out of base contact with an enemy on retreat it goes *poof!*. Or that is how we have been playing it.

[jchaos79]

If a enemy unit blocks the distance and stops the move, the stand/stands that could not make the whole move will be removed (not the whole unit).

Now the scheme: I think the ogres will not block the movement. So the sphinx should not be killed. The shpinx get in touch with the ogres so it begins an accidental combat (no bonus of pursuit / charge / monster charging in open /etc..) used.  That is the way I understood it.

 

[forbes]

I agree with wmchaos2000

"It is a blocked retreat when a stand's move brings it into contact with a stand from an unengaged enemy unit. Note contact alone is sufficient to block a retreat, the retreating stand does not need to move through the enemy stand."
LRB page numbered 45, actual page 53.

I think frogbear's interpretation is too harsh, a small retreat which left the sphinx in contact with just the Orcs then it wouldn't have been destroyed.

I think only pursuing units can initiate accidental contact, not retreating stands.

[Guthwine]

Well according to RAW the sphinx would be destroyed because it comes into contact with an enemy unit that was not part of the previous engagement. (= the ogres)

p.45

A retreat is also blocked if a stand’s move brings it into
contact with a stand from an unengaged enemy unit.
Note that in this case contact alone is sufficient to
block a retreat – the retreating stand does not need to
move through the enemy stand. For example, a stand
that retreats 1cm into contact with an unengaged
enemy stand 1cm away is destroyed

[Lex]

Frogbear and Guthwine are right, going by the letter of the rule. That said, I have seen this played most often as accidental contact and another round of fighting. As a matter of fact.... most players fighting AGAINST the Sfinx would LOVE that, as it will probably give the ogres a 20 cm ADVANCE move (and so to make sure, do NOT swing the wolfriders around if they end up blovking LOS.

[jchaos79]

Ok, thanx Guthwine, frogbear and lex. I have learned something.

I request some help because I start shortciruiting my brian between two rulesets WM and WMA:

In the RAW, Ogres are part of the combat becasue they are supporting the orcs who fights the sphinx. Greenskins wins so as the wolf raiders have more stands in contact with the sphinx the route of retreat is towards the ogres.

OK, so the sphinx is destroyed because it touch the ogres ... OK.

But the ogres are part of the combat since they are supporting the orcs. Did in WM the ogres still counting as a unit aside from combat and the sphinx is destroyed?

I think in WM the answer is YES. but I would like confirmation. thanks in advance.

[Edmund2011]

But the ogres are part of the combat since they are supporting the orcs. Did in WM the ogres still counting as a unit aside from combat and the sphinx is destroyed?

I think in WM the answer is YES. but I would like confirmation. thanks in advance.

In Warmaster supporting units are not part of the combat, so the answer is yes. Here Frogbear & Guthwine are quite right!
We were playing it was destroyed if the enemy unit was blocking the retreating way, not as the rule says.

In Warmaster Ancients supporting units are part of the combat.

[jchaos79]

OKi, thanks Ed

[honestmistake]

something from last nights battle has me slightly puzzled... i think i know the answer but wondered what others think.

During combat between front facing infantry units a Chaos Spawn tagged onto one line got drawn into the combat through front corner to front corner contact only. When Caos lost the round and was pushed back what direction should the spawn go? There is no edge to edge weighting to dictate this (or even offer a choice of direction?) so should it go straight back with the infantry it is lined up with or should it go diagonally as this would be the most direct path from the contact point? For that matter could it go sideways as this could be seen as just as valid a direction as straight back if you feel like getting geometrical 
We didn't really pay much mind to this at the time as the combat was the last of the night and the spawn became a stranded unit due to causalty removal, still would be nice to know what others think for next time it happens 

[StumpyCat]

IIRC the combat is pushed back not the specific units. As you take the largest frontage in contact in the combat.
Last night you had 4 stands (3 flag 1 skirm) in contact with 3 Chaos warr and one Spawn.
So largest frontage was obvious and as the 2 units were in one combat, you both go the same way.

But in answer to the OP,
The Lrb page 53 or 45 under the Retreat heading has a paragraph that says contact with a stand from an unengaged enemy unit causes a blocked retreat. Even if you dont move through the unit your stand is destroyed.

[honestmistake]

Sorry Stumpy but this is not correct (though we have played it this way)
the pertinent part of the rules for retreats read:
"The direction of the retreat may be less clear if the
unit is fighting enemy from several directions at the
same time. In this case, the unit retreats from the
greatest number of touching enemy stands (front,
side or rear – corners are ignored). If this is equal, the
retreating player can nominate which of the possible
directions it will retreat."

More clearly stated in the latter section on Blocked Retreats:
"Blocked retreats become common in multiple
combats. Stands forced to retreat through units
engaged in combat will be destroyed as already
described. This will be especially apparent when a
double line of troops is fighting to its side and front at
the same time, as shown on Diagram 53.1. The front
unit must retreat back but the rear unit will be pushed
sideways. In this situation, the front unit is likely to
lose stands as it retreats."
There is a diagram too but i can't work out how to post it