PDA

View Full Version : Multiple Pursuits with long Bretonnian lances



Bitten Black Sheep
17-07-2011, 23:03
This situation could also apply to other races with many ranked units.

Having been happily playing Bretonnians for years this has not been a problem and actually is still not as my opponents have never raised it as an issue. However, I just feel a bit uncomfortable as I know I am not playing it correctly under 8th rules and I wonder what other people do.

This is the situation.
You have charged with two long lances into a unit 5 wide, a fairly common occurrence.
You break the unit and it flees and you pursue with at least one lance.

Now the way I have always played and currently play the situation, is to pursue directly forward with both lances which I seem to remember was correct under previous editions. In 8th, however, you pivot so that your centre is lined up with the centre of the fleeing unit and move in that direction. This means that as each lance is offset to the side they will both converge in towards each other, and therfeore only one lance can move.

Now this is where my brain gives up. Lances can be up to 10" long (12" with characters) meaning that often they will not clear the other lance. So do we shuffle the other unit back, which seems very messy and most likely will raise frowns from your opponent, particularly if it puts the lance into or out of a charge arc.

Similarly, what do you do if one lance pursues and the other reforms? It indicates on page 57 that reform takes place before the pursuit move. With unwieldy lances there is no room to reform (except by coming out of lance formation) even though you know the other lance will move away. I must admit I've often played it so I move the pursuers first to give myself room to reform without being aware of the order (implied?) on page 57, however if the pursuing lance doesn't move far you are left with the the same problem as above.

In summary I have a rules query. what should you do if one pursuing lance does not clear the other lance and ends up overlapped?
And, a more general how do people actually play the pursuit with units side by side?

shakedown47
19-07-2011, 01:46
I have to admit this has me stumped, and the fact that no one else has offerred an answer is a pretty clear indication that there is no RAW way to go about resolving it other than to say that neither unit moves at all which is one very rare case where I will say RAI has to trump RAW.

One way to resolve it, and by no means am I suggesting that this is RAI or the best way or whatever, is to figure out where each unit would end up if the other unit was not present and place them there. In cases where they would still end up overlapping, pick the central point of the overlap and move each unit equidistant away from that point until they are 1" away from one another. By doing this you will have maintained both the position and "heading" of each unit as well as possible. Just one solution. Anyone else have a way of solving it?

Bitten Black Sheep
19-07-2011, 04:39
Thanks for the reply SD47. I was beginning to think that nobody was interested in the question.
I think I agree that there is no RAW solution to this.
As I said, the way I have been playing it has not raised any issues yet. It also makes intuitive sense that both units surge forward as if one unit. Or are the knights so chivalrous they they wait and say "after you", "no, after you", "no,no, I insist, you go first".
Your suggestion, does keep the heading but it is so marginal an angle that I wonder if it is worth the bother. The same result is almost achieved by going straight forward and then springing an inch apart as I currently do.
Any other Bretonnian players out there who have come across this situation and can tell us what they do?

Yrrdead
19-07-2011, 23:54
1. You don't pursue move with both at the same time.
2. You choose the order that they would pursue move.
3. Ex; Unit A(first bus) goes first , you pivot, move distance, easy. Unit B(2nd bus) now can't move its pursuit distance. So it sits there. You may have to use the old "nudge" rule :(.

If you decide to reform with one, you would follow the normal rules for a combat reform. Then pursue move with other bus. Not sure what the problem is with this.

While it may make intuitive sense that both units surge forward as if one unit that is not how the rules work.

Pg 60 and the diagrams on pg 61 spell most of it out.

shakedown47
20-07-2011, 00:06
Yrrdead the basic problem is that if two units are side by side, in base contact so to speak, it is impossible to pivot either unit around its center as that would cause the units to overlap. Even if you pretend that one unit is not there while you figure the position of the other unit, as I've suggested, you can still end up with two units overlapping each other if their pursuit distances are at all similar. It's important to note that the OP is talking specifically about two friendly units both fighting an enemy's front rank, whereas the diagrams you mentioned are talking about front/rear and front/flank combats.

Yrrdead
20-07-2011, 00:25
I understand perfectly the OP's issue. Your suggestion is the actual rule. You pick the first one to move, pivot and move it. You do this by ignoring the 2nd bus. Though I do agree that it still leaves you with having to "nudge" the 2nd bus backwards essentially which is just very awkward. The diagrams are just there to help which they do, in that they show two friendly pursuing units , pivot (through a friendly unit) and move.

On a more house rule side , my only regular Bret opponent just treats the two units as a single unit which I realize isn't correct but it is easy.(When he pursues with both.)

shakedown47
20-07-2011, 00:32
I understand perfectly the OP's issue. Your suggestion is the actual rule. You pick the first one to move, pivot and move it. You do this by ignoring the 2nd bus. Though I do agree that it still leaves you with having to "nudge" the 2nd bus backwards essentially which is just very awkward. The diagrams are just there to help which they do, in that they show two friendly pursuing units , pivot (through a friendly unit) and move.

On a more house rule side , my only regular Bret opponent just treats the two units as a single unit which I realize isn't correct but it is easy.(When he pursues with both.)

Ah yes you're right, didn't pay close enough attention to that single ghostly spearman lol. Thanks!

Bitten Black Sheep
20-07-2011, 08:00
Thanks Yrrdead.
Interesting that the house rule you describe is the same way that I play it.

The problem with the RAW is that the "nudge" is potentially huge. An average of 8" forward with one lance and no movement with the second lance because it is blocked can result in a 3" nudge, 2" overlap plus 1" apart, given a 10" lance. Because you can choose which pursuing unit to move first you might in extreme situations go forward just 2" with one lance and "nudge" the other to an advantageous position (backwards or sideways).
To me that is a total abuse of the rules and I wouldn't do it, its as bad as the swift reform and entering a building.

The problem with the reform of one lance is that there is no room to do so if it has to be performed before the other lance has moved. The rules are written, pg 57, in the order of reform before pursuit but it does not categorically state that that has to be the order. If you reform after the other lance has moved there is more room but you still often end up overlapped and have the nudge problem again, and again can gain a possibly advantageous position.

It looks like I will continue to play the situation the way I have always done. On balance I think this is the fairest way of playing it. I do feel more confident to explain to my opponent why I recommend that it is treated this way (if it does come up as an issue) as following the rules literally can lead to abuse IMO.

DeathlessDraich
20-07-2011, 12:08
This situation could also apply to other races with many ranked units.

Now the way I have always played and currently play the situation, is to pursue directly forward with both lances which I seem to remember was correct under previous editions. In 8th, however, you pivot so that your centre is lined up with the centre of the fleeing unit and move in that direction. This means that as each lance is offset to the side they will both converge in towards each other, and therfeore only one lance can move.



1) Yes, this problem has always existed but it was solved by Gav Thorpe in his 6th ed FAQ which was then retained in 7th

2) In 8th ed, the same basic idea that Gav introduced was retained.

3) In your scenario :):

The only time when a unit can move over a unit is during the initial stages of the flee and pursuit moves.
pg 61 & 60 - diagrams

Therefore the 2 lance formation units do not have to be adjusted to make space when initiating the pursuit move. - I use a movement tray placed over units, to simulate the pivot and movement of the pursuit, when resolving this.

A) If 1 lance unit pursues, it is moved to the final position disregarding intervening (& blocking) units it shared combat with. It is stopped however by terrain, units etc at the end of its move.

B) If more than 1 unit pursues, then they must be spaced apart according to the difference in their dice rolls. Again they treat units they were in combat with, friend or enemy, as open terrain initially.


4) There are scenarios where a 'log jam' occurs or when a dice roll is needed to determine where the exact positions of multiple pursuing units. In these scennarios, the 1" rule and sequence of pursuit are the important guidelines.
:)

shakedown47
25-07-2011, 02:48
I brought this up with my play group this weekend and our resident rules lawyer, who is almost never wrong (often very much to our chagrin,) noted an interesting omission in the rules on pg. 60:

"...each pursuer pivots about its center so that it is facing directly towards the fleeing unit of its choice..."

So the interesting thing is that the book doesn't state that the pursuing unit must face directly towards the CENTER of the fleeing unit. In the case of two side-by-side units pursuing a common enemy, they will both necessarily already be facing directly toward (not directly toward the center of) the fleeing unit. Likewise, in the case of a flanking unit making a pursuit move, it would only be necessary to pivot the unit around it's center just enough to be facing "directly toward" (i.e. collision course with) the fleeing unit.

Lord Inquisitor
25-07-2011, 03:18
I brought this up with my play group this weekend and our resident rules lawyer, who is almost never wrong (often very much to our chagrin,) noted an interesting omission in the rules on pg. 60:

"...each pursuer pivots about its center so that it is facing directly towards the fleeing unit of its choice..."
Given that the rule for one unit on p57 specifically state center and the diagram on p61 clearly shows a unit pivoting to face the center I think we can say that pursuit towards the center is assumed.

The other interesting little bit of this puzzle is that the fleeing unit will flee from the center of the unit with the most ranks and this will mean with two units assaulting it, it'll flee off at an angle too rather than perpendicular to the line of combat the way it used to be.

It is an interesting question but I agree with Yrrdead and Deathless. Pick one, pivot (ignoring the other unit) and move. Then try and move the other one, probably resulting in a bit of a fudge per the 1" rule.

That said, most of the time just moving both units parallel towards the enemy is vastly more satisfying. Personally I would simply play it this way as the vast majority of opponents won't realise it's technically incorrect and produces a much more intuitive and flowing game. If anyone does want to play it the technically correct way then they can tell you.

It's one of these things that if you start trying to explain to the opponent how it is resolved and most of the time you'll just confuse them so much you'll wish you never brought it up.

shakedown47
25-07-2011, 03:38
It's one of these things that if you start trying to explain to the opponent how it is resolved and most of the time you'll just confuse them so much you'll wish you never brought it up.

Yes exactly. It's things like this that make it difficult when playing a new opponent or when playing in a tournament that has drawn players from outside of your usual group. They start to resolve things one way, you say "no it's this way see?" and show them the rules, then there is a debate, etc. etc. I agree that fleeing and pursuing straight ahead/behind is the much more intuitive way to play, but that begs the question of why playing that way as the norm is better/more desirable than playing by the actual rules?

You're right about page 57; in the bolded section under "Move Pursuers" it does state the pursuing unit pivots to face the center of the fleeing unit. Then, in the extrapolated text immediately below, it omits the requirement of facing the center (and again on page 60.) I agree that the intent is probably to face directly towards the center, though, and I imagine we'll play it as such. Thanks for the clarification.

Lord Inquisitor
25-07-2011, 03:42
Yeah, I would be very critical of a resolution of pursuit of multiple units that involves the unit not pursuing towards the center. I think it is clearly implicit. I think now the FAQ clarified things, every instance of fleeing/pursuit (including panic, charging, etc) is center-center.

To check we're all on the same page here, I've mocked up some diagrams showing the original situation. Everyone agree with my resolution here? Note that orange could have chosen the other unit to pursue first.

(Okay, done editing... promise)

shakedown47
25-07-2011, 03:54
Yeah I'm happy with that outcome. Again, I agree with you that pivoting towards the center is implied and correct.

A totally new situation occurred to me though. In the case of a normal one-on-one combat I assume that a pursuing unit that has caught a fleeing unit will simply pursue straight forward, as the final position of the "caught" fleeing unit cannot be determined because it has already been removed from the battlefield before the Move Pursuers step of resolution. I should think the same thing involving a multiple combat in an enemy's front rank. Simple enough.

So what about a multiple combat with at least one flanking unit? If both units pursue and the fleeing unit ends up caught, will the flanking unit pursue directly forward (basically the same as an overrun,) will it pivot to face the same direction as the pursuing unit with the most ranks, or some other outcome?

The book and its diagrams cover how to handle a single and multiple combat in which the fleeing unit escapes, but not how to determine the direction of pursuit for units that have caught their enemies.

Lord Inquisitor
25-07-2011, 04:20
Yes, we thought of that too. In the end we decided that we would extrapolate the endpoint of the center of the fleeing unit as if it had fled and in the interest of staying sane we'd use that as the direction of pursuit. Not sureiof that's technically correct but really weird things can happen otherwise... And I've never seen anyone actually use the centrepoint of the unit at the point of destruction.

Bitten Black Sheep
25-07-2011, 08:54
I also agree that you go centre to centre. In fact I thought that was clarified in Errata/FAQ 1.2 as I remember we were all just going straight back and changed our ways. I've checked 1.4 and can't find it. Found it - Page 6 under close combat FAQ


For caught units, when I thought about it that's the way I interpreted it too. That is, flee the unit to where it would have ended up if it hadn't been run down to determine the direction of pursuit.
Looking at the diagrams I must admit I missed the fact that the fleeing unit should pivot. If the longer lance was moved first then the shorter lance would just pivot and then, because it is overlapped, nudge sideways to the left without changing its current, new, facing. I say to the left because this is the shortest distance to clear the unit.
Interesting that you can turn your flank this way to escape potential trouble. Although it would be extremely difficult to set it up deliberately