Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[John Murphy]

I actually did have a couple questions buried in my recent meandering
post.

First, a rules question.

Just to be sure - can a Reg loose order foot detachment (permitted by
the army list) set-up or move into a "combined body" with a parent Reg
close order foot unit? There used to be, in TOG, a restriction on
combining different-order troops which I no longer find anywhere (and
not sure it ever applied to this case anyway)?

Second, a request for advice.

Are LC detachments (specifically for Byzantine EHC lancers) really a bad
idea?
The only time I see combining into a parent (it isn't like the 2E LC can
shoot or fight from behind a 2E EHC unit in its typical column) is to
stop a rout but that is a bit extreme to disorder a lancer to save a 37
pt unit. Am I missing something on this?
The other other plus I can see is the reduced command points which
allows you for the same cost to have twice as many units - so for
instance a command might have 2 2E units instead of 1 4E unit.
The obvious downside to me is the restriction on proximity to their
parent (can't voluntarily move more than 5" away in 15mm). This prevents
them from being used, especially at the start of the game, to march out
front and seize control of space to provide (and deprive you opponent)
of maneuver room. With my minimal grasp of tactics this is one of the
best uses for LC.

Are there other plusses and minuses to this choice?



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

John, I'm not the expert, nor am I a great user or beliver in detachments, thus
I'm the perfect person to offer an opinion :)

first, the routing LC detachment transfers his CPF to the parent upon return.
This in itself is a showstopper for me personally, but then you add to this the
fact that whatever caused the rout will now convert charge into your standing to
receive disordered EHC make is so much worse. Now you are talking major rout
next bound in most instances.

Second, using detachments does have it's uses. EL and chariot detachments are
a great way to keep the parent body fresh if the detachment is missile armed
loose or open formation troops, and it is a good way to lure targets closer
without exposing your flanks to counterstroke. the trick is to skirmish the
detachment and evade through the parent _before_ charging the target in order to
avoid disorder. The best part is to simply keep the detachment attached to the
parent as a cheap way to make the parent more immune to CPF. 2 RgA Hch with a
detachment of 2 LMI B can take much more damage than the 2 chariots alone. Here
again the problem is disorder which allows the entire unit to take damage as the
second rank (in this case sheildless LMI).

Hopefully most of what I said is correct :)

Wanax

John Murphy <jjmurphy@...> wrote:
I actually did have a couple questions buried in my recent meandering
post.

First, a rules question.

Just to be sure - can a Reg loose order foot detachment (permitted by
the army list) set-up or move into a "combined body" with a parent Reg
close order foot unit? There used to be, in TOG, a restriction on
combining different-order troops which I no longer find anywhere (and
not sure it ever applied to this case anyway)?

Second, a request for advice.

Are LC detachments (specifically for Byzantine EHC lancers) really a bad
idea?
The only time I see combining into a parent (it isn't like the 2E LC can
shoot or fight from behind a 2E EHC unit in its typical column) is to
stop a rout but that is a bit extreme to disorder a lancer to save a 37
pt unit. Am I missing something on this?
The other other plus I can see is the reduced command points which
allows you for the same cost to have twice as many units - so for
instance a command might have 2 2E units instead of 1 4E unit.
The obvious downside to me is the restriction on proximity to their
parent (can't voluntarily move more than 5" away in 15mm). This prevents
them from being used, especially at the start of the game, to march out
front and seize control of space to provide (and deprive you opponent)
of maneuver room. With my minimal grasp of tactics this is one of the
best uses for LC.

Are there other plusses and minuses to this choice?



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


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

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.


Lord of the Meadehall of men! Aknowledged professional sack lounger. Creator
of semi-lifeforms in their millions. The good looking twin, though sinister in
thought and deed. He who would produce but for 7 years of inactivity punctuated
by frenzied finger touching. Smooth.

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

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

[Chris Damour]

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 spocksleftball@... wrote:
> John, I'm not the expert, nor am I a great user or beliver in
> detachments, thus I'm the perfect person to offer an opinion
>
> first, the routing LC detachment transfers his CPF to the parent upon
> return. This in itself is a showstopper for me personally, but then you
> add to this the fact that whatever caused the rout will now convert
> charge into your standing to receive disordered EHC make is so much
> worse. Now you are talking major rout next bound in most instances.
>
> Hopefully most of what I said is correct :)


Ummnnn... No! CPF from a rejoining detachment DOES NOT add to the
parent unit when they rejoin. More later.

--
Christopher Damour

[John Murphy]

Yeah there was never any doubt the "saving the 37 pt router by
combining into parent" thing is a bad way to go. But that is not the
only use.

There is the issue of getting 2 2E LC units in a command for the
price of 1 4E LC unit. Not sure exactly why this might be good or
how to translate it into an advantage wheighed against the proximity
requirement.

more below...

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, <spocksleftball@y...> wrote:
> Second, using detachments does have it's uses. EL and chariot
detachments are a great way to keep the parent body fresh if the
detachment is missile armed loose or open formation troops, and it
is a good way to lure targets closer without exposing your flanks to
counterstroke. the trick is to skirmish the detachment and evade
through the parent _before_ charging the target in order to avoid
disorder. The best part is to simply keep the detachment attached
to the parent as a cheap way to make the parent more immune to CPF.
2 RgA Hch with a detachment of 2 LMI B can take much more damage
than the 2 chariots alone. Here again the problem is disorder which
allows the entire unit to take damage as the second rank (in this
case sheildless LMI).

Gotcha on the CPF item. With EHC/LC you'd wind up with a 1-wide 4-
deep column which is weird but it might do some good. Only a very
slight plus though (8 figs vice 6).

As for the described tactic what is the difference here between the
detachments versus a seperate unit? And is this kind of thing valid
for an 2E EHC/HC unit with 2E LC detachment? Sounds like it might be
to a point but still not sure how it matters wether it is 2 2E
detachments or 1 4E unit.

Finally, any idea on the foot detachment rules question (can LMI
combine with HI/MI)?

Chris, I didn't say "add to" , rather it transfers it. The assumption is that
the detachment as it is routing will have the higher total, which on pg28 in
section 5.31 "If a detachment joins its parent, the combined unit immediately
gains the higher of the two FP totals."

However, I did forget the if the routing detachment is other than LI, the parent
takes a waver test when the detachment meets the parent. Pg 15 section 2.53.
Wanax

damourc <damourc@...> wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 spocksleftball@... wrote:
> John, I'm not the expert, nor am I a great user or beliver in
> detachments, thus I'm the perfect person to offer an opinion
>
> first, the routing LC detachment transfers his CPF to the parent upon
> return. This in itself is a showstopper for me personally, but then you
> add to this the fact that whatever caused the rout will now convert
> charge into your standing to receive disordered EHC make is so much
> worse. Now you are talking major rout next bound in most instances.
>
> Hopefully most of what I said is correct :)


Ummnnn... No! CPF from a rejoining detachment DOES NOT add to the
parent unit when they rejoin. More later.

--
Christopher Damour


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

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.


Lord of the Meadehall of men! Aknowledged professional sack lounger. Creator
of semi-lifeforms in their millions. The good looking twin, though sinister in
thought and deed. He who would produce but for 7 years of inactivity punctuated
by frenzied finger touching. Smooth.

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 7/10/2003 12:13:34 PM Eastern Standard Time,
jjmurphy@... writes:

> Just to be sure - can a Reg loose order foot detachment (permitted by the army
list) set-up or move into a "combined body" with a parent Reg close order foot
unit? There used to be, in TOG, a restriction on combining different-order
troops which I no longer find anywhere (and
> not sure it ever applied to this case anyway)?>>

Different order troops may be joined in combined bodies of parent/detachment if
the list so allows.

We did not explicitly state in the lists that anything in the lists that
contravenes a core rule wins out, but thanks to Ewan, we are about to. Stay
tuned.

J