Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

Hi,

can anyone confirm that a unit that is attacked in the flank does not fight
in the initial round - but can counter in the second round to face to flank?

Thanks - Gerard

[joncleaves]

<<can anyone confirm that a unit that is attacked in the flank does not fight
in the initial round - but can counter in the second round to face to flank?>>

I can. :)

Crew of chariot and elephant models can fight to the flank in some cases.

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 5/3/2003 04:28:41 Central Daylight Time,
Theswamp@... writes:

> I can't find these in the rules or FAQs:
> When a unit is hit only in the flank, I presume it does not fight
> back in the intial game turn. If it survives, it can then turn to
> face with a counter. Is this correct?

Correct on both counts. Figures only fight to their front edge unless a
model which has exceptions. If you are contacted ONLY to the flank or rear
you may turn to face with a counter.

>
> Talking of counters (and retirements) if an irregular unit of non-
> skirmishers wishes to make some kind of withdrawal it must turn 180
> degress and then make a 40 pa move so leaves itself pretty vunerable.
> Regs would make a full move if they made no other manouevre. Is this
> correct?

That is essentially correct, although a body in skirmish could move straight
back in a counter (not retirement) even if irregular.

Once committed, i.e. inside 240p, it is hard to get a body back out of the
fight. Harder if an irregular body.

Jon




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

[Mark Mallard]

In a message dated 5/3/03 1:48:03 PM GMT Daylight Time, JonCleaves@...
writes:


> In a message dated 5/3/2003 04:28:41 Central Daylight Time,
> Theswamp@... writes:
>
> > I can't find these in the rules or FAQs:
> > When a unit is hit only in the flank, I presume it does not fight
> > back in the intial game turn. If it survives, it can then turn to
> > face with a counter. Is this correct?
>
> Correct on both counts. Figures only fight to their front edge unless a
> model which has exceptions. If you are contacted ONLY to the flank or rear
>
> you may turn to face with a counter.
>
> >
> > Talking of counters (and retirements) if an irregular unit of non-
> > skirmishers wishes to make some kind of withdrawal it must turn 180
> > degress and then make a 40 pa move so leaves itself pretty vunerable.
> > Regs would make a full move if they made no other manouevre. Is this
> > correct?
>
> That is essentially correct, although a body in skirmish could move
> straight
> back in a counter (not retirement) even if irregular.
>
> Once committed, i.e. inside 240p, it is hard to get a body back out of the
> fight. Harder if an irregular body.
>

Just checking something here, the answer may seem obvious to most.

This counter is rolled for (we always roll for it, but the rules say can turn
in a counter so i thought it wise to check)?

It is not automatically achieved?

I have a couple of other real simple questions i will put on a new post.

mark mallard





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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 5/3/2003 08:11:21 Central Daylight Time,
markmallard77@... writes:

> It is not automatically achieved?
>

No.


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

Hi chaps,
I've been lurking for a few weeks and I've now decided to poke my
head above the parapet 8-)

I can't find these in the rules or FAQs:
When a unit is hit only in the flank, I presume it does not fight
back in the intial game turn. If it survives, it can then turn to
face with a counter. Is this correct?

Talking of counters (and retirements) if an irregular unit of non-
skirmishers wishes to make some kind of withdrawal it must turn 180
degress and then make a 40 pa move so leaves itself pretty vunerable.
Regs would make a full move if they made no other manouevre. Is this
correct? (the game we played the other day we sort of assumed that a
retirement etc would just be straight back, but I don't think this is
what the rules say).

Thanks for your help.

Swampster

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 8/12/2004 23:23:34 Central Daylight Time,
redcoat24@... writes:

Some more experienced players can give you some better advice. I probably
have Jon going through the charts double-checking my numbers, How'd I do?
Have I learned anything?



I didn't check every single number, but it all seemed good. Certainly the
observation that adding 'unanswered' casualties to a unit through a flank
charge is an easy way to get to 3CPF/twice as many, which is the magic number we
all strive for, is an accurate assessment of why flanks are good.

J


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

It seems to me that a frontal/flank attack combination has only two
advantages under warrior rules:

1) it makes the flanked enemy uneasy dropping his shake threshold on
waver tests.
2) The flanked enemy doesn't get to hit back. Casualties inflicted on
him are: added to the frontal attack cpf calculation? cpf are
calculated over the two units, the flanker and the frontal? cpf are
calculated for the flank attack using the flank as the front rank? (I
don't know which, if any, it is.)

This is problamatic for me because:

a) a close order flank attacker will also be uneasy because his own
flank is unsupported negating the waver test advantage.
b) historically, soldiers attacked to flank turn, fight and inflict
casualties.

Putting the soldiers in orb should seem to solve problem b but
according to my reading of the rules:

I) they can't do a block --> orb formation change while engaged in hth
II) the orb formation would terminate their uneasiness (no flanks)
and it would actually be the flank attacker who was uneasy because of
his own unsupported flank - a weird and I think ahistorical result.



My assumption is that I am missing something important.

Jonathan

I've only been playing for a year, so I have some "new guy" insights that
are still fresh in my mind. The first thing I learned about beating an enemy
is that a unit actually fighting hand to hand rarely breaks because of waver
tests. The important thing to note about the combat charts is the CPF
results. If you suffer 3 CPF, and twice as many casualties as you inflicted,
you Rout right then and there. This usually happens well before they reach
15 fatigue points.

A flank charge is usually fatal, because while our two units might be locked
in combat quite some time if left on our own, a Flank attack probably pushes
your unit to the "3 CPF and twice the casualties " situation.

Here is an example I might use with my Han Dynasty Chinese against my
friend's Hoplites;

His 6E Reg C MI LTS, Sh, charges My 3E Reg C HI 2HCT, Sh, 3E Reg C HI CB
(That's a mixed unit with Dagger-axe in front and Crossbow in rear)
I decide to forgo shooting at him with my crossbow and I counter-charge.

When we total up the factors;
- He gets 24 guys at 2 for being LTS vs HI, +1 for charging -1 for my 2HCT =
2
He then rolls up 1 for a total of 3
His 24 guys do 60 casualties to me.
- I get 12 guys (only my front rank fights) at 5 for being 2HCT vs MI, + 1
for charging, -2 for facing LTS at first contact = 4
I also roll up 1 and do 48 casualties to him.

I lose, but not by much. We each take 2 casualties per figure, and I am
pushed back a little.

Next turn;

- He gets 2 again, +1 for following up, +2 because I am shieldless after
first contact, -1 vs my 2HCT = 4
He rolls even this time for a total of 4
He only fights with 18 guys on the second bound so his score of 4 does 54
casualties to me.


- I get 5 again, with no bonuses, but no penalties either.
I get lucky and roll +1again so my total is 6
My 12 guys do 60 Casualties to him.


But wait! One of my "2E Reg C HC L" units spy a gap they can charge through,
and it is his shieldless flank! (lucky me)
They get 5 guys at a score of 4, + 3 for shieldless enemy, +1 for charging =
8
They roll up 1 for a total of 9, which does another 48 casualties to him.

In total, he takes 4 casualties per figure, and 108 casualties.
He dealt out only 54 casualties to me (exactly half as it turns out).
He routs, even though he has only suffered 6 fatigue points in total.

Of course, If my cavalry are in a position to charge from the start, its
even worse for him. His charge gets cancelled, he never gets a charge bonus,
never gets to fight in 2 full ranks. It's all over for him unless I have the
worst dice ever.

If he was in Orb, he only got 75 % of his first rank and 50% of the second.
Its all bad for him, and I wouldn't have needed the cavalry to finish him
off. As far as I can tell, Orb is a last ditch formation used by an isolated
unit against cavalry.

I hope that wasn't too confusing, it took me a while to get used to that
myself.

Some more experienced players can give you some better advice. I probably
have Jon going through the charts double-checking my numbers, How'd I do?
Have I learned anything?


Allan


----- Original Message -----
From: "ccoutoftown" <ccoutoftown@...>
To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2004 10:13 PM
Subject: [WarriorRules] flank attacks


> It seems to me that a frontal/flank attack combination has only two
> advantages under warrior rules:
>
> 1) it makes the flanked enemy uneasy dropping his shake threshold on
> waver tests.
> 2) The flanked enemy doesn't get to hit back. Casualties inflicted on
> him are: added to the frontal attack cpf calculation? cpf are
> calculated over the two units, the flanker and the frontal? cpf are
> calculated for the flank attack using the flank as the front rank? (I
> don't know which, if any, it is.)
>
> This is problamatic for me because:
>
> a) a close order flank attacker will also be uneasy because his own
> flank is unsupported negating the waver test advantage.
> b) historically, soldiers attacked to flank turn, fight and inflict
> casualties.
>
> Putting the soldiers in orb should seem to solve problem b but
> according to my reading of the rules:
>
> I) they can't do a block --> orb formation change while engaged in hth
> II) the orb formation would terminate their uneasiness (no flanks)
> and it would actually be the flank attacker who was uneasy because of
> his own unsupported flank - a weird and I think ahistorical result.
>
>
>
> My assumption is that I am missing something important.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

[Mark Mallard]

In early editions of the other game (WRG) 5th or maybe 6th edition you
could turn end figures to face a flank attack.

Over time the game developed and in effect what we have now is a more
practical solution on the table with much the same result.

My only comment being that the routed unit routs diagonally away from both
enemy units. The pursuit move i find difficult to interpret. I would probably
like a better description of what is supposed to happen in the rule book. This
also applies to recoils - when attacked to front and flank.

mark mallard




In a message dated 8/13/2004 7:16:45 AM GMT Daylight Time,
ccoutoftown@... writes:

Allan & Jon

That sounds logical in terms of game mechanics - casualties
the "attacked enemy" takes in the hth this bound are ADDED together
for a flank/frontal attack by two units.

I have a further question however. Is this historical? It seems
that the flank soldiers of a unit would simply turn, fight and
inflict casualties - albeit at a disadvantage. Not many casualties
perhaps but certainly not zero, and in some cases a non-trivial
number. One could say that for game mechanics purposes it
was "effectively" zero, but would it be?

It would seem more a simulation of reality to allow the non-frontally
engaged flank figures of a unit to count as front rank for the flank
charge. Subject to penalties, they could then inflict casualties on
the flank chargers.

Further, it seems that turning to fight to an attacked flank would be
disordering.

This is less a suggestion or a compaint than a further expose of my
inexperience. Half the reason I wargame is to understand what really
was going on in the military histories I read. Further, because I am
in China and most of the people I game with don't speak English, I
have to teach them rulesets, they can't sit down and read them. So
the most common question I get is, "Why?" "Why can't they turn?" "Why
can't my archers fire from there?"

So, sorry in advance for the irritating question.

Jonathan







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

Allan & Jon

That sounds logical in terms of game mechanics - casualties
the "attacked enemy" takes in the hth this bound are ADDED together
for a flank/frontal attack by two units.

I have a further question however. Is this historical? It seems
that the flank soldiers of a unit would simply turn, fight and
inflict casualties - albeit at a disadvantage. Not many casualties
perhaps but certainly not zero, and in some cases a non-trivial
number. One could say that for game mechanics purposes it
was "effectively" zero, but would it be?

It would seem more a simulation of reality to allow the non-frontally
engaged flank figures of a unit to count as front rank for the flank
charge. Subject to penalties, they could then inflict casualties on
the flank chargers.

Further, it seems that turning to fight to an attacked flank would be
disordering.

This is less a suggestion or a compaint than a further expose of my
inexperience. Half the reason I wargame is to understand what really
was going on in the military histories I read. Further, because I am
in China and most of the people I game with don't speak English, I
have to teach them rulesets, they can't sit down and read them. So
the most common question I get is, "Why?" "Why can't they turn?" "Why
can't my archers fire from there?"

So, sorry in advance for the irritating question.

Jonathan


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 8/12/2004 23:23:34 Central Daylight Time,
> redcoat24@c... writes:
>
> Some more experienced players can give you some better advice. I
probably
> have Jon going through the charts double-checking my numbers,
How'd I do?
> Have I learned anything?
>
>
>
> I didn't check every single number, but it all seemed good.
Certainly the
> observation that adding 'unanswered' casualties to a unit through a
flank
> charge is an easy way to get to 3CPF/twice as many, which is the
magic number we
> all strive for, is an accurate assessment of why flanks are good.
>
> J
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Flank atacks are devastating. Soldiers have "tunnel vision", they only see what
is in front them. A flank or rear atack is terrible in moral terms. Furthermore,
only a small proportion of men in the end of the battle line can turn and fight.
The atackers past behind them killing at will. This was the favorite spartan
maneuver, to roll the enemy line from the flank.
Emilio Moskowich
A Coruña, Galicia, Northwest Spain

Allan & Jon

That sounds logical in terms of game mechanics - casualties
the "attacked enemy" takes in the hth this bound are ADDED together
for a flank/frontal attack by two units.

I have a further question however. Is this historical? It seems
that the flank soldiers of a unit would simply turn, fight and
inflict casualties - albeit at a disadvantage. Not many casualties
perhaps but certainly not zero, and in some cases a non-trivial
number. One could say that for game mechanics purposes it
was "effectively" zero, but would it be?

It would seem more a simulation of reality to allow the non-frontally
engaged flank figures of a unit to count as front rank for the flank
charge. Subject to penalties, they could then inflict casualties on
the flank chargers.

Further, it seems that turning to fight to an attacked flank would be
disordering.

This is less a suggestion or a compaint than a further expose of my
inexperience. Half the reason I wargame is to understand what really
was going on in the military histories I read. Further, because I am
in China and most of the people I game with don't speak English, I
have to teach them rulesets, they can't sit down and read them. So
the most common question I get is, "Why?" "Why can't they turn?" "Why
can't my archers fire from there?"

So, sorry in advance for the irritating question.

Jonathan


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 8/12/2004 23:23:34 Central Daylight Time,
> redcoat24@c... writes:
>
> Some more experienced players can give you some better advice. I
probably
> have Jon going through the charts double-checking my numbers,
How'd I do?
> Have I learned anything?
>
>
>
> I didn't check every single number, but it all seemed good.
Certainly the
> observation that adding 'unanswered' casualties to a unit through a
flank
> charge is an easy way to get to 3CPF/twice as many, which is the
magic number we
> all strive for, is an accurate assessment of why flanks are good.
>
> J
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT






Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/


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


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[joncleaves]

I have a further question however. Is this historical? It seems
that the flank soldiers of a unit would simply turn, fight and
inflict casualties - albeit at a disadvantage.>>

They do. In Warrior, the things a unit can do and the things that happen to it
are primarily determined by the 'effect' of being in that formation and not its
literal aspects. A figure is about 50 men in four ranks on the ground. That
means the last 'man' in a figure four ranks of elemenst back is far more than a
pike length from the fron of the unit. yet we allow half the back rank of
figures in a pike block to fight. Why? Because it porduces the right effect of
being in that formation with that weapon. Not because we think pikes are 48
feet long. Same with things like flank attacks. Sure, there are guys who are
turning to face the enemy as he strikes, but how many, and what kind of effect
are they having on saving the unit from destruction? Not a lot. If the unit
does not break immediately from this impact, the troops do have the opportunity
to turn and face their attackers in enough mass to affect the combat - but not,
however, if they are also being attacked from the front - no unit of our time
period had that agility.

<<Not many casualties
perhaps but certainly not zero, and in some cases a non-trivial
number. One could say that for game mechanics purposes it
was "effectively" zero, but would it be?>>

Our 'argument' is yes.



So, sorry in advance for the irritating question.>>

not at all irritating.

Jon

[Greg Regets]

Jon ...

This might be a possible wording change.

Your 1.261 (page six) states that CPF is the amount of damage by a
unit (not exact wording)

I recall that the old TOG had some text about how CPF combined
physical, psychological, emotional, hypothetical, parenthetical
effects on a unit. (obviously not word for word ... ha-ha!)

g








--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
>
> I have a further question however. Is this historical? It seems
> that the flank soldiers of a unit would simply turn, fight and
> inflict casualties - albeit at a disadvantage.>>
>
> They do. In Warrior, the things a unit can do and the things that
happen to it are primarily determined by the 'effect' of being in
that formation and not its literal aspects. A figure is about 50 men
in four ranks on the ground. That means the last 'man' in a figure
four ranks of elemenst back is far more than a pike length from the
fron of the unit. yet we allow half the back rank of figures in a
pike block to fight. Why? Because it porduces the right effect of
being in that formation with that weapon. Not because we think pikes
are 48 feet long. Same with things like flank attacks. Sure, there
are guys who are turning to face the enemy as he strikes, but how
many, and what kind of effect are they having on saving the unit from
destruction? Not a lot. If the unit does not break immediately from
this impact, the troops do have the opportunity to turn and face
their attackers in enough mass to affect the combat - but not,
however, if they are also being attacked from the front - no unit of
our time period had that agility.
>
> <<Not many casualties
> perhaps but certainly not zero, and in some cases a non-trivial
> number. One could say that for game mechanics purposes it
> was "effectively" zero, but would it be?>>
>
> Our 'argument' is yes.
>
>
>
> So, sorry in advance for the irritating question.>>
>
> not at all irritating.
>
> Jon

I guess that makes sense. If one considered all enemy figures
engaged in frontal hth as being unable to turn and fight (assuming
them to be engaged at one to one with their frontal attackers) then
that would leave rear FIGURE flank ranks to turn, fight and inflict
casualties. Since, in general that means two and at most three
figures the number of casualties they inflict will be negligable in
almost every conceivable situation (except maybe like a two element
unit of LC performing a flank attack)

I'll have to think about it some more because flank attacks have
bothered me ever since I began to read ancient history. Most books
(if they attempt any explanation at all) explain it as a formational
advantage - troops rank up to fight to the front; they are
formationally unready for a flank attack. I don't buy that. In the
3000 years that we call "ancients", and the several hundred years
that each army existed, no general ever said, "Gosh, we keep getting
attacked in the flank. Lets train the guys on the flank to turn and
fight."?

This seems to me to be doubly relevant to low class troops and
barbarian hordes who may have lined up before a battle in ranks, but
certainly didn't fight in them - just in a confused mass. When
fighting against them it should just seem to be a morale and numbers
game - how many of my guys can I get into hth? How nervous can I make
the enemy about encirclement? But he would certainly fight back -
possible with impaired morale but I don't think with any
formationally induced penalties.

Like I said, I'll have to think about it - both reality and game
mechanics.

Again, take these questions as expressions of inexperience.

Jonathan





--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
>
> I have a further question however. Is this historical? It seems
> that the flank soldiers of a unit would simply turn, fight and
> inflict casualties - albeit at a disadvantage.>>
>
> They do. In Warrior, the things a unit can do and the things that
happen to it are primarily determined by the 'effect' of being in
that formation and not its literal aspects. A figure is about 50 men
in four ranks on the ground. That means the last 'man' in a figure
four ranks of elemenst back is far more than a pike length from the
fron of the unit. yet we allow half the back rank of figures in a
pike block to fight. Why? Because it porduces the right effect of
being in that formation with that weapon. Not because we think pikes
are 48 feet long. Same with things like flank attacks. Sure, there
are guys who are turning to face the enemy as he strikes, but how
many, and what kind of effect are they having on saving the unit from
destruction? Not a lot. If the unit does not break immediately from
this impact, the troops do have the opportunity to turn and face
their attackers in enough mass to affect the combat - but not,
however, if they are also being attacked from the front - no unit of
our time period had that agility.
>
> <<Not many casualties
> perhaps but certainly not zero, and in some cases a non-trivial
> number. One could say that for game mechanics purposes it
> was "effectively" zero, but would it be?>>
>
> Our 'argument' is yes.
>
>
>
> So, sorry in advance for the irritating question.>>
>
> not at all irritating.
>
> Jon