Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mark Stone]

Quoting "WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com" <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>:

> From: Doug <rockd@...>
> Subject: Re: Reg vs Irreg Cav GAP TACTIC
>
> I don't see the mechanics.
> Why does attacking someone frontally cause this gap to shrink?
> Why does a _smaller_ gap between two units make flank charges possible?
>
> >>>
> One of the nice uses I have found with the regulars, is against the guy that
> leaves gaps just slightly under 80p between foot units in his battle line.
> It's
> a perfectly acceptable tactic to engage these units on an equal or slightly
> losing basis, in order to shrink this 'no-charge' gap area from 80p to 40p,
> such that your cavalry can get flank shots. Yes, irregulars can do
> this too,but regulars make it much easier to disguise your intent.
> >>>
>

Well, I'm not the original poster, but I can offer one explanation. And no, Jon,
nothing odd is going on with rules interps here.

The original post mentioned LC, which I think gets people thinking in the wrong
direction. Think of it this way instead:

<diagram>
AA BB

cc dd ee
</diagram>

Units AA and BB are 79 paces apart, and are on the same side. Units cc, dd, and
ee are all on the opposing side. Unit dd has enough room to fit on the flank of
AA, but cannot charge AA in the flank because this is not a passable gap. Here's
the key:

If unit cc engages AA in a way that is relatively nonclusive for either (say cc
breaks even or is pushed back with AA following up, and neither is disordered),
then the minimum passable gap between AA and BB shrinks from 80 paces to 40
paces, because now one shoulder is in contact with an enemy unit. Thus on the
subsequent bound, dd can charge AA in the flank (or BB in the flank, for that
matter).

Now dd could indeed be a light cav unit, in which case it faces the further
complication of getting behind AA's flank. That's where drawing AA forward in a
charge, having cc recoil but not be disordered, with AA following up, can
actually cause dd to project behind AA's flank, or be in a position (now being
within 40 paces of AA) to make an approach move that would put dd behind AA's
flank.

But the LC example is not the main point. The main point is that you can expose
previously protected flanks by engaging the enemy, and thus creating a passable
gap where none existed before.

Right Jon?


-Mark Stone

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 7/1/2003 9:59:32 AM Eastern Standard Time,
mark@... writes:

> Units AA and BB are 79 paces apart, and are on the same side. Units cc, dd,
and
> ee are all on the opposing side. Unit dd has enough room to fit on the flank
of
> AA,>>

That is not possible for a 2E cav unit, which is more than 79p deep. Talking
about gaps in terms of paces doesn't seem to be doing anything but misleading
people.

<< but cannot charge AA in the flank because this is not a passable gap.>>

That is certainly true.

<< Here's the key:
>
> If unit cc engages AA in a way that is relatively nonclusive for either (say
cc
> breaks even or is pushed back with AA following up, and neither is
disordered),
> then the minimum passable gap between AA and BB shrinks from 80 paces to 40
> paces, because now one shoulder is in contact with an enemy unit. >>

Incorrect. If BOTH shoulders were in HTH from a previous bound, then the
chargeable gap 'shrinks' from two elements to one, NOT 80p to 40p which is not
the same thing and the difference matters.

<<Thus on the subsequent bound, dd can charge AA in the flank (or BB in the
flank, for that
> matter).>>

If the space is still 79p, that is not possible for two reasons. One, 79p isn't
enough room for a 2E cav unit to fit. Two, the other shoulder isn't fighting so
the gap isn't big enough to charge through in the first place.

> But the LC example is not the main point. The main point is that you can
expose
> previously protected flanks by engaging the enemy, and thus
> creating a passable
> gap where none existed before.>>

If you are saying that you deliberately lose a combat to 'pull ' an enemy unit
forward out of its battleline and the enemy player does not or cannot bring the
units to its side forward to reestablish the line so that a flank is now exposed
to be charged, well then I agree that is possible (it might even be desireable
if there is a unit I have in my army that I can use in a 'controled loss' where
it gets into a fight and loses just enough to help create the exposed flank but
does not break).

But the rest of the discussion is so far fraught with many rules mistakes and I
believe Greg either did not get his point across or does not understand the gap
rule. As I understand Greg is a good player, I expect it is the former which is
why I asked him to clarify what he was saying in rules terms.

Jon
>
> Right Jon?