Art De La Guerre

[Neep]

Page 69 clearly indicates that disciplined troops may pursue by advancing any part of 1UD they choose to.

Impetuous troops and elephants must pursue the full 1 UD, if they do pursue.
There are a number of conditions which make it non-mandatory.
Most of these conditions do not block an advance of 1 UD. (So presumably you could pursue off the table if you chose to. Might actually be useful in a tight contest.)

Sliding along the front of an enemy is prohibited, so it would be "blocking".
Two other conditions (that I can think of) which are not on the list are friendly troops and impassible terrain. May you advance until blocked? or must you stay in place?

(There is the question of interpenetration/burst through. There is no indication it's a possibility, so it's probably best to leave that worm in the can.)

[Ramses II]

Common sense suggests those units which must pursue, do so to the maximum distance possible, others may pursue a variable distance or none at all (exemptions considered etc)

[Neep]

That's certainly a reasonable interpretation, but I'd suggest, now take a deep breath everyone, that common sense might not be needed here. Because Pursuit is sort of a mix it up effect on melee, and it's better to have a clear procedure than a convincing narrative.
The first bullet unambiguously restricts El and impetuous to advance 1 UD or not at all, and that can be met in most all cases.
It's just when you cannot advance 1 UD and there is no impetuous pursuit exception for the circumstances that the process is undefined.

[madaxeman]

[Neep]

So what's stopping you, Tim? I think you should give in to your temptation and write "The Madaxeman's Interpretations of all the places ADLG didn't bother to cover". Of course you would have to use persuasive logic while the rest of us made snide comments when we dislike your choices, That might not be so fun, but it would be very useful as a base line.
Otherwise the rest of us will continue to support the game by notifying the rules committee when we spot an opportunity for improvement.

[madaxeman]

"The Madaxeman's Interpretations of all the places ADLG didn't bother to cover" would likely have a very small circulation indeed, as most people seem perfectly happy to muddle through these sorts of obscure and unimportant corner case scenarios under their own steam.

Given Rameses is on the rules committee it would appear that at least one of them shares that viewpoint as well .. but you are of course welcome to keep throwing them out there to try and get a different reaction
_________________
www.madaxeman.com

[Ramses II]

For What Its Worth, people still occasionally come up with situations that are 'loosely' covered by the rules, which may need some input from the DT or El Kreator himself.
Hoary old tournament players and those with experience of several versions of ADLG may forget what it is like to try to learn all the nuances in the rules, so we do welcome reasonable questions to which you should expect reasoned replies.

But this is after all, a game.
In another set of rules, the author suggested a '5 minute pre-game discussion' to talk through aspects that were not explicitly covered by the rules; "what happens if my elephants . . . ." might well fall into this category - then if this particular situation occurs both players know what to do. Failing this, I recommend you roll some dice and move on.

Normally it is only very unusual situations that are not covered in detail, and consequently these (highly) unusual situations will have practically no impact on the game.