Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

Alesia was a joke, Chris. Hardy-har type joke. Sorry to confuse.

I think saying I am 'proclaiming that legal' is an unfair characterization, as
though I made that up on the fly the other day. The rule you're looking for is:

"6.65 Existence of mounts of dismounted troops. Dismounted troops are the
dismounted troop type for ALL purposes."

The all in 'ALL purposes' is even in caps. What's a poor game designer to do?
;)

J



-----Original Message-----
From: cncbump <cncbump@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 16:09:15 -0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Flank Marches


Okay. I was not aware that TF's that could not be crossed by mounted
cav could be crossed by those same horses sans riders. Given that
you are proclaiming that legal, it seems the most rapid approach to
the solution.

Ironic that you bring up Alesia for two reasons, first there is no
way horses could pass over those defenses mounted or not and second
because the question you ask leads to where I was going with my
point. As you know but likely forgot in your haste to answer so many
querries, Alesia was essentially outflanked by the attackers who
essentially followed the fence line until there was no more fence and
attacked there on the third day (obviously very simplistically put).
Chris



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@... wrote:
>
> I didn't say any of that.
>
> The table is an artificial construct that every miniatures game
lives with. You simulate around that restriction.
>
> For every argument that can be made that a shallow tactical flank
march could not be opposed by a TF there is a counter argument -
including the two main ones that a) such were damned rare and b)
that a significant number of A+M battlefields had anchored flanks.
>
> Who is to say the TF does not extend off table or run into an
impassable or very rough feature just off table? How do you flank
march Alesia?
>
> If the guy *just* puts a TF there, dismount, walk over it and
remount. If he puts stuff there, you have drawn forces away from the
main fight (the point of a flank march) and you can dismount and
charge him. or, you can know the guy has TFs in his list (declared
before deployment orders) and plan your flank march accordingly (as
well as taking flaming arrows...lol).
>
> Not an issue.
>
> Jon
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cncbump <cncbump@...>
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 15:57:53 -0000
> Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Flank Marches
>
>
> Except that by placing a TF to your flank to preclude your opponent
> from flank marching appears to assume a flat world philosophy.
Sans
> a Hadrians wall or Great Wall (neither obviously a TF) the flank
> marcher could simply follow the TF until the opportunity to pass
> around it occurred, and since the TF is by defenition temporary and
> purchased in defined lengths how could it extend on ad infinitum?
> And if you take the approach that there is some unpassable terrain
> off of the board that the TF anchors on, it completely suspeneds
> reality to assume that said flank marchers could not move back
> towards the center until the TF ended and then pass around it.
> This is really how you want to represent a simulation?
> Chris
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@ wrote:
> >
> > In a message dated 2/27/2006 20:27:52 Central Standard Time,
> ncioran@
> > writes:
> >
> > Am I right in reading that you're of the opinion that the flank
> march
> > is a less than sportsmanlike maneuver?>>
> > [
> > Nope. But neither is putting a TF in your rear zone to protect
> against one.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>







Yahoo! Groups Links






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

[Chris Bump]

I'm sorry that I gave the impression that you made the response up on
the fly. My point was one of my perception of logic. No question
that dismounted troops count as dismounted for all purposes and as
such they can cross TF's. Logically, to me, it seemed that since the
rules do not say otherwise that if horses cannot cross a TF with a
rider that they would have same difficulty crossing without a rider.

Can dismounted charioteers cross a tf and then remount?
Chris

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@... wrote:
>
> Alesia was a joke, Chris. Hardy-har type joke. Sorry to confuse.
>
> I think saying I am 'proclaiming that legal' is an unfair
characterization, as though I made that up on the fly the other day.
The rule you're looking for is:
>
> "6.65 Existence of mounts of dismounted troops. Dismounted troops
are the dismounted troop type for ALL purposes."
>
> The all in 'ALL purposes' is even in caps. What's a poor game
designer to do?
>
> J
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cncbump <cncbump@...>
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 16:09:15 -0000
> Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Flank Marches
>
>
> Okay. I was not aware that TF's that could not be crossed by
mounted
> cav could be crossed by those same horses sans riders. Given that
> you are proclaiming that legal, it seems the most rapid approach to
> the solution.
>
> Ironic that you bring up Alesia for two reasons, first there is no
> way horses could pass over those defenses mounted or not and second
> because the question you ask leads to where I was going with my
> point. As you know but likely forgot in your haste to answer so
many
> querries, Alesia was essentially outflanked by the attackers who
> essentially followed the fence line until there was no more fence
and
> attacked there on the third day (obviously very simplistically put).
> Chris
>
>
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@ wrote:
> >
> > I didn't say any of that.
> >
> > The table is an artificial construct that every miniatures game
> lives with. You simulate around that restriction.
> >
> > For every argument that can be made that a shallow tactical flank
> march could not be opposed by a TF there is a counter argument -
> including the two main ones that a) such were damned rare and b)
> that a significant number of A+M battlefields had anchored flanks.
> >
> > Who is to say the TF does not extend off table or run into an
> impassable or very rough feature just off table? How do you flank
> march Alesia?
> >
> > If the guy *just* puts a TF there, dismount, walk over it and
> remount. If he puts stuff there, you have drawn forces away from
the
> main fight (the point of a flank march) and you can dismount and
> charge him. or, you can know the guy has TFs in his list (declared
> before deployment orders) and plan your flank march accordingly (as
> well as taking flaming arrows...lol).
> >
> > Not an issue.
> >
> > Jon
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cncbump <cncbump@>
> > To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 15:57:53 -0000
> > Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Flank Marches
> >
> >
> > Except that by placing a TF to your flank to preclude your
opponent
> > from flank marching appears to assume a flat world philosophy.
> Sans
> > a Hadrians wall or Great Wall (neither obviously a TF) the flank
> > marcher could simply follow the TF until the opportunity to pass
> > around it occurred, and since the TF is by defenition temporary
and
> > purchased in defined lengths how could it extend on ad infinitum?
> > And if you take the approach that there is some unpassable
terrain
> > off of the board that the TF anchors on, it completely suspeneds
> > reality to assume that said flank marchers could not move back
> > towards the center until the TF ended and then pass around it.
> > This is really how you want to represent a simulation?
> > Chris
> >
> > --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@ wrote:
> > >
> > > In a message dated 2/27/2006 20:27:52 Central Standard Time,
> > ncioran@
> > > writes:
> > >
> > > Am I right in reading that you're of the opinion that the
flank
> > march
> > > is a less than sportsmanlike maneuver?>>
> > > [
> > > Nope. But neither is putting a TF in your rear zone to
protect
> > against one.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[joncleaves]

The difference is in crossing as a mounted formation as opposed to having
animals led single file through small gaps.

The answer to your question is yes. Now you know what all those other
charioteers are doing when they dismount 1:3....lol

Note as a bonus point that you could dismount a chariot and cross a rough area
as well....

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: cncbump <cncbump@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 17:40:25 -0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Flank Marches


I'm sorry that I gave the impression that you made the response up on
the fly. My point was one of my perception of logic. No question
that dismounted troops count as dismounted for all purposes and as
such they can cross TF's. Logically, to me, it seemed that since the
rules do not say otherwise that if horses cannot cross a TF with a
rider that they would have same difficulty crossing without a rider.

Can dismounted charioteers cross a tf and then remount?
Chris

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@... wrote:
>
> Alesia was a joke, Chris. Hardy-har type joke. Sorry to confuse.
>
> I think saying I am 'proclaiming that legal' is an unfair
characterization, as though I made that up on the fly the other day.
The rule you're looking for is:
>
> "6.65 Existence of mounts of dismounted troops. Dismounted troops
are the dismounted troop type for ALL purposes."
>
> The all in 'ALL purposes' is even in caps. What's a poor game
designer to do?
>
> J
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cncbump <cncbump@...>
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 16:09:15 -0000
> Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Flank Marches
>
>
> Okay. I was not aware that TF's that could not be crossed by
mounted
> cav could be crossed by those same horses sans riders. Given that
> you are proclaiming that legal, it seems the most rapid approach to
> the solution.
>
> Ironic that you bring up Alesia for two reasons, first there is no
> way horses could pass over those defenses mounted or not and second
> because the question you ask leads to where I was going with my
> point. As you know but likely forgot in your haste to answer so
many
> querries, Alesia was essentially outflanked by the attackers who
> essentially followed the fence line until there was no more fence
and
> attacked there on the third day (obviously very simplistically put).
> Chris
>
>
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@ wrote:
> >
> > I didn't say any of that.
> >
> > The table is an artificial construct that every miniatures game
> lives with. You simulate around that restriction.
> >
> > For every argument that can be made that a shallow tactical flank
> march could not be opposed by a TF there is a counter argument -
> including the two main ones that a) such were damned rare and b)
> that a significant number of A+M battlefields had anchored flanks.
> >
> > Who is to say the TF does not extend off table or run into an
> impassable or very rough feature just off table? How do you flank
> march Alesia?
> >
> > If the guy *just* puts a TF there, dismount, walk over it and
> remount. If he puts stuff there, you have drawn forces away from
the
> main fight (the point of a flank march) and you can dismount and
> charge him. or, you can know the guy has TFs in his list (declared
> before deployment orders) and plan your flank march accordingly (as
> well as taking flaming arrows...lol).
> >
> > Not an issue.
> >
> > Jon
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cncbump <cncbump@>
> > To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 15:57:53 -0000
> > Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Flank Marches
> >
> >
> > Except that by placing a TF to your flank to preclude your
opponent
> > from flank marching appears to assume a flat world philosophy.
> Sans
> > a Hadrians wall or Great Wall (neither obviously a TF) the flank
> > marcher could simply follow the TF until the opportunity to pass
> > around it occurred, and since the TF is by defenition temporary
and
> > purchased in defined lengths how could it extend on ad infinitum?
> > And if you take the approach that there is some unpassable
terrain
> > off of the board that the TF anchors on, it completely suspeneds
> > reality to assume that said flank marchers could not move back
> > towards the center until the TF ended and then pass around it.
> > This is really how you want to represent a simulation?
> > Chris
> >
> > --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@ wrote:
> > >
> > > In a message dated 2/27/2006 20:27:52 Central Standard Time,
> > ncioran@
> > > writes:
> > >
> > > Am I right in reading that you're of the opinion that the
flank
> > march
> > > is a less than sportsmanlike maneuver?>>
> > > [
> > > Nope. But neither is putting a TF in your rear zone to
protect
> > against one.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>








Yahoo! Groups Links






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

[Mark Mallard]

In a message dated 01/03/2006 19:16:26 GMT Standard Time, JonCleaves@...
writes:

Note as a bonus point that you could dismount a chariot and cross a rough
area as well....

Jon




Does this have implications for impassable terrain?


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