Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Ewan McNay]

JonCleaves@... wrote:
>
> You know, I don't mind answering rules questions, but this one is getting to
be me reading the rules to you...
>
> Here is the rule:
> "....Routers, other than elephants or expendables, who would contact friendly
bodies in the rout path will interpenetrate them if they are normally allowed to
do so (6.52). If the rout path is blocked by a friendly body that cannot
> normally be interpenetrated, the routers may deviate the minimum necessary to
pass around it if there is a gap at least two elements wide within 240 paces of
the point the rout path met the friendly body. If there is no such gap, the
routers will burst through the friendly body
> met along the rout path to the full extent of their remaining move....
>
> ....Bursting through is handled as an involuntary interpenetration. If the
troops burst through are shaken or irregular, they break and rout immediately.
If not, they are disordered."
>
> So, yes, they would have to contact friendlies in order to burst through them.

And just in case I can for once shed light on what seems (perhaps) to be
the issue: would *both* units be swept away? Answer: very unlikely.
Because: for sweeping away to occur, the routing body must have
contacted - see above - and given the gap of between one and two
elements that exists between the bodies, it would have to be extremely
bad luck for the routing 6 EHK to contact both of the bodies! There is
no 'partial deviation' to try to get to a gap which does not permit
passage.

OK, going back into jester mode now.

e

[joncleaves]

I can only assume 'swept away' is player shorthand for 'becoming broken due to
being burst through by a friendly router'...

[Patrick Byrne]

> And just in case I can for once shed light on what seems (perhaps) to be
> the issue: would *both* units be swept away? Answer: very unlikely.
> Because: for sweeping away to occur, the routing body must have
> contacted - see above - and given the gap of between one and two
> elements that exists between the bodies, it would have to be extremely
> bad luck for the routing 6 EHK to contact both of the bodies! There is
> no 'partial deviation' to try to get to a gap which does not permit
> passage.
>
> OK, going back into jester mode now.
>
> e

How about this story....

The aforementioned HK are lined up with the two irregular MI units (shoulder
to shoulder to shoulder, ie knights are sitting in the 60p gap between the
two irregular units.

Now the knights have to charge an enemy SHK who was going to charge the left
Irr unit. The HK hit the SHK at an angle (as they were not perfectly lined
up), they pivot, they line-up and wham the HK is at an angle to the line it
charged out from. The back of the HK is 30p from one Irr guy and 70p from
the other Irr guy.

Now things don't go well for the HK unit and they route. The route must be
straight away from the charger. No deviation is possible, especially back
through the 60p gap it came from.

So BOOM, the two MI units that it was in line with end up routing, as the
interpenetration is illegal.

This is how it can be likely that the two units behind the HK are lost.

Moral of this specific story, take the SHK charge with the one unit so you
don't lose all your cookies.


DISCLAIMER,
This story for all intents and purposes is not an argument or a request for
a rule change. The events may or may not have occured, but are likely to
have happened to Harlan as he is often wacked by the 2HCW of back luck. And
the name have not been changed to protect the innocent.

Victims, aren't we all!
-PB

[Harlan Garrett]

Yes; however, I think in 7 edition, it was actually called swept away.
Some of us still (to include me) use the old vernacular, I will have to
work on changing my habits.

Harlan
-----Original Message-----
From: JonCleaves@... [mailto:JonCleaves@...]
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 9:12 AM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Re: [WarriorRules] Rout Moves & Swept Away (6.32) - NOTE
foroldtimers


I can only assume 'swept away' is player shorthand for 'becoming broken
due to being burst through by a friendly router'...


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

ADVERTISEMENT

<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=194081.2053425.3521449.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=1705
059080:HM/A=1036975/R=0/*http://www.ediets.com/start.cfm?code=3225>
Click Here!

<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=194081.2053425.3521449.1829184/D=egrou
pmail/S=1705059080:HM/A=1036975/rand=848712398>

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



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .



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

[joncleaves]

That is not really correct, Pat. The first question is not 'is there a gap
there' it is 'does the router contact antoher body'. If it never contacts a
body along the rout path, gaps make no difference whatsoever.