Pursuit question - side-to-side contact?

[Grimnir]

Hi guys,
In one of the recent games, I've encountered the following situation:
1. Red cavalry unit fights the blue infantry unit (all units are 1 stand only).
2. Blue infantry unit looses combat and retreats.
3. Red cavalry unit pursues, but the green infantry unit (enemy) is (partially) in its path.
What would be the correct option? In the above mentioned game, we played 3C.

3A: Red unit stops when it comes to contact with green unit.
3B: Red unit has to move directly forward, doesn't stop in contact with the green unit and is brought into combat with both units (blue and green), having green unit in the side (reducing # of attacks of the red unit).
3C: Contact with green unit (not only corner-to-corned, but edge-to-edge) is considered to prevent the red unit to move directly forward so the red unit can move in a different way according to the section of the rules below the image.


"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"

Thanks!

[Geep]

I think you're right with 3C. That seems the best fit for the rule text.

Another option I'd have considered (though don't think is right, having read the rule snippet) is that the red stand would contact green, then move to be centre-to-centre with the green stand. It'd probably not get any pursuit bonuses then?

[jchaos79]

IMO Correct one is 3A. 3B  EDIT(after reading the whole conversation)

3A --> Pursuing enemy they contact accidentally with green unit. Stop and fight, do not have charge bonus.

3B --> Can not happens  beacause they haev accidental contact with green unit

3c --> Is not the case becasue 3A can happens. I understood the quote is about situation as cavalry pursing 3 stand unit which partially enter in woods or forbiden terrain for the cavalry, so they can pursuit the unit partial in wood but not directly forward, so "Occasionally, you will find that no stands can pursue by moving directly forward. When this happens take bla bla" This is for covering such situations not a normal pursuit situation as the one you expose.

[Grimnir]

Thanks guys! I guess we'll need a few more people to discuss this.
If 3A is the case, I have a further question:
If green unit has already been in combat with the red unit in this combat phase, would it get the pursuit bonus or not?
The rules say: "Pursuit bonuses only apply against retreating units if they fought in the same combat engagement as the pursuer. It does not matter whether a pursuer actually fought the retreating unit in the previous combat round – only that the unit retreated from the same engagement."

[jchaos79]

If green has been in combat, now we have multiple combat and changes the thing.

The different situations are:

1) In the case there is a single combat (red vs blue): correct 3A --> accidental contact, new fight but without charge bonus. No bonus for pursuit applied.


2) If the red is fighting against green and blue then correct would be 3B -->  Both blue and green must retreat X cm. Red advance straight forward to contact the same blue side, but is flanked by the retreating green, which is involved in the same combat. So,
Green, no modifier
Blue, is flanked -1
Red, is flanked -1, but has pursing bonus + xcm/3. Unit has to choose to attack green or blue.

I could guess in this situation is better not to purse (only my opinion).

[Grimnir]

Green unit has been in combat with Red unit, but not in the last combat round.
I guess, let's not over-complicate this topic. I'll look through old topics and if I cannot find it, I'll eventually create a new one.

[Aldhick]

I'm for 3B     Getting into contact with green unit doesn't prevent the red unit tu pursue the blue one, unles the move is blocked. Which is not the case imo.

[Ole]

I would say it is 3c. But since you have a unlimited pursuit move you would eitler make contact with the Blue front edge or the other flank. There is this pursuit Diagramm that says to maximis Edge.

Ole

[Dave]

It be 3B if you chose to pursue.

When moving a pursuing unit, begin with all the stands that can re-establish edge to edge contact with retreating units by moving directly forward. If the stand’s front edge can contact at least part of the edge of a retreating stand by moving directly forwards then it must do so (but see Multiple Combats for exceptions).

And

When moving pursuers it is possible for stands to come into contact with unengaged enemy units. It is also possible for pursuers to come into contact with other enemy units retreating from the same combat, but which the pursuers were not touching in the previous round. In some cases this may be unavoidable – in others it will depend on the order in which pursuers are moved and how the player chooses to position pursuing stands. Any units contacted in this way are automatically drawn into the combat in the following round.

You pursue my moving directly forward and the green unit is drawn into the combat, flanking the cav unit. If you attack green you don't get a pursuit bonus.

[Lex]

Dave is correct, as per this quote on the rules, any stand that can reconnect with retreating enemy by moving DIRECTLY forward should to so!

Pursuit bonus only counts for attacks on the retreating stand, other contact is deemed incidental.
Pursuing stand(s) are penalized for being attacked in their flank too.

[wmchaos2000]

Lex, that´s the same way we play it.

[Grimnir]

Thanks guys for help on this. However, there's one thing which I didn't bring up before and think it's a think of some relevance.
Clearly, the important thing here is: Does the edge-to-edge contact with the green unit (which has not been in combat with the red unit the previous turn of combat) block the movement or not?
I still think it does.

The Pursuit section of the rules doesn't talk about what blocks the movement and what doesn't. IMHO, it is clearly stated in one of the previous sections – Retreats, specifically Blocked Retreats:

A retreating stand is destroyed if its retreat move is blocked. A retreat is considered blocked if any part of the stand’s base is obliged to move through any of the following: enemy stands, stands of other friendly units that are engaged in combat (including friendly units that have already retreated from the same combat during that round), terrain that is impassable, and stands from unengaged friendly units that do not make way as noted above.
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.

As I mentioned above, this quote is not from the Pursuit section of the rules, but it's the closest definition which I found in the rulebook.
I also find the situation a bit similar to the situation in the following link: http://oi61.tinypic.com/2n0ltld.jpg
1. Green unit in the column formation gets shot at by a warmachine.
2. It falls directly back (not causing any make ways). In the following turn it's commander fails any command rolls so the units stay where they are.
3. Red enemy unit gets one command and moves so it can see the green unit through the gap.
4. Given the second command, the red enemy cannot charge through the gap exactly 40mm wide, because the path is blocked by the contact with the blue units. (Rules say that the gap needs to be wider than 40mm.)

Both of the rules quoted or mentioned above say that path is blocked by contact with enemy units. To me, that means that the pursuit move would be blocked by contact with a unit that wasn't part of the same combat in the previous turn. So it is impossible to maintain edge-to-edge contact my moving directly forward.

Lex, Dave and Aldhick, what do you think about it?

Thanks!

[Grimnir]

Regarding the second quote of the rules by Dave - I think it's meant for situations like the 4A in the following link: http://oi58.tinypic.com/wlpyxf.jpg or the ones where order of the pursuits is important because of the stand that were not in combat before or where causalties matter.

[Dave]

The second quote is meant for both this thread's example and the one you linked to.

On edge-to-edge with green blocking red's movement, it does not. 3B is the correct answer here. Edge-to-edge like that wouldn't even block a retreat (if green were an enemy of blue), as no part of blue's stand is obliged to move through green and blue was already in contact with green.

A blocked pursuit happens only if there's no clear path (a 2cm gap between friendlies/terrain, and a gap equal to the stand's frontage if an enemy is on one or more sides). Look to the movement rules here, not retreats.

[Grimnir]

I guess I don't have any option but to trust your judgment. I've only played 6 games so far and I'm not yet familiar with the rules interpretation convention.
The Pursuit rule about moving stands directly forward also says:

Note that pursuing stands cannot move directly forward if there is an obstruction in the way – there must be a clear path for the pursuer to move directly forward.

What I thought was that contact with an enemy is an obstruction (even if it the enemy is not literarily blocking the path). It's a fresh enemy waiting for a fight with weapons at ready (not a retreating enemy). Getting into fight with a fresh enemy sound like hell of an obstruction to me. :-)

Now, I'm also a bit confused about the last part:

Dave: "Edge-to-edge like that wouldn't even block a retreat (if green were an enemy of blue), as no part of blue's stand is obliged to move through green and blue was already in contact with green."

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.

I know it wouldn’t move in the direction "into" the enemy unit, but it still gets into contact.
But OK, the Retreat rules do not apply here. (That's one of the conventions I'm talking about.)

But if the movement rules do apply, the gap rule says:

The exception to this rule is that a stand cannot pass through a gap between two enemy stands, or between an anemy stand and any feature or friendly stand, unless the gap is WIDER than the stand's own frontage. For example, there must be a gap of MORE than 40mm for an infantry stand to pass…

Which imho means, that the gap must be wide enough so the passing stands would not come into contact with the enemy stands. – And this is the part of the Movement rules which I was referring to.
I know that it's not really a gap in this case, so considering the green unit to block the direct path is rather a logical construction based on the gap rule. But it goes well with the other sections of the rules (blocked retreat) and also with the imaginary situation of a real unit of riders avoiding the fight with fresh units when they're pursuing a retreating enemy (in the same way as avoiding an edge of a forest), if they have enough space for maneuvering.
Does it make sense or am I talking completely out of place? :-)

The rules cannot cover every single possibility, so I'm sure that certain amount of logic needs to be applied. I guess I just need to find the correct amount.

Thanks for the patience. :-)