Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mark Mallard]

My latest game has been ajourned, we play them two or three moves at a time.

In the interim i have a question.

If a unit recoils and its opponent follows up, can this same opponent break
through too if the required casualties were achieved or does breaking through
occur instead of recoil and follow up?

The unit in trouble in this scenario is a unit of 12 IRR B HC in column,
being stomped by a unit of 2 EL also in column. It looks like the HC's best
course of action will be to break off, which under attack orders is optional
and appears to be preferable to being recoiled and/or possibly broken
through.They would be caught 33.3% of the time and routed though.

I have read 11.223 and other sections several times and am still unclear.

This same HC unit had earlier been fighting some IRR D MI bowmen who went
shaken as a result of combat. The bowmen recoiled from the cav but the
cavalry contacted in the flank by the EL could not follow up. I checked the
rules to see if the infantry were now no longer shaken, but sadly it seems
they still are.

We are playing our games slowly in the interests of learning the rules
properly.

PS. there is a typo on page 18
EVENTS PHASE line a.
returns is not to be found at (12.5) i found it at (6.823)

thanks in advance
mark mallard


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 8/29/2002 14:09:30 Central Daylight Time,
markmallard77@... writes:


> If a unit recoils and its opponent follows up, can this same opponent break
> through too if the required casualties were achieved or does breaking
> through
> occur instead of recoil and follow up?
>

Break through or follow up, not both.


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

[Mark Mallard]

> If a unit recoils and its opponent follows up, can this same opponent break
> through too if the required casualties were achieved or does breaking
> through
> occur instead of recoil and follow up?
>

Break through or follow up, not both.

So if my opponent chooses to recoil i cannot break through?
Or does my declaration that i am going to break through stop him from
recoiling?



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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 8/30/2002 02:53:02 Central Daylight Time,
markmallard77@... writes:


> So if my opponent chooses to recoil i cannot break through?
> Or does my declaration that i am going to break through stop him from
> recoiling?
>

I'm sorry - I did it again. Recoils AND ANY FOLLOW UPS occur first. THEN,
if eligible, a body can break through.


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 9/4/2002 19:54:31 Central Daylight Time, cuan@...
writes:


> So this means that a body recoils if applicable and then can be broken
> through?
>

Yes. 6.35, second para, first sentence.

> Does this also mean that Break-off are the same way.
>

No.


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

[Patrick Byrne]

----- Original Message -----
From: <JonCleaves@...>
To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 6:08 AM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: Question on breaking through


> In a message dated 8/30/2002 02:53:02 Central Daylight Time,
> markmallard77@... writes:
>
>
> > So if my opponent chooses to recoil i cannot break through?
> > Or does my declaration that i am going to break through stop him from
> > recoiling?
> >
>
> I'm sorry - I did it again. Recoils AND ANY FOLLOW UPS occur first.
THEN,
> if eligible, a body can break through.
>

So this means that a body recoils if applicable and then can be broken
through?

Does this also mean that Break-off are the same way.
-PB