Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Don Coon]

JonCleaves@... wrote:

> Choices:
>
> #1: If you make contact with any part of one element, pivot the entire body
> to make edge to edge contact. Any 'extra' movement by an element is free.
> This is the 'warhammer' solution. Pros: simple. Cons: A six element long LC
> unit gets a heck of a free move.
>
> #2: If you make contact with any part of one element, continue pivoting
> until an element runs out of charge move. Those elements whose charge move
> is exceeded are kept back 20 paces until the first bound of combat is fought.
> This is the WRG 7.6/93 interp book solution. Pros: we've played this way.
> Cons: still allows a long unit a lot of free move. They just can't fight
> right away.
>
> #3: If you make contact with any part of one element, continue pivoting
> until an element runs out of charge move, even while echeloning forward. If
> any front rank element cannot make contact, the charge cannot be made. This
> is the current Warrior solution. Pros: more restrictive than #2, it prevents
> the free move deal for long units. Cons: would prevent a charge where one
> element can make contact, but others cannot. This means a player who is
> close with part of his unit, but not enough of it, will have to wait to
> charge next bound, possibly 'missing' an opportunity to charge an exposed
> flank.

We tend to play with a modified #2. We slide all elements of the
charging body until contact is made or maximum charge reach occurs. We
then pivot elements making contact with enemy body to conform. We then
pivot elements that did not make contact to be parallel with those that
did, but at the same relative distance as much as possible. I like your
#2 best because it makes it easy. Just a flat 20p rewadr echelon for
short charging elements. You dont get extra fighters in bound 1, and it
is EASY to play and referee.

On a side note: imagine two enemy bodies (1X2 blocks) angled to each
other at say 70 degrees. They are separated by about 20p at their apex,
and you are a 3X2 block 60p away from it all dead center on the apex.
You want to charge but can not because there is no way to fit your body
in the angle and keep side edge contact with your own guys. We rule
that the charge must be declared on one of the two enemy bodies and you
must echelon your extra elements back to avoid contact with the other
body. This still results in cases where you can not get in there, and
this seems illogical. Patrick stood off a big unit of JLS+Sh with 2 LC
units, using such an angling tactic.It seems like the geometry of the
situation allows the LC to be much more resistent to enemy pressure than
it really was.

Don

[Patrick Byrne]

#2-PB

>
>
> #2: If you make contact with any part of one element, continue pivoting
> until an element runs out of charge move. Those elements whose charge move
> is exceeded are kept back 20 paces until the first bound of combat is fought.
> This is the WRG 7.6/93 interp book solution. Pros: we've played this way.
> Cons: still allows a long unit a lot of free move. They just can't fight
> right away.

[Todd Kaeser]

#2
Todd Kaeser
----------
From: JonCleaves@...
To: WarriorRules@egroups.com
Subject: [WarriorRules] Angled charges and pivoting to conform
Date: Mon, Jan 1, 2001, 8:29 PM


Fellow Warrior Enthusiasts

Although the writing of these rules is not generally a democratic process,
in
this instance I could really use the benefit of as many opinions as
possible.

The number one headache in the writing of Warrior is the handling of charges

that make initial contact with only a small portion of an opposing unit. I
am lip-deep in this issue and it is the only remaining 'problem' we need to
solve in the core rules. I do not need a wide open debate, as we HAVE
decided some aspects of this. So I am going to carefully frame my request
for your help.

First, here's the basic issue:

How do we want to handle charges where one part of one element can reach the

edge of an enemy body, but no other element of the charging body can reach
that edge within its max charge move?

Second, here are the ground rules:
1. This is NOT a discussion of any other thing that would make the charge
illegal: fitting in the space available, passable gaps, cancelled charge,
etc. Assume the theoretical charge is otherwise legal. Note that this is
not just about flank charges, but many of them cause 'angled' issues.
2. There will be no 'wraparound' in Warrior. A body's elements will always

be in side edge contact with other elements of the body. Period. What you
find in diagram 13 of the 93 interp book for WRG 7th will not be in Warrior.

I can personally guarantee it. Mechanically, 'wraparound' is already in the

game and reflected in adjacent elements fighting in subsequent bounds of a
melee.
3. 'Pivoting to face' and 'lining up' WILL occur. We have decided against
the 'armati/tactica' method of leaving units in contact at all kinds of
crazy
angles. This is primarily due to Warrior being a figures-in-contact based
melee system. I have no intention of trying to solve how two players in
competition figure out how many figures are fighting between two units that
'clipped' each other at a 57-degree angle. It works in Armati/Tactica since
you are counting a standard value no matter how many figures contact.
4. I am going to give you three basic choices of how to handle this. ALL
you need to do if you like one of these choices is respond with:
Angled charge issue: <choice #>.
There is no need to tell me why you like it, unless you feel it absolutely
necessary.
If you have some other method to offer or a modification of one of the
choices offered, then describe it and discuss its merits. The choices given

all have good pros and bad cons, there is no need to go over them all again.

I am looking for a feel for how the guys who actually play ancients at this
level want this handled. Or, if possible, the better solution my tiny brain

can not come up with after weeks of trying.

Choices:

#1: If you make contact with any part of one element, pivot the entire body

to make edge to edge contact. Any 'extra' movement by an element is free.
This is the 'warhammer' solution. Pros: simple. Cons: A six element long
LC
unit gets a heck of a free move.

#2: If you make contact with any part of one element, continue pivoting
until an element runs out of charge move. Those elements whose charge move
is exceeded are kept back 20 paces until the first bound of combat is
fought.
This is the WRG 7.6/93 interp book solution. Pros: we've played this way.

Cons: still allows a long unit a lot of free move. They just can't fight
right away.

#3: If you make contact with any part of one element, continue pivoting
until an element runs out of charge move, even while echeloning forward. If

any front rank element cannot make contact, the charge cannot be made. This

is the current Warrior solution. Pros: more restrictive than #2, it
prevents
the free move deal for long units. Cons: would prevent a charge where one
element can make contact, but others cannot. This means a player who is
close with part of his unit, but not enough of it, will have to wait to
charge next bound, possibly 'missing' an opportunity to charge an exposed
flank.

#4: write in candidate.

The reason I am offering this up is that I had been intending to use #3.
But
it occurs to me that the greater Warrior-playing community may not mind all
that free move. If a majority of you don't, I'll go with the simpler
solution and save a LOT of rule writing.

Have at me.
Jon

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com

Jon,

in brief, I prefer #2, with the following observations:

My own view on the mechanics of Angled charges is:

1st: Move each front element that can contact the enemy to its
point of first contact. Do not pivot to conform yet.

2nd: Then move the elements that cannot contact in their normal
charge move to line up side-to-side with the moved elements.

(At this point, Option 1 can be achieved by echeloning forward the
non-contacting elements into contact, as per contacting a second
enemy unit. This would trigger disorder if an echelon exceeded 40
paces, though my preference would be to make the disorder automatic,
for simplicity and to prevent wrangling about the distances measured.
Only then are the elements pivoted for the proper base-to-base
contact.)

3rd: At this point, for Option 2, the contacted elements are turned
to line up. The non-contacting elements turn to keep their
side-to-side alignment. This results in a staggered line of
non-combatant elements. It is these elements that then echelon
forward (though not into contact) to re-establish a straight line (20
paces back). The echeloning forward then triggers the disorder as
discussed above. Again, making it automatic keeps it simple.


Pros: Some disadvantage for the gift of extra movement. Uses current
game concepts.
Cons: The slower, close formation troops are penalised more (slower
= more likely to have non-contacting elements, and -2 H-2-H factor)
Unsure: Troops with missiles disadvantaged by the disorder.


I also had some thoughts about fatigue:

Would the elements that are hanging back in the charge bound incur
various types of charging fatigue for the whole unit if they happened
to contact the same enemy unit (by ploughing in to join their
fellows) next bound (seeing as you can only contact by charging).
Pros: This in some way would balance the extra movement allowed to
them. Compare also with converted charges
Cons: it heavily penalises cavalry, infantry less so.

Or would you be so kind as to not treat it as a new charge?


BTW, 7th Ed Ancients is my favourite wargaming system. I love the
rules, I just hate the way they've been written. I hope you clean up
the sentence construction; with its many clauses, sub-clauses,
conditionalities; and lack of white space, bullet listings and useful
cross-referencing. I've only found this mail listing today, so I
haven't had a good look at your Rules Book. Though I did read through
the postings before giving this reply.

I've been playing for about 12 years, less so recently as my enemies
prefer DBM. Phil Barker's abandonment of 7th Ed. has been quite
frustrating.

I also have a few thoughts on Don's perplexing angled LC units, but
I'll put them in (some semblance of) order later.

Good gaming,

Terry

Jon,
I agree with Terry. If option #1 or #2 are used then if a body has
to use extra movement to contact (as in option #1) or can't contact
with all elements (as in option #2) then disorder seems realistic.

Tom

--- In WarriorRules@egroups.com, quirk@z... wrote:
> Jon,
>
> in brief, I prefer #2, with the following observations:
>
> My own view on the mechanics of Angled charges is:
>
> 1st: Move each front element that can contact the enemy to its
> point of first contact. Do not pivot to conform yet.
>
> 2nd: Then move the elements that cannot contact in their normal
> charge move to line up side-to-side with the moved elements.
>
> (At this point, Option 1 can be achieved by echeloning forward the
> non-contacting elements into contact, as per contacting a second
> enemy unit. This would trigger disorder if an echelon exceeded 40
> paces, though my preference would be to make the disorder
automatic,
> for simplicity and to prevent wrangling about the distances
measured.
> Only then are the elements pivoted for the proper base-to-base
> contact.)
>
> 3rd: At this point, for Option 2, the contacted elements are
turned
> to line up. The non-contacting elements turn to keep their
> side-to-side alignment. This results in a staggered line of
> non-combatant elements. It is these elements that then echelon
> forward (though not into contact) to re-establish a straight line
(20
> paces back). The echeloning forward then triggers the disorder as
> discussed above. Again, making it automatic keeps it simple.
>
>
> Pros: Some disadvantage for the gift of extra movement. Uses
current
> game concepts.
> Cons: The slower, close formation troops are penalised more (slower
> = more likely to have non-contacting elements, and -2 H-2-H factor)
> Unsure: Troops with missiles disadvantaged by the disorder.
>
>
> I also had some thoughts about fatigue:
>
> Would the elements that are hanging back in the charge bound incur
> various types of charging fatigue for the whole unit if they
happened
> to contact the same enemy unit (by ploughing in to join their
> fellows) next bound (seeing as you can only contact by charging).
> Pros: This in some way would balance the extra movement allowed to
> them. Compare also with converted charges
> Cons: it heavily penalises cavalry, infantry less so.
>
> Or would you be so kind as to not treat it as a new charge?
>
>
> BTW, 7th Ed Ancients is my favourite wargaming system. I love the
> rules, I just hate the way they've been written. I hope you clean
up
> the sentence construction; with its many clauses, sub-clauses,
> conditionalities; and lack of white space, bullet listings and
useful
> cross-referencing. I've only found this mail listing today, so I
> haven't had a good look at your Rules Book. Though I did read
through
> the postings before giving this reply.
>
> I've been playing for about 12 years, less so recently as my
enemies
> prefer DBM. Phil Barker's abandonment of 7th Ed. has been quite
> frustrating.
>
> I also have a few thoughts on Don's perplexing angled LC units, but
> I'll put them in (some semblance of) order later.
>
> Good gaming,
>
> Terry

The problem with this type of automatic disorder is that poor
planning on the side of the defender is rewarded.

Why go to all the trouble of covering your units' flank with
difficult terrain to cause disorder if charged when the attacker will
do it for you? Disorder AFTER the charge / combat / results is fine
(and expected!) but to reduce the support shooting / H-T-H factors of
the attacker before the combat is unreasonable. If you charge two
units and you need to step forward, you become disordered next bound,
why penalise the attacker for hitting on one target?

Whichever choice is made (#1, #2 or #3), it should NOT mean automatic
disorder. I suppose it could be considered in the same catagory
as "arranging the unit to conform to a terrain feature". This allows
for an irregular frontage but still not being disordered.



--- In WarriorRules@egroups.com, "Tom Keegan" <jncsmom@g...> wrote:
> Jon,
> I agree with Terry. If option #1 or #2 are used then if a body
has
> to use extra movement to contact (as in option #1) or can't contact
> with all elements (as in option #2) then disorder seems realistic.
>
> Tom
>
> --- In WarriorRules@egroups.com, quirk@z... wrote:
> > Jon,
> >
> > in brief, I prefer #2, with the following observations:
> >
> > My own view on the mechanics of Angled charges is:
> >
> > 1st: Move each front element that can contact the enemy to its
> > point of first contact. Do not pivot to conform yet.
> >
> > 2nd: Then move the elements that cannot contact in their normal
> > charge move to line up side-to-side with the moved elements.
> >
> > (At this point, Option 1 can be achieved by echeloning forward
the
> > non-contacting elements into contact, as per contacting a second
> > enemy unit. This would trigger disorder if an echelon exceeded 40
> > paces, though my preference would be to make the disorder
> automatic,
> > for simplicity and to prevent wrangling about the distances
> measured.
> > Only then are the elements pivoted for the proper base-to-base
> > contact.)
> >
> > 3rd: At this point, for Option 2, the contacted elements are
> turned
> > to line up. The non-contacting elements turn to keep their
> > side-to-side alignment. This results in a staggered line of
> > non-combatant elements. It is these elements that then echelon
> > forward (though not into contact) to re-establish a straight line
> (20
> > paces back). The echeloning forward then triggers the disorder as
> > discussed above. Again, making it automatic keeps it simple.
> >
> >
> > Pros: Some disadvantage for the gift of extra movement. Uses
> current
> > game concepts.
> > Cons: The slower, close formation troops are penalised more
(slower
> > = more likely to have non-contacting elements, and -2 H-2-H
factor)
> > Unsure: Troops with missiles disadvantaged by the disorder.
> >
> >
> > I also had some thoughts about fatigue:
> >
> > Would the elements that are hanging back in the charge bound
incur
> > various types of charging fatigue for the whole unit if they
> happened
> > to contact the same enemy unit (by ploughing in to join their
> > fellows) next bound (seeing as you can only contact by charging).
> > Pros: This in some way would balance the extra movement allowed
to
> > them. Compare also with converted charges
> > Cons: it heavily penalises cavalry, infantry less so.
> >
> > Or would you be so kind as to not treat it as a new charge?
> >
> >
> > BTW, 7th Ed Ancients is my favourite wargaming system. I love the
> > rules, I just hate the way they've been written. I hope you clean
> up
> > the sentence construction; with its many clauses, sub-clauses,
> > conditionalities; and lack of white space, bullet listings and
> useful
> > cross-referencing. I've only found this mail listing today, so I
> > haven't had a good look at your Rules Book. Though I did read
> through
> > the postings before giving this reply.
> >
> > I've been playing for about 12 years, less so recently as my
> enemies
> > prefer DBM. Phil Barker's abandonment of 7th Ed. has been quite
> > frustrating.
> >
> > I also have a few thoughts on Don's perplexing angled LC units,
but
> > I'll put them in (some semblance of) order later.
> >
> > Good gaming,
> >
> > Terry

[joncleaves]

Steve

Don't sweat charge disorder from angled charges. That would represent an
unplaytested change significant enough to stop the rules for a period beyond
which we do not want to go. I am putting that idea in the X-file (which is
NOT a euphemism for my trash can!) for possible posting to a web site at a
later date along with other experimental rules.

Jon

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Honeyman has a very good point! To make attackers disordered would penalize
aggressive play and slow down an already slow game as it is.

Kelly Wilkinson
(Fast Warrior Champion
at Jake's!)

Thought about disordering for incomplete angled charges. I think
Steve is right. More so I think there is not realy a realism issue
here. The body has not really had anything happen to them to cause
disorder......they just have not completed their charge in the time
available for our simulation. We are essentially taking a snap shot
in time to asses combat results then we start the clock again. When
the clock starts again they can complete the charge with the rest of
their body. Option #2 is probably the best simulation of this.
Sorry Jon.....but can I change my choice to option #2 instead of #1.

Tom Keegan

--- In WarriorRules@egroups.com, "Steve Honeyman" <honeyman@t...>
wrote:
> The problem with this type of automatic disorder is that poor
> planning on the side of the defender is rewarded.
>
> Why go to all the trouble of covering your units' flank with
> difficult terrain to cause disorder if charged when the attacker
will
> do it for you? Disorder AFTER the charge / combat / results is
fine
> (and expected!) but to reduce the support shooting / H-T-H factors
of
> the attacker before the combat is unreasonable. If you charge two
> units and you need to step forward, you become disordered next
bound,
> why penalise the attacker for hitting on one target?
>
> Whichever choice is made (#1, #2 or #3), it should NOT mean
automatic
> disorder. I suppose it could be considered in the same catagory
> as "arranging the unit to conform to a terrain feature". This
allows
> for an irregular frontage but still not being disordered.
>
>
>
> --- In WarriorRules@egroups.com, "Tom Keegan" <jncsmom@g...> wrote:
> > Jon,
> > I agree with Terry. If option #1 or #2 are used then if a body
> has
> > to use extra movement to contact (as in option #1) or can't
contact
> > with all elements (as in option #2) then disorder seems realistic.
> >
> > Tom
> >
> > --- In WarriorRules@egroups.com, quirk@z... wrote:
> > > Jon,
> > >
> > > in brief, I prefer #2, with the following observations:
> > >
> > > My own view on the mechanics of Angled charges is:
> > >
> > > 1st: Move each front element that can contact the enemy to its
> > > point of first contact. Do not pivot to conform yet.
> > >
> > > 2nd: Then move the elements that cannot contact in their
normal
> > > charge move to line up side-to-side with the moved elements.
> > >
> > > (At this point, Option 1 can be achieved by echeloning forward
> the
> > > non-contacting elements into contact, as per contacting a second
> > > enemy unit. This would trigger disorder if an echelon exceeded
40
> > > paces, though my preference would be to make the disorder
> > automatic,
> > > for simplicity and to prevent wrangling about the distances
> > measured.
> > > Only then are the elements pivoted for the proper base-to-base
> > > contact.)
> > >
> > > 3rd: At this point, for Option 2, the contacted elements are
> > turned
> > > to line up. The non-contacting elements turn to keep their
> > > side-to-side alignment. This results in a staggered line of
> > > non-combatant elements. It is these elements that then echelon
> > > forward (though not into contact) to re-establish a straight
line
> > (20
> > > paces back). The echeloning forward then triggers the disorder
as
> > > discussed above. Again, making it automatic keeps it simple.
> > >
> > >
> > > Pros: Some disadvantage for the gift of extra movement. Uses
> > current
> > > game concepts.
> > > Cons: The slower, close formation troops are penalised more
> (slower
> > > = more likely to have non-contacting elements, and -2 H-2-H
> factor)
> > > Unsure: Troops with missiles disadvantaged by the disorder.
> > >
> > >
> > > I also had some thoughts about fatigue:
> > >
> > > Would the elements that are hanging back in the charge bound
> incur
> > > various types of charging fatigue for the whole unit if they
> > happened
> > > to contact the same enemy unit (by ploughing in to join their
> > > fellows) next bound (seeing as you can only contact by
charging).
> > > Pros: This in some way would balance the extra movement
allowed
> to
> > > them. Compare also with converted charges
> > > Cons: it heavily penalises cavalry, infantry less so.
> > >
> > > Or would you be so kind as to not treat it as a new charge?
> > >
> > >
> > > BTW, 7th Ed Ancients is my favourite wargaming system. I love
the
> > > rules, I just hate the way they've been written. I hope you
clean
> > up
> > > the sentence construction; with its many clauses, sub-clauses,
> > > conditionalities; and lack of white space, bullet listings and
> > useful
> > > cross-referencing. I've only found this mail listing today, so
I
> > > haven't had a good look at your Rules Book. Though I did read
> > through
> > > the postings before giving this reply.
> > >
> > > I've been playing for about 12 years, less so recently as my
> > enemies
> > > prefer DBM. Phil Barker's abandonment of 7th Ed. has been quite
> > > frustrating.
> > >
> > > I also have a few thoughts on Don's perplexing angled LC units,
> but
> > > I'll put them in (some semblance of) order later.
> > >
> > > Good gaming,
> > >
> > > Terry

[joncleaves]

<< Ho there fellow War gamers!>>

Ho there, uh, quirk. I'll have to check and see if you left your name in the
egroup member list. Until then, I apologize for not knowing your name.

<<Please note I certainly support the concept that the charging elements
cannot contact other enemy units initially out of charge range.>>

This will remain true.

<<There are however two concepts I have raised, and so far, only one has
been answered. That being of the disorder.>>

Sorry, let me try and fix that.

<<I believe it is also unfair to give a unit a huge movement bonus
relative to other troops and not also giove them some chance of
falling short of their glory.>>

That means you are esposuing an option #4 (separate from the ones listed
initially). Ok, let's see what you got.

<< I used the archetype of "Echeloning
forward more than 40 paces causing disorder" in order to give some
framework to penalise troops moving further than they should.>>

Troops will only be able to echelon one element, i.e. they will only be able
to echelon as long as they remin in side contact with elements they started
in side contact with. This being true, it may not even make sense to have a
further 40p or disorder restriction. If we do, I might consider having that
impact on angled charges, but right now, for what it is worth, the 'voting'
is against such an idea.

<<Neither Honeyman nor Kelly approve of my automatic disorder.>>

Automatic disorder for angled charges is not on the table. Sorry. As I
said, it will end up in the x-rules section on our website after the rules
are published. But it won't be a core rule. I like your logic fine, but we
have decided against any further unplaytested rules 'changes.'
As far as the charging player 'deciding' how many elements he wants in
contact (even risking disorder) this is way too much control over something
that is not even necessarily a tactical 'unit' that could be so controlled.
We want the player making general decisions, not captain decisions.

<<This could result in an ugly partially-angled unit>>

We do not have any intent to have this situation. Lining up will occur in
99.9% of charges and we have identifed (with pictures) the two cases where
allowances must be made. (some converted charges and crowded spaces).

<<What do the Four Horsemen think about
all this?>>

I, for one, think all this debate has been exceedingly useful in the final
phase of writing these rules. Thanks.

<<My question of fatigue remains unconsidered. Please tell me, how do the
non-contacting elements behave in the following bound (disregarding my
disorder proposition).>>

First, it is not unconsidered. I did not publicly respond at the time due to
the 1000's of other more pressing issues. However, everything said here goes
in my file either to be matched against what we have or to be a possible
experimental rule much later. I tend not to respond directly to 'changes' as
we are not placing any more in the core rules and it is the core rules that
are running my personal life at the moment. However, bodies get FP, not
individual elements. If the body charges bound one, it gets charging fatigue
as a whole then. If some elements don't fight until bound two (option #2 in
other words) then they will have that charging fatigue already when they do
fight (as will the rest of the body).

<<Perhaps you could ignore both the proposed disorder and fatigue from
"charging again, etc", and instead inflict additional fatigue for "Elements
contacting next bound in a continuing charge">>

Nope. Unplaytested change. Cool x-rule, though.

<<... I believe that RUSH (and possibly
even RETREAT) orders should be able to be issued by the CinC, though not in
Initial (= Bound Zero) orders>>

X-rule.

<<So what say you, good people?>>

Thank you.
Jon, rules [w]hor(s)e






To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com



>>

Ho there fellow War gamers!

It's good to see a lively discussion arena exists here. I salute the
living participants, as well as the dead . . .

Please note I certainly support the concept that the charging elements
cannot contact other enemy units initially out of charge range. This
is my basic precept: what is in charge range, and what is out of range
(this is important for my arguments regarding the angled LC problem,
which I will address later).

There are however two concepts I have raised, and so far, only one has
been answered. That being of the disorder.

I believe it is also unfair to give a unit a huge movement bonus
relative to other troops and not also giove them some chance of
falling short of their glory. I used the archetype of "Echeloning
forward more than 40 paces causing disorder" in order to give some
framework to penalise troops moving further than they should. The
point of "Taking a snapshot of how things are" is the vital question
that the Rule Shapers must answer. I cannot.


Neither Honeyman nor Kelly approve of my automatic disorder. My
concept was it would only be automatic if charging elements initially
out of range contacted the targeted unit (as normally they wouldn't be
able to). It could of course be easily modified to (if you follow my
angled charge mechanics and pardon my Boolean logic):

IF: [a charging element moves 40 paces or more than it's Tactical
move in order to contact an enemy body in an angled charge]

THEN: [the body it belongs to suffers disorder for having at least one
element echelon forward more than 40 paces in a charge]

(This still draws upon the "echelon forward more than 40 paces"
disorder condition, though it could be abused by "We are not exactly
parallel, therefore I can . . . (abuse the rules) . . .)

In this respect, I suggest it could be conditional on the charging
player choosing whether or not additional elements contact - that is,
initiative is rewarded, but if the charging player wants overkill,
then a disorder penalty applies. The penalty could be made at the end
of the bound (rather than at the beginning of combat), in order to
reward initiative as well as to penalise stupidity - cf the old rules
about wedges charging and not getting a really good combat result
(Disordered if enemy do not . . .)


An alternative is (and this is purely by my scheme of angled charges
contacting):

only elements in charge range can contact, and those that cannot, turn
to maintain rectilinear contact with the rest of the unit. If any have
to echelon forward 40 paces or more, the body is disordered (possibly
at end of bound, in order to reward aggressive play)

This could result in an ugly partially-angled unit - there need not be
a disorder result, but the body could end up staggered (in a
rectilinear fashion) and quite vulnerable. That is, choose to keep it
staggered but steady (a difficult concept to justify), or, line up the
elements (as per Option #2) and (in this scheme) take an "echeloned
forward disorder" result.

Then who will be howling about how the rules allow such a predicament?

My answer is, if you are a good general, your troops won't get in such
a situation in the first place. What do the Four Horsemen think about
all this?


My question of fatigue remains unconsidered. Please tell me, how do
the non-contacting elements behave in the following bound
(disregarding my disorder proposition).

Perhaps you could ignore both the proposed disorder and fatigue from
"charging again, etc", and instead inflict additional fatigue for
"Elements contacting next bound in a continuing charge" (You would of
course have to word it better, especially to avoid abuse around
contacting a different enemy body (this would probably be a converted
charge) but I hope you understand the intent: it is however a new
fatigue category and that is where I foresee problems).



Regardless of the above, I would like to concur with Honeyman and
Kelly. Disordering the aggressive troops is counter-productive for
producing results. You may as well be playing Test cricket! (unless
you're an Ozzie, cause then you are playing to win . . .)

And it is for this reason alone that I believe that RUSH (and possibly
even RETREAT) orders should be able to be issued by the CinC, though
not in Initial (= Bound Zero) orders (as per earlier 7th Ed rules).
Both of these orders are currently forbidden to CinCs, yet I (at
least)have found both to be tactically useful. Especially with
barbarian armies.

So what say you, good people?

[Tim Brown]

Hey Jon,
 
Thanks again for doing all this. The alternative is too frightening to consider. However, I do have a question....
 
Let's continue that angled charge thing and consider that we are are leaning towards the answer being: those elements that don't contact are initially held back a distance, then move in and line up afterwards . My question - has it been addressed anywhere what the effects are concerning weapons like HTW, which count at first contact, on those elements initially held back, but next move into contact for the next round of combat ? I can see your answer having effect on the charged unit at well. If we're going with the snapshot theory and that the whole body has charged, then it seems reasonable to conclude that those elements moving in have not fought yet, are not  considered to be charging, and ought to get the first contact benefit. I believe we've broken down units into elements for determining this in similar situations in the past, i.e. a very wide unit charged by 2 units a turn apart - those elements which didn't fight in round one which are now fighting in round two against that 2nd charger have received the HTW benefit.
 
Tim