Infantry Moving or Not

[IanN]

There was a combat between two infantry TUG's, both 3 bases wide and both offset by one base. My opponent broke during melee phase and routed. My TUG pursued about 2mm before meeting fresh enemy, making single base contact. During next moves charge phase my opponent charged my unit with cavalry (2 bases wide) making contact with the two bases of my TUG that were unengaged.
No problem - all worked out fine ... until we did the impact combat.
Question  - were my infantry moving when contacted by the cavalry. At the time we agreed that there were not - but with hindsight - my sense it that we were incorrect.
Please clarify

[Francis Small]

I'm assuming that the question is whether or not the infantry qualify as "standing to receive" during charge combat given that they moved forward into contact during a pursuit in the movement phase. In the most severe case, a UG of long spears could pursue up to 3BW into contact with mounted lancers during melee. During the subsequent charge combat could they claim "standing to receive" with a straight face?

The QRS describes "standing to receive" (footnote under charge combat - preferred claims) as "not charged, countercharged, or intercepted". Since the infantry neither charged, countercharged, or intercepted, merely pursued, I would argue that the rules allow you to claim "standing to receive." (I do find it really odd, and would not be too hurt if someone could shoot it down in a mass of flames.)

Also, there seem to be three variations of this:

• You pursue during melee, don't contact anyone. Someone subsequently charges you. You clearly are allowed to claim "standing to receive".
• You pursue during melee, contact a new UG. Someone subsequently charges you. Um, sort of seems like #1 and you can claim it. (I think this is the original question.)
• You pursue during melee, contact a new UG. Can you claim "standing to receive" against the UG you contacted? (My case above.) I argue that the rules say yes - but it seems very counter-intuitive.

[Jilu]

Page 167 of the rulebook :

if a new enemy is contacted the new contact has occurred during charge phase they fight a new combat.
otherwise they fight in the next charge phase.

If they contacted an enemy that means they moved into contact.

[IanN]

Maybe have not made the question apparent.

The pursuing troops contacted new enemy during the post-combat pursuit - so obviously moved.
During the next turn, enemy cavalry charged the infantry that had pursued into fresh enemy.

The issue is do the infantry count as standing to receive a charge during the charge phase; or do the cavalry count the pursuers as having moving and therefore gain the +1 for infantry moving whilst charged by cavalry.

The rationale was that the pursuit took place during the last turn combat phase, so would have been completed before the cavalry declared their charge.
Or is the pursuit and charge deemed to effectively be simultaneous

[lionheartrjc]

I can understand the uncertainty.

If the pursuing unit had not contacted and enemy and was then charged it would clearly be standing to receive the charge.
On this basis, the pursuing unit should count as standing to receive the charge in this case as well.
The fact that the combat is fought in the following Charge Phase doesn't change the fact that the pursuit occurs in Fighting phase of the previous turn, before the charge is declared.

So I would agree with FrancisSmall.

Richard

[nikgaukroger]

I'm assuming that the question is whether or not the infantry qualify as "standing to receive" during charge combat given that they moved forward into contact during a pursuit in the movement phase. In the most severe case, a UG of long spears could pursue up to 3BW into contact with mounted lancers during melee. During the subsequent charge combat could they claim "standing to receive" with a straight face?

The QRS describes "standing to receive" (footnote under charge combat - preferred claims) as "not charged, countercharged, or intercepted". Since the infantry neither charged, countercharged, or intercepted, merely pursued, I would argue that the rules allow you to claim "standing to receive." (I do find it really odd, and would not be too hurt if someone could shoot it down in a mass of flames.)

Also, there seem to be three variations of this:

• You pursue during melee, don't contact anyone. Someone subsequently charges you. You clearly are allowed to claim "standing to receive".
• You pursue during melee, contact a new UG. Someone subsequently charges you. Um, sort of seems like #1 and you can claim it. (I think this is the original question.)
• You pursue during melee, contact a new UG. Can you claim "standing to receive" against the UG you contacted? (My case above.) I argue that the rules say yes - but it seems very counter-intuitive.

I think this pretty much covers it.

Actual movement by bases is not what defines "standing to receive" it is whether they have declared a charge, etc. "Charge" is defined in the glossary on page 213 and starts "A move declared in the charge phase intended to end in combat." - and a pursuit that makes contact is not that; is quite relevant to Francis Small's third bullet above as well ...

This may, or may not have been Si's intention for pursuit and probably justifies a FAQ entry for clarity as I can see it being a case where people will not be certain and may find it counter intuitive.

[IanN]

Guys - thanks for the clarification, as stated it does feel somewhat counter-intuitive     

[badhabum]

Beware of pandora's box

If you all agree that a pursuing unit that contacts an ennemy TUG is not considered as having moved if charged by cavalr...you open the following : and what if long spears pursue and contact a mounted opponent ..are they standing to receive or have they charged ...that question will be asked ...so I ask it because if in that case they are considred as having moved, why are they considered as standing to receive if par of the TUG is contacted by a charging ennemy cavalry ...and all is resolved during the same turn/phase/sub-phase ...

[nikgaukroger]

This is exactly the point raised by Francis Small's 3rd bullet point (that I mentioned above) and why I quoted the bit from the glossary 

[badhabum]

My answer is that the unit moved but yours seem - if I understood - to say the infantry is standing to receive ..which is very counter intuitive and does not conform the definition pg 219.

Standing to receive a charge - so not having declared a charge, ruan away or skirmish ...

If the infantry meets cavalry and there is a contact, you seem to argue it has not charged but neither the cavalry . So it cannot be standing to receive as the cav did not charge ...

A harge being derscribe as being declared in the charge phase intended to end in contact with the ennemy. ( pg 213 )

My opinion is that pursuing an ennemy and contact a new one is a charge . If done during charge phase it continues charging during that phase . It is then  clearly a charge that can go on and on if you are very successfull. If it happens during melee turn, to me, it is still a charge and for reason of doing things in an easy manner, that charge resolution is delayed till next charge phase to make things easier .  If it is a charge when happening during charge phase, it should be the same during melee phase so to me the inf TUG moved is not standing to receive unless it contacted no one when pursuing . So logic cuts both way .

So what is Simon's intention on this ?

[Francis Small]

So, it looks like we are in agreement with the OP's case (Pursue, contact A, charged by B, you do count as standing to receive vs B)

The remaining controversy is about: Pursue, contact A, count as standing to receive vs. A?

badhabum makes a good point about the glossary definition for standing to receive. It reads: "Staying in position to receive a charge - so not having declared a charge, run away, or skirmish". This at the very least makes it ambiguous. You are not receiving a charge, but you also haven't declared any of the named actions.

(I'll also note that the glossary says "...not having a declared a charge, run away, or skirmish" whereas the QRS states "not charged, countercharged, or intercepted", so those need to be reconciled.)

We are faced with charge combat where nobody has declared a charge, and I think that is where the hole in the rules lie. Seems to me that this is a corner case needing a clarification. I'd be happy with wording to the effect that pursuing into contact also negates standing to receive, but that is Simon's prerogative.

[badhabum]

I would add that many times it was written , answered that the only way to contact an ennemy frontally ( or on the flank/rear ) was to charge it if not already in contact !

So is a pursuit a charge ? IMO YES

[Simon Meg-Meister]

Keep it as written.

I rationalise it this way:
If pushing and then charged as they were - they would halt and close up with th emerging threat.
If so close they hit something nobody has mustered up much of a charge - its just chaos - so they get a free break.

I grant you all there is an equally good argument in theory to have them count "moving".  But not enough to warrant changing what is written.

I would also add that we need to remember we are 'gamers' and if they didn't count standing to receive it creates a lovely trap that can be created behind a breaking TuG. Which is exploitable by cavalry armies that move much faster than infantry ones.  Chuck some cheap infantry into Spartan Hoplites and have some superior lancers behind them ... pass one KaB test and then cause some mayhem ....

Always there are side effects ... it is my aim to have the lesser of evils always. 

Si
 

[badhabum]

If I read it correctly, pursuing during the rout pohase following a melle is no more a move for infantry .

Now we must explain to players that is a pursuit happens during a charge phase, it is a move . If it happens tduring a pursuit it is not a move for infantry but a move for cavalry .

A question may arise : what about the F1 move, what about it's use then ? why do we have a Control Pursuit if not to -  partially -  avoid units to go too far away .

I can hear the case for a trap that would see poor infantry pursuing some cheap ennemy and run into cavalry but I will look at it the other way round . If it is seen as a trick, a trap, what about a screen of poor infantry routed by lancers that pursue and hit some pikes that were gently waiting for them to pursue ...that seems reasonable to you ...so why is pursuing infantry not being controlled ( F1 ) going straigh forward and being checked by an ennemy cavalry unit that was in reserve and intercepts the pursuing infantry ...It is another lecture of the sequence .

I fear you have choosen the complicated one that is not intuitive .

[Simon Meg-Meister]

Always willing to be converted but I thought we wanted no change to the rules ...