Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Phil Gardocki]

Some biased questions in anticipation of the summer events.
Concerning hedged roads. If have a qualified medieval army, in its home
climate of cold, and dice a 5 for a road, you add 1 for a 6, does that qualify
for a
hedged roadside? Or does it require a "natural" 6.

A unit that has its detachment attached in the rear ranks. The detachment
is tired, but the parent is fresh. Assuming no causes of unease, can the
parent make an impetuous charge?

A unit is shooting at another. The shooter is at such an angle, that it
projects entirely behind the shieldless flank of the target, but no part of
shooter unit actually crosses the front line of the target. That is to say, the
shooter is entirely in front of the target. Does the shooter get the shieldless
factor?

Thanks
Phil


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 5/25/2004 7:49:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time, PHGamer writes:

> Some biased questions in anticipation of the summer events.
> Concerning hedged roads. If have a qualified medieval army, in its home
> climate of cold, and dice a 5 for a road, you add 1 for a 6, does that qualify
for a
> hedged roadside? Or does it require a "natural" 6.>>

It does not require a natural 6. But I see where this is going and will have to
at least alert Scott to the potential problem here...


>
> A unit that has its detachment attached in the rear ranks. The detachment
> is tired, but the parent is fresh. Assuming no causes of unease, can the
> parent make an impetuous charge?>>

No. 5.31 near the end says: "If a detachment joins its parent, the combined
unit immediately gains the higher of the two FP totals."

> A unit is shooting at another. The shooter is at such an angle, that it
> projects entirely behind the shieldless flank of the target, but no part of
> shooter unit actually crosses the front line of the target. That is to say,
the
> shooter is entirely in front of the target. Does the
> shooter get the shieldless factor?>>

Call me dense (watch it, Ewan...lol) but I can't sitting here see how the
shooter can be both entirely behind the flank of the target and entirely in
front of the target. A diagram maybe?

Jon
>

[Ewan McNay]

JonCleaves@... wrote:
> In a message dated 5/25/2004 7:49:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> PHGamer writes:
>> A unit is shooting at another. The shooter is at such an
>> angle, that it projects entirely behind the shieldless flank
>> of the target, but no part of shooter unit actually crosses
>> the front line of the target. That is to say, the shooter
>> is entirely in front of the target. Does the shooter get
>> the shieldless factor?>>
>
> Call me dense (watch it, Ewan...lol) but I can't sitting here
> see how the shooter can be both entirely behind the flank of
> the target and entirely in front of the target. A diagram
> maybe?

And there were some good jokes to be made about specific gravity,
too...

...but in this case, I also failed to visualise the problem.

E

[Phil Gardocki]

Unit 1 is the target and unit 2 is the shooter,
(This might not look right due to font differences.)

Unit 1
=======
\
Unit 2

In this situation, Unit 2 is in front of Unit 1, but projects into the flank.
I would be eligible to charge the flank as well. Is unit 1 shieldless to
unit 2's missile fire?

Phil


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 5/26/2004 19:19:11 Central Daylight Time, PHGamer@...
writes:

Unit 1
=======
\
Unit 2

In this situation, Unit 2 is in front of Unit 1, but projects into the
flank.
I would be eligible to charge the flank as well. Is unit 1 shieldless to
unit 2's missile fire?

Phil

I still don't see how 2 is in front of one. But as a shield is carried on
the left arm, it does not look as though the shot is shieldless to me.
Jon


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Ewan McNay]

If I now understand correctly, what you are terming 'projecting into the
flank' means that a line perpendicular to the front of the shooting
element intersects the flank face of the target, rather than the front
face. Correct?



On Wed, 26 May 2004 PHGamer@... wrote:

> Unit 1 is the target and unit 2 is the shooter,
> (This might not look right due to font differences.)
>
> Unit 1
> =======
> \
> Unit 2
>
> In this situation, Unit 2 is in front of Unit 1, but projects into the flank.
> I would be eligible to charge the flank as well. Is unit 1 shieldless to
> unit 2's missile fire?
>
> Phil
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Bill Chriss]

> In a message dated 5/26/2004 19:19:11 Central Daylight Time,
> PHGamer@...
> writes:
>
> Unit 1
> =======
> \
> Unit 2
>
> In this situation, Unit 2 is in front of Unit 1, but projects into the
> flank.
> I would be eligible to charge the flank as well. Is unit 1 shieldless to
> unit 2's missile fire?
>
> Phil
>
> I still don't see how 2 is in front of one. But as a shield is carried
> on
> the left arm, it does not look as though the shot is shieldless to me.
> Jon
>
>


Forgive my butting in, but where's the mystery? Phil wants to know if he
gets to shoot a unit behind its shieldless flank, EVEN THOUGH NO PART OF
THE SHOOTER'S FRONT BASE EDGE IS BEHIND A LINE EXTENDING THE TARGET'S
FRONT BASE EDGE OUT TO INFINITY. Therefore, the shooter can't even declare
an unprompted "charge starting behind the target body's flank." Phil seems
to be under the impression it might make a difference that the shooter
could declare a charge through a gap that would diagonally contact the
target's flank (assuming the target doesn't/can't wheel and countercharge
to prevent that). If I have misunderstood the question Phil asked, my
apologies to all. Just trying to help.

I will refrain from giving what I think is the answer, as it is not my
place to do so.


Greek

[Larry Essick]

Take the symbol + and, beginning in the top left, number the quadrants
1 thru 4 clockwise around the center. Let the center of + represent
the location of enemy unit E1. It is entirely possible to have a
friendly unit, F2, in quadrant 4 that is angled towards E1, does not
cross into quadrant 1, and whose direct line of movement and/or
shooting is entirely behind the right hand flank of E1.

This should be easy to visualize as most better players work units
into positions of this type in order to charge into shieldless flanks.

The question is, does the unit F2 *shoot* into the shieldless flank?

IMO, this is another question where logic tells us that the arrows
will arrive in the shieldless flank if the charge would arrive there.
OTOH, as with other questions, there may be literal wording that
requires the shooter to be either entirely or at least partially in
quadrant 1 in order to shoot into the flank.

The example in 8.51 shows how a unit *not* directly in front of a
target can be in arc. What if the 2d shooting unit (the one to the
right) were even further right (so as to not be in the phantom/shadow
element's path) and also angled towards unit A so that it placed unit
A directly to the front?

That is the visual & the question.

In all of 8.0, I cannot find anything requiring a unit to be 'behind'
the flank in order to shoot into the flank.

Larry