Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mark Stone]

Historicon was my first time taking on the role of umpire in a national
tournament, and overall it was actually a pleasant experience. Most people are
simply looking for clarification most of the time, rather than actually
arguing. And it's amusing to have some distance from the event to watch the
daylong beverage progression unfold - Round 1: coffee; Round 2: soda; Round 3:
beer.

A couple of rules issues came to light that I wanted to comment on. Not that I
have any solution to propose, but they did seem to be murky areas in need of
some clarification.

1. Gaps.

Several issues here, but generally when a gap can or must be passed needs to be
clearer, and the mechanics may need some work in a place or two.

First off, people generally seem to be under the impression that you may not
freely contract to pass a gap in a charge if part of the gap is formed by a
friendly body that you can legally interpenetrate. I can find no support for
this point of view in the rules. 6.5 says that a gap is a line between two
things, where "things" includes table edges, bodies, and non-open terrain
features. If such a gap is narrower than the body in question, then the body
"may" freely contract to pass the gap. To me, that seems to say that
interpenetrating a friendly body or not is entirely at the discretion of the
charger.

With respect to the above wording: non-open needs clarification. I assume gentle
hills and road are examples of open terrain, but I'd like that made explicit.

Then there's the bizarre contraction that came up in the NICT (I believe Dave
Markowitz was the culprit here). I didn't have to rule on it, but did discuss
it with Scott and Frank, and all three of us felt that something needed to be
fixed, but none of us were sure what. For purposes of this example, please
refer to the file "gaps.jpg" in the "Rules Questions" section of the "Files"
section for this group.

Red has a unit, Red A, that is currently in combat to its front with Blue,
specifically Blue 1. Red B (an 8 stand unit 1 deep and 8 wide as I recall)
wants to declare a charge on Blue 1. Red B has the movement to reach Blue 1 on
the flank, and would wheel only towards Blue 1, not away from it. Both of those
are requirements for a flank charge not starting behind the flank. Further, the
gap between Blue 1 and Blue 2 is less than 8 elements, hence it is, by the
definition of 6.5, a passable gap that Red B may freely contract to pass.
Finally, Red B does in fact have room to fit, once freely contracted; another
requirement for a flank charge not starting behind the flank.

The result is that Red B hits Blue 1 on the flank, now in a two element wide and
four rank deep formation, albeit with one element stepped back 20p and not
counting in contact for the first bound of combat.

Among the oddities: if Blue 2 is not present, the charge isn't possible as there
is then no gap to contract through.

Frank, Dave, Scott, or whoever, please chime in with additional recollections or
clarifications on this. I'm not sure what should be done about this, but it
seems odd.

2. Flank Marches.

I had to rule on some of these, and I was the recipient of several. They made it
quite clear to me that something needs fixin'.

In my game against Rob, I had an Irr A LMI unit guarding my rear zone where
Rob's flank march arrived. He is allowed to charge on table, so his scythed
chariots were able to charge me, but I couldn't declare a charge on him. That
seems odd.

Scott, however, deemed that as less than 80p of on-table movement occurred
before contact, that Rob didn't get to use his scythes. That also seems odd.

Nor could I go into skirmish, as not only could I not charge, I could not shoot.
Setting aside the general oddity of having a shooting target being a requirement
of assuming an evade-enabling formation -- an oddity that I have bitched about
and been slapped down on before -- it still seems odd that I can neither shoot
at nor evade from an enemy that is right there in front of me (and he must be
right there in front of me because he didn't get to use scythes....)

Something that came up against me and in other games I had to rule on was the
question of order of arrival when an entire flank march can't fit on in one
bound. Common sense suggests that the flank marcher has to set order of arrival
for the whole flank march once any of it starts to come on, but in fact the
rules are silent on this point. The flank marcher is free to set up his units
off table one way, and then for those that don't make it on change his mind and
rearrange their location and order next bound.

Then there was my game against Jake, where I was not allowed to approach or
march towards Jake's flank march as a means of fulfilling my "probe" orders
because until some of his march is on table, it doesn't meet the definition of
"known" and hence cannot be "nearest known enemy".

And while I understand flank marching a whole command is a risk, and there are
penalties for taking that risk, I really felt for Jake. He had very neatly
worked out how to throw one LC unit forward, keeping my elephants at a
distance, while he dismounted his knights, so that next bound he could fight me
with Irr B EHI JLS,Sh (not a terrible troop type against elephants), instead of
having to fight me with Irr B EHK (material for an instant rout). I pointed
out, somewhat guiltily, that by only moving 40p and dismounting he was
preventing other units from getting on table that would have room to come on if
he moved ahead 160p. I think that struck both me and Jake as odd, but it is
clearly what the rules say.

Again, not sure what in all of that is sufficiently problematic to warrant
clarification, but it seems like some of these mechanics could work better than
they do at present.


-Mark Stone

[joncleaves]

Mark, thanks for your efforts as an ump. Scott loved the break and it also
meant I could play Flames of War that day.

<< 1. Gaps.

Several issues here, but generally when a gap can or must be passed needs to be
clearer, and the mechanics may need some work in a place or two.

First off, people generally seem to be under the impression that you may not
freely contract to pass a gap in a charge if part of the gap is formed by a
friendly body that you can legally interpenetrate. I can find no support for
this point of view in the rules. 6.5 says that a gap is a line between two
things, where "things" includes table edges, bodies, and non-open terrain
features. If such a gap is narrower than the body in question, then the body
"may" freely contract to pass the gap. To me, that seems to say that
interpenetrating a friendly body or not is entirely at the discretion of the
charger.>>

Indeed that is so.

<<With respect to the above wording: non-open needs clarification. I assume
gentle
hills and road are examples of open terrain, but I'd like that made explicit.>>

See 12.31.

<<Then there's the bizarre contraction that came up in the NICT (I believe Dave
Markowitz was the culprit here). I didn't have to rule on it, but did discuss
it with Scott and Frank, and all three of us felt that something needed to be
fixed, but none of us were sure what. For purposes of this example, please
refer to the file "gaps.jpg" in the "Rules Questions" section of the "Files"
section for this group.

Red has a unit, Red A, that is currently in combat to its front with Blue,
specifically Blue 1. Red B (an 8 stand unit 1 deep and 8 wide as I recall)
wants to declare a charge on Blue 1. Red B has the movement to reach Blue 1 on
the flank, and would wheel only towards Blue 1, not away from it. Both of those
are requirements for a flank charge not starting behind the flank. Further, the
gap between Blue 1 and Blue 2 is less than 8 elements, hence it is, by the
definition of 6.5, a passable gap that Red B may freely contract to pass.
Finally, Red B does in fact have room to fit, once freely contracted; another
requirement for a flank charge not starting behind the flank.

The result is that Red B hits Blue 1 on the flank, now in a two element wide and
four rank deep formation, albeit with one element stepped back 20p and not
counting in contact for the first bound of combat.

Among the oddities: if Blue 2 is not present, the charge isn't possible as there
is then no gap to contract through.>>

The simple way to handle this is to talk about how it will be in the future:
A body will not be allowed to drop back elements when conducting a Case II Flank
charge (revised rules speak for a flank charge that starts from a position not
behind the flank). This would make the above case not possible.


<<2. Flank Marches.

I had to rule on some of these, and I was the recipient of several. They made it
quite clear to me that something needs fixin'.

In my game against Rob, I had an Irr A LMI unit guarding my rear zone where
Rob's flank march arrived. He is allowed to charge on table, so his scythed
chariots were able to charge me, but I couldn't declare a charge on him. That
seems odd.>>

Yeah, that whole thing needs fixing. The flank march must be made visible or
else the 'defender' will have no way to orient on where the flank march enters
and it gets too gamey. I am working on it.

<<Scott, however, deemed that as less than 80p of on-table movement occurred
before contact, that Rob didn't get to use his scythes. That also seems odd.>>

Odd maybe, but true.

<<Nor could I go into skirmish, as not only could I not charge, I could not
shoot.
Setting aside the general oddity of having a shooting target being a requirement
of assuming an evade-enabling formation -- an oddity that I have bitched about
and been slapped down on before -- it still seems odd that I can neither shoot
at nor evade from an enemy that is right there in front of me (and he must be
right there in front of me because he didn't get to use scythes....)>>

As I said - will fix.

<<Something that came up against me and in other games I had to rule on was the
question of order of arrival when an entire flank march can't fit on in one
bound. Common sense suggests that the flank marcher has to set order of arrival
for the whole flank march once any of it starts to come on, but in fact the
rules are silent on this point. The flank marcher is free to set up his units
off table one way, and then for those that don't make it on change his mind and
rearrange their location and order next bound.>>

yeah, I think we'll probably end up with the flank marcher setting his stuff in
order on the edge in the events phase of arrival. It is simple and fixes all
the above.

<<Then there was my game against Jake, where I was not allowed to approach or
march towards Jake's flank march as a means of fulfilling my "probe" orders
because until some of his march is on table, it doesn't meet the definition of
"known" and hence cannot be "nearest known enemy".>>

See above.

Jon


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

[Derek Downs]

Jon, help please.

We had this come up last game. A number of my friends units were fighting a
48 man MI JLS SH unit of mine. Due to the combat the 48 man unit stepped
forward when all the units recoiled except the smallest on the end which did not
recoil.

Another unit routed beside this combat. Does the small unit on the end count
as having enemy behind flank. It is fighting the large unit but the large unit
has steped forward so that it is now behind the flank of the smaller unit.

My question. Can a unit that is fighting another unit frontally also count
the same unit as behind its flank?

Derekcus


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

[joncleaves]

Note that I do not always answer questions immediately - in this case i had to
spend some time trying to figure out the situation in question before I could
answer. I don't mind guys reasking to make sure I didn't miss it - just realize
it is very likely i got the question and have saved it and am working on it.

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: darnd022263@...
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 15:53:34 EDT
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Historicon from the umpire's chair


Jon, help please.

We had this come up last game. A number of my friends units were fighting a
48 man MI JLS SH unit of mine. Due to the combat the 48 man unit stepped
forward when all the units recoiled except the smallest on the end which did not

recoil.

Another unit routed beside this combat. Does the small unit on the end count
as having enemy behind flank. It is fighting the large unit but the large unit
has steped forward so that it is now behind the flank of the smaller unit.

My question. Can a unit that is fighting another unit frontally also count
the same unit as behind its flank?

Derekcus


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




Yahoo! Groups Links






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