Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/17/2004 12:45:57 Central Daylight Time,
jjmurphy@... writes:
Okay, one more item came up as I was going over the old posts and I
just wanted to be sure I had it all down now.

Say for this example you have 2 units of EIR legionaries each 2E Reg
C HTW, Sh, both units 1E wide and 2 ranks deep with one unit directly
behind the other and the front rank of the front unit upped to Reg A.

Opposing, and opposite, them is a single unit of nasty Dacian
Warriors 8E Irr C LMI JLS, Sh which is 4E wide in 2 ranks with the
entire front rank given 2HCW and upped to Irr B.

We'll assume all random factors are even.

Approach moves end with the fronts of the big Dacians and the first
Romans 100p apart. The second Roman unit has its front 75p behind the
front of the first Roman unit. The Romans as close-order foot can
not, even with all the wonderful new tricks, declare a charge at this
distance.

The Dacians declare an impetuous charge against the first Roman unit.

FIRST AND SECOND EXPLICIT QUESTIONS:

The new Roman swordsmen rule says the EIR, who in this case are
always willing with a front rank of A class, may counter-charge
impetuous bodies who have declared a charge against them as
an "exception to 6.163" of the main rules. As I read it this section
includes not only the cancellation of charges by non-impetuous foot
but also the restrictions requiring the charger to be able to reach
and contact its target.

Oddly enough, section 6.166, not section 6.163, is the counter-charge
section which is actually what prevents the foot from counter-
charging impetuous or mounted chargers.>>

I think you are missing the following from the clarifications:

"6.166 (Pg 44) Counter charge. Add a fifth bullet to the first bulleted
list:
· “does not have to begin with the counter-charging body being within
its own tactical move distance of the charger�"




So the first question is can the first Roman unit, which is the
target of the Dacian impetuous charge here, indeed counter-charge the
Dacians?>>

Yes.



So now the two (counter-)charging bodies meet halfway and do
the "pivot and align" thing with the Romans ending up overlapped on
both flanks by Dacian elements (important later), and the Dacians
take 1 FP for an impetuous charge.>>
Roger.


There is no support shooting at this point because the Dacian JLS,
the only shooting weapon here, can not be support shot by chargers
(only B from a rear rank), and in fact rarely in any case but that is
not the point here.>>

All good.



In HtH resolution the front rank Dacians are 3@+5 (2HCW v HI) +1 (JLS
v HI) +1 (charge) +2 (impetuous loose) while the rear rank Dacians
are 2@+2 (other foot v HI) +1 (JLS v HI) +1 (charge) +2 (impetuous).
So 3@+9=29 plus 2@+6=10 does 39 casualties to the Romans, 39/8=4 CPF.

The Romans are 6@+5 (HTW v LMI) +1 (charging). So 6@+6=30 does
30/24=1 CPF to the Dacians.

Romans take their first 4 FP, Dacians take 2 more FP giving them 3.
Romans recoil and are disordered, Dacians follow-up steady and still
impetuous.

Next bound the second Roman unit approaches to 75 from the Dacian
front line, but still stuck behind the first Roman unit.

The second Roman unit is all Reg C and not supported so is uneasy but
declares a charge against the Dacians and interpenetrates the first
Roman unit to replace it in HtH using the Roman circulating
combatants rule.

THIRD EXPLICIT QUESTION:

Is this legal even though the Dacians are still technically impetuous?>>

Yes. For many reasons, not the least of which is that the dacians are no
longer charging, they are following up.


The second (replacer) unit is not disordered by charging through a
disordered unit because both these do not apply to Romans using this
rule. However, the first (replaced) unit is disordered (again) by the
interpenetration. But, since this is not a combat result no waver
test is made for disordered while disordered.>>

True.


Once gain there is no support shooting. This is because the only
missile weapon, the Dacian JLS, can not be used by bodies already in
HtH (only B from a non-fighting rank).>>

That and the fact that all ranks of the Dacian unit are eligible to fight.


FOURTH EXPLICIT QUESTION:

The second Roman unit (replacing) now fights at 6@+5 (HTW v LMI) +1
(charging) +3 (shieldless LMI opponent, because 2HCW in front rank no
longer charging but using both hands). So 6@+9=57 does 57/24=2 CPF to
the Dacians.>>

Um, John, the Dacians facing the new unit are shielded as they are being
charged - see 7.1.
This makes the rest of the example problematic.


The Dacians, if I understand correctly, are in subsequent bounds of
HtH and now get the overlapping elements.>>
No, actually. In this particular example the replacing unit leaves the
Dacians in contact with no one from the initial hand to hand - this makes this
for
the purposes of the overlap rule, NOT the subequent bound of a hand to hand
combat. If the original unit had had even one element left in the fight, then
you'd be right. In fact, I assumed from reading the example to this point that
that is why you used 2 x 2E units one behind the other...lol
Not only that, all the
Dacians elements now count once again as first contact so the first
rank (with 2HCW) does not lose its JLS+, the back rank not being
armed with 2HCW would get to use JLS with the JLS+ anyway. But the
Dacians are not fighting the body they followed-up (no +1)>>
Incorrect, you get following up even if not against the guy who recoiled.
Momentum is still there, even if you have not yet had time to get your
overlapping elements into the fight against this new opponent.
and while
still impetuous did not charge this bound (no +2).>>

correct.

The front rank Dacians are 9@+5 (2HCW v HI) +1 (JLS v HI) while the
rear rank Dacians are 5@+2 (other foot v HI) +1 (JLS v HI). So
9@+6=45 plus 5@+3=13 does 58 casualties to the Romans, 58/8=7 CPF.

So, the Dacians win the second bound 58 to 57 (!) and the second
(replacing) Roman unit recoils disordered. The Dacians still follow-
up steady and impetuous. The Romans take their first 7 FP and are
tired while the Dacians take 4 more FP for a total of 7 FP and are
now tired.>>

This whole part is made incorrect by the shieldless and overlap problems
stated above.


The replaced unit is unable to rally because, even though they did
not wind up fighting in HtH, they moved in the process of being
replaced and they were subjected to a further cause of disorder by
being replaced.>>

Sure they can rally - starting the bound after replacement.


FIFTH AND FINAL EXPLICIT QUESTION:

In the next bound of HtH, will the Dacians still count as following
up even though they did not make a follow-up move? I think the rules
say following up rather than follow-up move for a reason here but I
want to be sure.>>

They would.



But against this kind of huge unit obviously something else is needed
to help, and there is plenty of open Dacian frontage hanging out
there with a big target on it.>>

Despite the problems with the example, what you say here is basically
correct. Something with that much frontage does not need the replacement rule
to
have roman foot beat it.

J


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

[John Murphy]

Okay, one more item came up as I was going over the old posts and I
just wanted to be sure I had it all down now.

Say for this example you have 2 units of EIR legionaries each 2E Reg
C HTW, Sh, both units 1E wide and 2 ranks deep with one unit directly
behind the other and the front rank of the front unit upped to Reg A.

Opposing, and opposite, them is a single unit of nasty Dacian
Warriors 8E Irr C LMI JLS, Sh which is 4E wide in 2 ranks with the
entire front rank given 2HCW and upped to Irr B.

We'll assume all random factors are even.

Approach moves end with the fronts of the big Dacians and the first
Romans 100p apart. The second Roman unit has its front 75p behind the
front of the first Roman unit. The Romans as close-order foot can
not, even with all the wonderful new tricks, declare a charge at this
distance.

The Dacians declare an impetuous charge against the first Roman unit.

FIRST AND SECOND EXPLICIT QUESTIONS:

The new Roman swordsmen rule says the EIR, who in this case are
always willing with a front rank of A class, may counter-charge
impetuous bodies who have declared a charge against them as
an "exception to 6.163" of the main rules. As I read it this section
includes not only the cancellation of charges by non-impetuous foot
but also the restrictions requiring the charger to be able to reach
and contact its target.

Oddly enough, section 6.166, not section 6.163, is the counter-charge
section which is actually what prevents the foot from counter-
charging impetuous or mounted chargers.

So the first question is can the first Roman unit, which is the
target of the Dacian impetuous charge here, indeed counter-charge the
Dacians?

The second question is, shouldn't section 6.166 also be part of this
exception, or is that implicit in the whole list rules supercede main
rules usage? Note this is my reason for presuming the intent of using
the exception 6.163 rather than 6.166 was not actually to allow the
counter charge from 75p but rather to allow it from 100p.

If they can, great we continue with the example and further
questions. If they can not and I am mis-understanding the scope of
this exception, then let's change the example above so that the
Dacians were only 75p away when they declared their impetuous charge.
Now, either way, the Romans can counter charge so it makes for a
coherent example to work with.

So now the two (counter-)charging bodies meet halfway and do
the "pivot and align" thing with the Romans ending up overlapped on
both flanks by Dacian elements (important later), and the Dacians
take 1 FP for an impetuous charge.

There is no support shooting at this point because the Dacian JLS,
the only shooting weapon here, can not be support shot by chargers
(only B from a rear rank), and in fact rarely in any case but that is
not the point here.

In HtH resolution the front rank Dacians are 3@+5 (2HCW v HI) +1 (JLS
v HI) +1 (charge) +2 (impetuous loose) while the rear rank Dacians
are 2@+2 (other foot v HI) +1 (JLS v HI) +1 (charge) +2 (impetuous).
So 3@+9=29 plus 2@+6=10 does 39 casualties to the Romans, 39/8=4 CPF.

The Romans are 6@+5 (HTW v LMI) +1 (charging). So 6@+6=30 does
30/24=1 CPF to the Dacians.

Romans take their first 4 FP, Dacians take 2 more FP giving them 3.
Romans recoil and are disordered, Dacians follow-up steady and still
impetuous.

Next bound the second Roman unit approaches to 75 from the Dacian
front line, but still stuck behind the first Roman unit.

The second Roman unit is all Reg C and not supported so is uneasy but
declares a charge against the Dacians and interpenetrates the first
Roman unit to replace it in HtH using the Roman circulating
combatants rule.

THIRD EXPLICIT QUESTION:

Is this legal even though the Dacians are still technically impetuous?

If it is not legal then change them to front rank Reg A so we can
continue because then the swordsmen rule comes to their rescue.

The second (replacer) unit is not disordered by charging through a
disordered unit because both these do not apply to Romans using this
rule. However, the first (replaced) unit is disordered (again) by the
interpenetration. But, since this is not a combat result no waver
test is made for disordered while disordered.

Once gain there is no support shooting. This is because the only
missile weapon, the Dacian JLS, can not be used by bodies already in
HtH (only B from a non-fighting rank).

FOURTH EXPLICIT QUESTION:

The second Roman unit (replacing) now fights at 6@+5 (HTW v LMI) +1
(charging) +3 (shieldless LMI opponent, because 2HCW in front rank no
longer charging but using both hands). So 6@+9=57 does 57/24=2 CPF to
the Dacians.

The Dacians, if I understand correctly, are in subsequent bounds of
HtH and now get the overlapping elements. Not only that, all the
Dacians elements now count once again as first contact so the first
rank (with 2HCW) does not lose its JLS+, the back rank not being
armed with 2HCW would get to use JLS with the JLS+ anyway. But the
Dacians are not fighting the body they followed-up (no +1) and while
still impetuous did not charge this bound (no +2).

Those two whole paragraphs there should be taken as a "did I do that
right" question.

Assuming I did, and I am bit more certain I did on this one...

The front rank Dacians are 9@+5 (2HCW v HI) +1 (JLS v HI) while the
rear rank Dacians are 5@+2 (other foot v HI) +1 (JLS v HI). So
9@+6=45 plus 5@+3=13 does 58 casualties to the Romans, 58/8=7 CPF.

So, the Dacians win the second bound 58 to 57 (!) and the second
(replacing) Roman unit recoils disordered. The Dacians still follow-
up steady and impetuous. The Romans take their first 7 FP and are
tired while the Dacians take 4 more FP for a total of 7 FP and are
now tired.

The replaced unit is unable to rally because, even though they did
not wind up fighting in HtH, they moved in the process of being
replaced and they were subjected to a further cause of disorder by
being replaced.

The other problem for the Romans here, and they are looking in pretty
bad shape, is the recoil is halted by the replaced unit, which is
still sitting directly behind and in contact with the replacing unit.
This causes another disorder for the recoiling replacer unit (not the
halting replaced unit), but this is also not a combat result so even
being a disordered while disordered there is no waver test.

FIFTH AND FINAL EXPLICIT QUESTION:

In the next bound of HtH, will the Dacians still count as following
up even though they did not make a follow-up move? I think the rules
say following up rather than follow-up move for a reason here but I
want to be sure.

Obviously here, the fact that the Romans are getting disordered by
combat (and recoiling into themselves) is preventing them from
continuing to circulate against the Dacians and wear them down as
they would like. And, after all, the Dacians are a pretty nasty
bunch. If they were not, and they had managed to rally the replaced
unit and push the Dacians back on the second bound when their big
shieldless charge hit then maybe they would actually succeed here
even under such dire circumstances.

But against this kind of huge unit obviously something else is needed
to help, and there is plenty of open Dacian frontage hanging out
there with a big target on it.

[John Murphy]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> "6.166 (Pg 44) Counter charge. Add a fifth bullet to the first
bulleted
> list:
> · “does not have to begin with the counter-charging body
being within
> its own tactical move distance of the charger�"

Got it. Yes, I was unaware of that. That would also apply to the old
tactic of SHC being charged by knights from 121p then?

But back to the subject.

> Once gain there is no support shooting. This is because the only
> missile weapon, the Dacian JLS, can not be used by bodies already
in
> HtH (only B from a non-fighting rank).>>
>
> That and the fact that all ranks of the Dacian unit are eligible to
fight.

Just to be sure then, and I think I am becuase you have made this
clear before but let's tread carefully, this _is_ a "bodies already
in HtH" situation for the Dacians even though it is a new opponent
and the Dacians are no longer in contact with any opponent from the
previous bound? The idea being this is one reason to use replacing in
HtH against someone normally able to support shoot against chargers
with more nasty stuff than a B from a non-fighting rank?

> Um, John, the Dacians facing the new unit are shielded as they are
being
> charged - see 7.1.
> This makes the rest of the example problematic.

Crud, yes it does and there it is in the rules too! Darn, missed that
one by not checking. So used to Varangians and Longbowmen losing
their 2HCW shields after the first bound of HtH just because no
longer charging but I see now and this is not that case since there
is a new charge happening.

Well, let's go thru your responses to the rest of this anyway because
I believe you still managed to hit the pertinent points in your reply.

> The Dacians, if I understand correctly, are in subsequent bounds of
> HtH and now get the overlapping elements.>>
> No, actually. In this particular example the replacing unit leaves
the
> Dacians in contact with no one from the initial hand to hand - this
makes this for
> the purposes of the overlap rule, NOT the subequent bound of a hand
to hand
> combat. If the original unit had had even one element left in the
fight, then
> you'd be right. In fact, I assumed from reading the example to
this point that
> that is why you used 2 x 2E units one behind the other...lol

It is indeed why I set up the example that way, just so this would
clearly come out one way or the other.

But here we have a problem, this is a quote from you from a while
back...

(Jon) "The target of the replacement gets to fight with 'overlap'
elements. While a new 'first contact' situation is created for
purposes of weapons and who is charging for some of the elements
involved, for that body it is a subsuquent bound of hth.
Just remember this:
1. first contact is on an element by element basis
2. 'subsequent bound of hand to hand' is determined by body."

Now, I am not sure I 'get' the difference here that does not allow
the Dacians in the current example to count as a body in a subsequent
bound of HtH even though its elements are on a first contact basis.

Is the distinction here that _no_ Dacian elements remained in contact
with their original opponents? Whereas in the earlier post perhaps
there was the chance of some other unit or something causing contact
to be maintained?

If that is the case would overlap elements fight against the still-in-
contact unit and not the new/replacing unit? Or as a body either all
or none which is what is seemed to be implied here to me?

And does this also mean if contact is completely broken, momentarily,
in replacement that the support shooting mechanism also resets to a
body not in HtH, and the body also gets charge responses because not
in HtH for that instant?

Would you, please, take some length to elaborate on this if you do
not mind? There are a gazillion ways this could all go and I now have
no idea. Sorry, this could open up a whole number of things.

If you think it would be better you can respond to me off-line on
this if you think it is just me and this is something everyone else
gets. I have used up a lot of everyone's time on this whole topic
already and it seems there are still some issues outstanding in my
mind.

> Not only that, all the
> Dacians elements now count once again as first contact so the first
> rank (with 2HCW) does not lose its JLS+, the back rank not being
> armed with 2HCW would get to use JLS with the JLS+ anyway. But the
> Dacians are not fighting the body they followed-up (no +1)>>
> Incorrect, you get following up even if not against the guy who
recoiled.
> Momentum is still there, even if you have not yet had time to get
your
> overlapping elements into the fight against this new opponent.

Hmmmm... "any troops against an enemy body they are following up or
pursuing" is what is in the book for the +1 (9.42 p.69 - you know
where I am sure).

This seems, to me, to go out of its way to make just exactly this
distintcion. And it would be silly to replace in HtH just to make the
other guy take it without charging if he still got the +1 for follow-
up against a body he is no longer fighting - although there may be
other reasons as we have seen (i.e. maybe to prevent overlap elements
from fighting depending on how that is resolved above, and other
reasons maybe like support shooting differnces but who knows at this
point).

So, I hate to call into question one of your interps, after all you
are the rules author and authority, but are you certain this is what
you mean here?

> The replaced unit is unable to rally because, even though they did
> not wind up fighting in HtH, they moved in the process of being
> replaced and they were subjected to a further cause of disorder by
> being replaced.>>
>
> Sure they can rally - starting the bound after replacement.

Right, but we were still in the replacing bound at this point is what
I meant. Although they have other problems because they keep getting
little non-combat disorder things happening but that is all a mess
now like you said because of the other mistakes I made in setting up
the example.

> Despite the problems with the example, what you say here is
basically
> correct. Something with that much frontage does not need the
replacement rule to
> have roman foot beat it.

Yes, I did realize that pretty quick at least. Just for starters even
if the unit starting behind went 2-wide and charged into 2 of the
exposed elemnts without replacing at all it would be better than
tactic used here. But there are a myriad of other and even better
ways. Mark Stone and you and others must have both cringed when you
read it and said "didn't this guy learn anything from the tactics
posts"?

But for an example to look at all the mechanisms of who gets to do
what it also served pretty well. Brought out a lot of unexpected
rules errors I was still making anyway. Only thing would be better
would be give both ranks of Dacians bows or something else to better
explain the support shooting mechanisms for this case. But that was
both outside the Dacian army list and just too far to go for me with
this on a Saturday morning.

Thanks, Jon.

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/17/2004 14:48:34 Central Daylight Time,
jjmurphy@... writes:
Got it. Yes, I was unaware of that. That would also apply to the old
tactic of SHC being charged by knights from 121p then?>>

I am not going to get into what people feel was right about WRG 7th, as it
had 7 different editions and multiple 'interps' and was not played consistently.



Just to be sure then, and I think I am becuase you have made this
clear before but let's tread carefully, this _is_ a "bodies already
in HtH" situation for the Dacians even though it is a new opponent
and the Dacians are no longer in contact with any opponent from the
previous bound? The idea being this is one reason to use replacing in
HtH against someone normally able to support shoot against chargers
with more nasty stuff than a B from a non-fighting rank?>>

Yes.






But here we have a problem, this is a quote from you from a while
back...

(Jon) "The target of the replacement gets to fight with 'overlap'
elements. While a new 'first contact' situation is created for
purposes of weapons and who is charging for some of the elements
involved, for that body it is a subsuquent bound of hth.
Just remember this:
1. first contact is on an element by element basis
2. 'subsequent bound of hand to hand' is determined by body."

Now, I am not sure I 'get' the difference here that does not allow
the Dacians in the current example to count as a body in a subsequent
bound of HtH even though its elements are on a first contact basis.

Is the distinction here that _no_ Dacian elements remained in contact
with their original opponents?>>

Yes.

Whereas in the earlier post perhaps
there was the chance of some other unit or something causing contact
to be maintained?>>

Yes.




If that is the case would overlap elements fight against the still-in-
contact unit and not the new/replacing unit? Or as a body either all
or none which is what is seemed to be implied here to me?>>

Overlap versus the original opponent.


And does this also mean if contact is completely broken, momentarily,
in replacement that the support shooting mechanism also resets to a
body not in HtH, and the body also gets charge responses because not
in HtH for that instant?>>

No. 8.83


Would you, please, take some length to elaborate on this if you do
not mind?>>

Elaborate on what? I'm not being wise here, but I don't know what you want.

If you think it would be better you can respond to me off-line on
this if you think it is just me and this is something everyone else
gets. I have used up a lot of everyone's time on this whole topic
already and it seems there are still some issues outstanding in my
mind.>>

They have the delete button. And if one other person benefits, it's all good.



This seems, to me, to go out of its way to make just exactly this
distintcion. And it would be silly to replace in HtH just to make the
other guy take it without charging if he still got the +1 for follow-
up against a body he is no longer fighting - although there may be
other reasons as we have seen (i.e. maybe to prevent overlap elements
from fighting depending on how that is resolved above, and other
reasons maybe like support shooting differnces but who knows at this
point).>>

John, it seems to me the problem is that you are trying to divine *WHY* one
should replace and mixing it with rules questions. 'Wh'y is tactics and I
think it would be best, especially since it is clear that you don't have a lot
of
experience with replacing in combat, to get all the rules questions out of the
way before you start investing why and when one replaces with romans.


So, I hate to call into question one of your interps, after all you
are the rules author and authority, but are you certain this is what
you mean here?>>

1. I don't interpret myself. lol
2. I have lost track. Ask me this one again.

Jon


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/17/2004 22:06:11 Central Daylight Time,
jjmurphy@... writes:
Background: Assume a body's only opponent in HtH recoils, or whatever
would cause a follow-up if any different cases would be material to
the answer for some reason, and it follows up. Next bound it is
charged by _another_ opposing body. Replacement or not maybe doesn't
matter to the answer and I do not in fact see why it would. But if
it does for some reason please indicate.

In summary a body follows-up and next bound is charged by a _new_
body _not_ the one it is following up against from the previous bound.

Question: Does the following-up body get the +1 against the new
opponent or only against a body which it is actually following-up?>>

Against both it gets the +1.


Page 69, section 9.42...

"... or any troops against an enemy body they are following up or
pursuing">>

If one equates 'body they are following up' with a body that recoiled, then I
can see where this might be worded differently. I don't see it that way
myself, but I will mark this wording for review in the new rulebook.

J


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

[John Murphy]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> 2. I have lost track. Ask me this one again.

Background: Assume a body's only opponent in HtH recoils, or whatever
would cause a follow-up if any different cases would be material to
the answer for some reason, and it follows up. Next bound it is
charged by _another_ opposing body. Replacement or not maybe doesn't
matter to the answer and I do not in fact see why it would. But if
it does for some reason please indicate.

In summary a body follows-up and next bound is charged by a _new_
body _not_ the one it is following up against from the previous bound.

Question: Does the following-up body get the +1 against the new
opponent or only against a body which it is actually following-up?

Page 69, section 9.42...

"... or any troops against an enemy body they are following up or
pursuing"

Seemingly purposefully phrased differently from the charge +1 which
is, in the same sentence "... charging or counter-charging enemy
foot..." or "... charging or counter-charging any enemy..."

Note the key modifier "...against an enemy body they are..." present
in the follow-up case and not in the charge case.

Then there are all those other issues in my last post which we are
skipping back over to a previous one here. But this one is much more
generally applicable.

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/18/2004 09:25:16 Central Daylight Time,
jjendon@... writes:
Can you get this in the
clarification sheet ASAP please?
Sure. It will be in the next one.


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

[Don Coon]

> Question: Does the following-up body get the +1 against the new
> opponent or only against a body which it is actually following-up?>>
>
> Against both it gets the +1.
>
>
> Page 69, section 9.42...
>
> "... or any troops against an enemy body they are following up or
> pursuing">>
>
> If one equates 'body they are following up' with a body that recoiled,
then I
> can see where this might be worded differently. I don't see it that way
> myself, but I will mark this wording for review in the new rulebook.
>
> J

This really does need a quick printed clarification. We have always played,
and I have always ruled that the +1 was only against the actual opponent
that was being followed up. It occasionally happens that a following up
body is contacted in HTH on bound N+1 (especially if it has more frontage
than the recoiling foe) and we have been only awarding the +1 bonus vs the
recoiling foe, not the 2nd foe that just charged into the foloowing up body.
I am not disagreeing with your statement or intent, but as written "or any
troops against an enemy body they are following up" leaves no wiggle room
and as a judge gives me only one clear ruling. Can you get this in the
clarification sheet ASAP please?

Don

[Don Coon]

Thanks!

Don

> Can you get this in the
> clarification sheet ASAP please?
> Sure. It will be in the next one.