Subsequent ranks pursuing

[landmeister]

I'm sure this is pretty clear for English speaking natives, so this is why I would appreciate some help. 
All subsequent ranks behind an element that pursues must pursue too. Must those ranks be lined up to their front rank friendly element or just being parallel and in contact is enough? I understand a column must pursue if the front rank does. Does the same happens when several elements are one behind other but not in column?

Thank you very much in advance.

[Orcoteuthis]

I would hope only lined up ones do, or we'll be in trouble when a partially behind element is also partially behind another front-rank element that doesn't pursue!

[arvnranger]

p26 PURSUING ELEMENTS para 2: "Elements of all subsequent contiguous ranks that are directly to the rear of a pursuing element and facing the same direction also pursue".

I vaguely recall a discussion, possibly from DBM days, regarding the precise meaning of "contiguous" with respect to rules regarding groups of troop elements. Although most dictionaries define "contiguous" as simply "touching" IIRC in DBx "contiguous" means "in corner-to-corner" contact. I know this is referred logic but I suspect that the requirement to be directly behind *and* lined up in (front)corner-to-(rear)corner is implicit in the use of the word "contiguous".

Cheers,
Ivan.

[landmeister]

Although most dictionaries define "contiguous" as simply "touching" IIRC in DBx "contiguous" means "in corner-to-corner" contact. I know this is referred logic but I suspect that the requirement to be directly behind *and* lined up in (front)corner-to-(rear)corner is implicit in the use of the word "contiguous".

I'm afraid I disagree. On page 28 is said that groups can march within 400 of enemy that "...do not contain contiguous non skirmishers elements...". IIRC this rule was specifically created to avoid non skirmisher generals attached to a group of skirmishers stopping marches. I have to admit that I didn't remember this rule when I posted my doubt, as it implicitly responds it. Additionally, on page 40 I read that an element pressing forward: "It and any friends lined up to its rear immediately move straight forward...". This is the final confirmation as here it is specifically stated that it must be lined up. This raises a new interesting question now. When a column more than two element deep is to press forward, it must break  I think we've never played like this. 

Once againg Phil is right. Careful rereading should solve most problems.

Thank you for your help.

[arvnranger]

I'm afraid I disagree. On page 28 is said that groups can march within 400 of enemy that "...do not contain contiguous non skirmishers elements...". IIRC this rule was specifically created to avoid non skirmisher generals attached to a group of skirmishers stopping marches.

This is, to me, a non-sequitur. Where's the contradiction? What I was trying to communicate is that simply touching without being in corner-to-corner contact does not connote (or transmit) contiguity in a DBx sense.

Pressing forward (against shooting) is not pursuit (after close combat).

You make an interesting point regarding the absence of the explicit requirement to be in contact behind an element pressing forward to compel a following element to also press forward. By a literal reading could an element lined up but separated by, say, 800 paces of open space from an element pressing forward be so compelled? I would say it doesn't follow common sense or practice but there is a lack of precision in the rule as written which admits this interpretation. Maybe if it included the word "contiguous" ... 

Cheers,
Ivan.

[landmeister]

Please don't get me wrong Ivan. The truth is that I was answering myself, not to you.  I had to have read the bit on marches before your post, sorry. 

I agree with you about all weird consequences of reading literally the press forward rule. Woudl it be ambiguous enough for the Commentary?