Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mark Mallard]

In a message dated 11/21/03 5:26:43 PM GMT Standard Time, JonCleaves@...
writes:

> In a message dated 11/21/2003 11:55:43 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> gar@... writes:
>
> >Don't want to answer for Jon, but I think 2.52 has this
> >covered.
> >
> >Thanks ... g >>
>
> I don't see what was asked as a rules question. If there's one out there,
> please ask and I'll get you an answer.
>
>

I think its about regulars in uneven ranks

mark mallard


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

[Greg Regets]

Don't want to answer for Jon, but I think 2.52 has this covered.

Thanks ... g :-)


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Doug <rockd@p...> wrote:
> I recall a discussion of how this odd number Regular of elements
> ought to be handled; what was the final result?
>
> >>>
> ten figure regular unit.
> Placed in a one-rank line in front of missile vulnerable
> troops, it has some useful advantages;
>
> b) if you leave a single element gap between said missile vulnerable
> troops, the light unit is able to use two formation changes (one per
> flank) to contract out of the way
>
> c) the able player will still force shooting primarily at the light
> unit in column between the missile vulnerable units
>
> d) scenario 'b' can be done in reverse, starting in column, moving
> forward 40p and expanding on each flank
> >>>

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 11/21/2003 11:55:43 AM Eastern Standard Time, gar@...
writes:

> Don't want to answer for Jon, but I think 2.52 has this
> covered.
>
> Thanks ... g >>

I don't see what was asked as a rules question. If there's one out there,
please ask and I'll get you an answer.

[Greg Regets]

I'm reading minds here, but I think his question has to do with how a
ten figure regular light infantry unit of this size would legally
form two ranks, that being the most usual formation for light
infantry.

The answer of course, is that it couldn't, and you wouldn't be buying
a unit of this size for that purpose.

Thanks ... g ~purpose built light infantry non-ho!~



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 11/21/2003 11:55:43 AM Eastern Standard Time,
gar@t... writes:
>
> > Don't want to answer for Jon, but I think 2.52 has this
> > covered.
> >
> > Thanks ... g >>
>
> I don't see what was asked as a rules question. If there's one out
there, please ask and I'll get you an answer.

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 11/21/2003 12:27:57 PM Eastern Standard Time, markmallard77
writes:

> I think its about regulars in uneven ranks>>

Greg gave the correct reference for that - 2.52.

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 11/21/2003 12:34:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, gar@...
writes:

> I'm reading minds here, but I think his question has to do with how a
> ten figure regular light infantry unit of this size would
> legally
> form two ranks,>>

Correct - a ten FIGURE, meaning five ELEMENT LI could not be regular and in two
ranks. 2.52.

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 11/21/2003 23:32:13 Central Standard Time,
rockd@... writes:
Correct - a ten FIGURE, meaning five ELEMENT LI could not be regular
>and in two ranks. 2.52.

But Greg says it can be done. So how does a 5 element unit of
Regulars perform a 6.123 Change in Frontage, from column to single
line (Greg's item d) without violating 2.52's requirement for even
ranks, after the first 6.12 Maneuver, which consists of 2 elements
going to one side? Or vice-versa (Greg's items b&c)?
Greg never said a 5 element unit of regs could be in two ranks. He said such
a unit could go from 1 rank to a column with two maneuvers, which is true.


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

[Phil Gardocki]

I never did like the rule requiring regular units having the same number of
elements per rank. After all, each figure represents 10 men by 5 ranks. So a
unit with 8 figures in the front and 4 in the back represents 80 men by 7
ranks.

Phil


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 11/22/2003 08:55:26 Central Standard Time, PHGamer@...
writes:
I never did like the rule requiring regular units having the same number of
elements per rank.
You are not alone. But it is a done deal we are not revisiting. I'm sorry.
People can have whatever debate here they want about it, but we at FHE can't
afford to hit that horse again.
After all, each figure represents 10 men by 5 ranks.
each figure is, nominally, 12 men across by 4 men deep.


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

[Doug]

You're not answering my question. And could you figure out a way to
post your messages so that the quote and your reply are
distinguishable in some way? At least with a couple blank lines
between the two???

Please explain how 1 rank of 5 regular elements get into a column,
using two manuevers, without being in an illegal formation after the
first maneuver.

GREG SAID:
> ten figure regular unit.
> Placed in a one-rank line
> b) is able to use two formation changes (one per flank) to contract
>
> c) the unit in column
>
> d) scenario 'b' can be done in reverse, starting in column, moving
> forward 40p and expanding on each flank


>In a message dated 11/21/2003 23:32:13 Central Standard Time,
>rockd@... writes:
>Correct - a ten FIGURE, meaning five ELEMENT LI could not be regular
>>and in two ranks. 2.52.
>
>But Greg says it can be done. So how does a 5 element unit of
>Regulars perform a 6.123 Change in Frontage, from column to single
>line (Greg's item d) without violating 2.52's requirement for even
>ranks, after the first 6.12 Maneuver, which consists of 2 elements
>going to one side? Or vice-versa (Greg's items b&c)?
>Greg never said a 5 element unit of regs could be in two ranks. He said such
>a unit could go from 1 rank to a column with two maneuvers, which is true.

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 11/23/2003 22:59:34 Central Standard Time,
rockd@... writes:
And could you figure out a way to
post your messages so that the quote and your reply are
distinguishable in some way? At least with a couple blank lines
between the two???>>
I am aware that some people's comps read the messages that way, but when I
view them, either in my mailbox or on the group, they look fine, so I don't know
'what' to fix as I am not sure it is a problem originating here.


Please explain how 1 rank of 5 regular elements get into a column,
using two manuevers, without being in an illegal formation after the
first maneuver.
There is no 'check for illegal formation step' in the middle of a movement
phase in Warrior. Until all movement is complete for a given body, it is still
moving...


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

[Greg Regets]

Good Morning Doug ...

I think in part we are not making this completely clear, so I will
give it another go.

Imagine a ten figure unit in a single rank. This would be a proper
formation.

A steady regular unit gets two formation changes and 40p as a legal
move. Contracting up to two elements frontage is a legal formation
change.

So, the regular unit executes two formation changes, contracting two
elements from it's left side, and two elements from it's right.

It is now in a column one element wide and five elements deep, which
is also a legal formation.

I don't see this as a good idea in all circumstances, but there are
times when it works well. You can do the same thing with a much
larger unit deployed in two ranks, but you lose the two advantages of
the single rank unit, that being, a)the units behind can more readily
get close enough to execute a charge against targets beyond, b) after
the light infantry unit contracts in one bound, it is much easier to
get out of the way in the next, allowing another unit to slip into
it's preveiously occupied position.

Thanks ... g

[Doug]

> I don't know
>'what' to fix as I am not sure it is a problem originating here.

try hitting the return key a couple times and we'll see if the blank
lines propagate. That reminds me; some email apps used to have a
formatting option to suppress blank lines; maybe your app has that
toggled on?

> for illegal formation step' in the middle of a movement
>phase in Warrior. Until all movement is complete for a given body,
>it is still
>moving...

That's the answer then. Not clear to me from the wording in the rules.

[Doug]

I recall a discussion of how this odd number Regular of elements
ought to be handled; what was the final result?

>>>
ten figure regular unit.
Placed in a one-rank line in front of missile vulnerable
troops, it has some useful advantages;

b) if you leave a single element gap between said missile vulnerable
troops, the light unit is able to use two formation changes (one per
flank) to contract out of the way

c) the able player will still force shooting primarily at the light
unit in column between the missile vulnerable units

d) scenario 'b' can be done in reverse, starting in column, moving
forward 40p and expanding on each flank
>>>

[Doug]

>In a message dated 11/21/2003 12:34:36 PM Eastern Standard Time,
>gar@... writes:
>
>> I'm reading minds here, but I think his question has to do with how a
>> ten figure regular light infantry unit of this size would
>> legally
>> form two ranks,>>
>
>Correct - a ten FIGURE, meaning five ELEMENT LI could not be regular
>and in two ranks. 2.52.

But Greg says it can be done. So how does a 5 element unit of
Regulars perform a 6.123 Change in Frontage, from column to single
line (Greg's item d) without violating 2.52's requirement for even
ranks, after the first 6.12 Maneuver, which consists of 2 elements
going to one side? Or vice-versa (Greg's items b&c)?

I know there was some discussion of this a while back. Did you amend
2.52 to specify that the even ranks requirement only applied at the
end of the turn, or did you amend 6.12 to specify that the two
maneuvers allowed to Regulars could be considered to be taking place
simultaneously?

Greg said:
>>>
ten figure regular unit.
Placed in a one-rank line in front of missile vulnerable
troops, it has some useful advantages;

b) if you leave a single element gap between said missile vulnerable
troops, the light unit is able to use two formation changes (one per
flank) to contract out of the way

c) the able player will still force shooting primarily at the light
unit in column between the missile vulnerable units

d) scenario 'b' can be done in reverse, starting in column, moving
forward 40p and expanding on each flank
>>>