Art De La Guerre
Bienvenue sur le forum de discussion de la règle de jeu l'Art De La Guerre
 
FAQFAQ RechercherRechercher Liste des MembresListe des Membres Groupes d'utilisateursGroupes d'utilisateurs S'enregistrerS'enregistrer
ProfilProfil Se connecter pour vérifier ses messages privésSe connecter pour vérifier ses messages privés ConnexionConnexion
Pursuit Query
Page 1 sur 2 Aller à la page 1, 2  Suivante
Poster un nouveau sujet   Répondre au sujet
 Art De La Guerre Index du Forum > Rules questions V3
Auteur Message
AlanCutner
Tribun


Inscrit le: 03 Nov 2014
Messages: 706
Localisation: Scotland
MessagePosté le: Mar Aoû 20, 2019 1:58 pm    Sujet du message: Pursuit Query Répondre en citant
A group of impetuous HC routs an enemy unit in their own turn, so pursuit is compulsory. Due to the position of other friendly units the unit in combat can pursue 3cm before being blocked, whilst a supporting unit could only go 2,5cm. P61 para3 says supporting units 'can also advance the same distance provided they are aligned corner to corner with the pursuing unit and have the same facing' - which they are.

So which of the following applies
1. The unit in combat and its support both advance up to the maximum they can, but resulting in advancing different distance
2. Bot units advance 2.5cm, the maximum the support can advance, so both move the same distance
3. The unit in combat advances as far as it can (3cm). The support cannot advance at all because it can't move the same distance.
4. Something else.
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
daveallen
Tribun


Inscrit le: 28 Jan 2016
Messages: 742
Localisation: Rugby & CLWC
MessagePosté le: Mar Aoû 20, 2019 5:30 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
.
1

Because both units are required to pursue, but in doing so they do not get to interpenetrate friends or push them out of the way.

Because the pursuit is the result of their impetuosity you have no control and each goes as far as it can.

This results in the LC being unable to evade when it is charged next turn and you losing 3 or possibly 4 cohesion points. Sad
_________________
Putting the ink into incompetence
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
madaxeman
Magister Militum


Inscrit le: 01 Nov 2014
Messages: 1462
Localisation: Londres Centraal.
MessagePosté le: Mar Aoû 20, 2019 7:07 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
daveallen a écrit:
.
1

Because both units are required to pursue, but in doing so they do not get to interpenetrate friends or push them out of the way.

Because the pursuit is the result of their impetuosity you have no control and each goes as far as it can.

This results in the LC being unable to evade when it is charged next turn and you losing 3 or possibly 4 cohesion points. Sad


But does the inconvenient fact support units are not required to pursue change your view..... ?

FWIW I think all of the alternatives can probably be justified by the RAW, and that there’s almost certainly no deep-Barkerese-style hidden and secret authors intention to be teased out of the words on the page here either.

Instead I suspect this is such an odd and corner case example that were it to actually come up in a game there would probably be a bit of mutual head scratching before I’d suggest to my opponent dicing to see which of the options we’d actually do, and then we’d do that and move on. 
_________________
www.madaxeman.com
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé Visiter le site web de l'utilisateur
daveallen
Tribun


Inscrit le: 28 Jan 2016
Messages: 742
Localisation: Rugby & CLWC
MessagePosté le: Mar Aoû 20, 2019 8:00 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
madaxeman a écrit:
But does the inconvenient fact support units are not required to pursue change your view..... ?

FWIW I think all of the alternatives can probably be justified by the RAW, and that there’s almost certainly no deep-Barkerese-style hidden and secret authors intention to be teased out of the words on the page here either.

Instead I suspect this is such an odd and corner case example that were it to actually come up in a game there would probably be a bit of mutual head scratching before I’d suggest to my opponent dicing to see which of the options we’d actually do, and then we’d do that and move on. 

Well the rule says:

Citation:
Page 62 Pursuit Paras 1 & 2

When a unit has routed all its opponents in melee, it can perform an advance at the end of the melee phase to pursue a routed unit. A pursuit is a move directly forward of a maximum of one UD ignoring enemy ZoC. Only the phasing player’s units can perform a pursuit.

Pursuit is optional for non-impetuous units. Pursuit is mandatory for impetuous units which must pursue one complete UD except in the following cases...

I see how this can be interpreted another way, but my reading is that pursuit is compulsory for all impetuous units that can do so. Asked for an opinion I'm happy to back it up with reasons.

Also, it's not that odd for LC to block an evade in this way, so maybe ease up on the "it never happens" schtick Rolling Eyes
_________________
Putting the ink into incompetence
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
AlanCutner
Tribun


Inscrit le: 03 Nov 2014
Messages: 706
Localisation: Scotland
MessagePosté le: Mar Aoû 20, 2019 8:32 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Interesting you assumed the blocking unit was LC. It was ofcourse. But could have been anything else - not that it makes a difference to the issue.
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
Zoltan
Centurion


Inscrit le: 18 Jan 2015
Messages: 443
Localisation: Wellington, New Zealand
MessagePosté le: Mar Aoû 20, 2019 8:59 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
So while the victorious HC Impetuous is obliged to pursue, is it supporting friend (whether impetuous or not) also obliged to pursue? Presumably these are unit by unit decisions?
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
madaxeman
Magister Militum


Inscrit le: 01 Nov 2014
Messages: 1462
Localisation: Londres Centraal.
MessagePosté le: Mar Aoû 20, 2019 9:09 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
daveallen a écrit:
madaxeman a écrit:
But does the inconvenient fact support units are not required to pursue change your view..... ?

FWIW I think all of the alternatives can probably be justified by the RAW, and that there’s almost certainly no deep-Barkerese-style hidden and secret authors intention to be teased out of the words on the page here either.

Instead I suspect this is such an odd and corner case example that were it to actually come up in a game there would probably be a bit of mutual head scratching before I’d suggest to my opponent dicing to see which of the options we’d actually do, and then we’d do that and move on. 

Well the rule says:

Citation:
Page 62 Pursuit Paras 1 & 2

When a unit has routed all its opponents in melee, it can perform an advance at the end of the melee phase to pursue a routed unit. A pursuit is a move directly forward of a maximum of one UD ignoring enemy ZoC. Only the phasing player’s units can perform a pursuit.

Pursuit is optional for non-impetuous units. Pursuit is mandatory for impetuous units which must pursue one complete UD except in the following cases...

I see how this can be interpreted another way, but my reading is that pursuit is compulsory for all impetuous units that can do so. Asked for an opinion I'm happy to back it up with reasons.

Also, it's not that odd for LC to block an evade in this way, so maybe ease up on the "it never happens" schtick Rolling Eyes


A unit in overlap has no Melee opponent so has no obligation to pursue, even if impetuous. 
_________________
www.madaxeman.com
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé Visiter le site web de l'utilisateur
Snowhitsky
Prétorien


Inscrit le: 15 Juin 2015
Messages: 224
Localisation: Lancaster, UK
MessagePosté le: Mar Aoû 20, 2019 9:20 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
madaxeman a écrit:
daveallen a écrit:
madaxeman a écrit:
But does the inconvenient fact support units are not required to pursue change your view..... ?

FWIW I think all of the alternatives can probably be justified by the RAW, and that there’s almost certainly no deep-Barkerese-style hidden and secret authors intention to be teased out of the words on the page here either.

Instead I suspect this is such an odd and corner case example that were it to actually come up in a game there would probably be a bit of mutual head scratching before I’d suggest to my opponent dicing to see which of the options we’d actually do, and then we’d do that and move on. 

Well the rule says:

Citation:
Page 62 Pursuit Paras 1 & 2

When a unit has routed all its opponents in melee, it can perform an advance at the end of the melee phase to pursue a routed unit. A pursuit is a move directly forward of a maximum of one UD ignoring enemy ZoC. Only the phasing player’s units can perform a pursuit.

Pursuit is optional for non-impetuous units. Pursuit is mandatory for impetuous units which must pursue one complete UD except in the following cases...

I see how this can be interpreted another way, but my reading is that pursuit is compulsory for all impetuous units that can do so. Asked for an opinion I'm happy to back it up with reasons.

Also, it's not that odd for LC to block an evade in this way, so maybe ease up on the "it never happens" schtick Rolling Eyes


A unit in overlap has no Melee opponent so has no obligation to pursue, even if impetuous. 


I concur with my learned friend. Only the impetuous unit doing the fighting pursues. Supporting units can choose to do so. However, if an impetuous overlaps chooses to pursue it would have to move a full UD or until it met an obstacle.
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
Ramses II
Magister Militum


Inscrit le: 17 Juil 2015
Messages: 1160
Localisation: London
MessagePosté le: Mar Aoû 20, 2019 9:36 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Agreed with both madaxeman and snowhitsky. 
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
AlanCutner
Tribun


Inscrit le: 03 Nov 2014
Messages: 706
Localisation: Scotland
MessagePosté le: Mar Aoû 20, 2019 9:44 pm    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
So my option 1. Both units can pursue (one must, the other optional) even though they pursue different distances.
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
Ramses II
Magister Militum


Inscrit le: 17 Juil 2015
Messages: 1160
Localisation: London
MessagePosté le: Mer Aoû 21, 2019 12:34 am    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Yes
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
daveallen
Tribun


Inscrit le: 28 Jan 2016
Messages: 742
Localisation: Rugby & CLWC
MessagePosté le: Mer Aoû 21, 2019 6:45 am    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
AlanCutner a écrit:
So my option 1. Both units can pursue (one must, the other optional) even though they pursue different distances.

If we're agreed that the requirement for impetuous units to pursue doesn't apply to supports then the next paragraph kicks in:
Citation:
Supporting friendly units can also advance the same distance providing that they are aligned corner to corner with the pursuing unit and have the same facing.

Since pursuit is not a group move the answer is 3 - the victorious unit advances as far as it can and the support stays where it is - because it can't pursue the same distance.
_________________
Putting the ink into incompetence
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
Ramses II
Magister Militum


Inscrit le: 17 Juil 2015
Messages: 1160
Localisation: London
MessagePosté le: Mer Aoû 21, 2019 10:32 am    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Ahh. 
I think Dave is correct here. The key phrase is “the same distanceâ€. 

It also means that normal units would stop their pursuit on contact with any enemy, irrespective of which unit made contact 

Good spot Dave. 
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
daveallen
Tribun


Inscrit le: 28 Jan 2016
Messages: 742
Localisation: Rugby & CLWC
MessagePosté le: Mer Aoû 21, 2019 10:35 am    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
Oops, answering a question that disappeared. Cool

If it's not a group move then each unit's pursuit is an individual move.

The unit in melee must pursue a full UD (because it's impetuous) or until it is blocked. I think that's not controversial.

Because the supports choose whether or not to pursue (ie it's not compulsory) they must meet the requirement to go the same distance. If they can't meet that requirement then they can't make the pursuit.
_________________
Putting the ink into incompetence
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
AlanCutner
Tribun


Inscrit le: 03 Nov 2014
Messages: 706
Localisation: Scotland
MessagePosté le: Mer Aoû 21, 2019 10:41 am    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant
In which case consider if an impetuous pursuing supporting unit contacts enemy, but the impetuous unit that fought combat doesn't contact new enemy and can therefore move further. Is the supporting unit prevented from making that pursuit move into contact?
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
  
 Art De La Guerre Index du Forum > Rules questions V3
Page 1 sur 2 Aller à la page 1, 2  Suivante
Poster un nouveau sujet   Répondre au sujet Toutes les heures sont au format GMT

 
Sauter vers:  
Vous ne pouvez pas poster de nouveaux sujets dans ce forum
Vous ne pouvez pas répondre aux sujets dans ce forum
Vous ne pouvez pas éditer vos messages dans ce forum
Vous ne pouvez pas supprimer vos messages dans ce forum
Vous ne pouvez pas voter dans les sondages de ce forum