Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mark Stone]

So, this has come up in the last couple of games I've played. It has probably
come up a lot more than that, and I just haven't noticed, but it's an odd
situation that needs clarification.

The rules pretty clearly state (don't have them with me, sorry) that in a given
tactical move you may only interpenetrate one body. This makes perfect sense
when applied to the situation I think it is intended to handle:

Unit 1 is a light infantry unit at the head of a "column" of units, with Unit 2
of spearmen 40p behind Unit 1 and Unit 3 of cavalry 40p behind Unit 2. What we
don't want is the Unit 1 making a recall move that "teleports" it all the way
to the back of the whole column. Thus if it can't fit between Unit 2 and Unit
3, then it can't make the recall move (and might have to waver test) as it can
only interpenetrate one body in a tactical move.

Where things get odd is in the following situation, the one I have finally been
noticing (though it doubtless occurs more often):

Unit 1 is a light infantry unit, say, 3 stands wide and 2 ranks deep, and behind
it Unit 2 and Unit 3 are side by side (let's say they're each 2 stands wide and
2 ranks deep). Unit 1 is 40p in front of Unit 2 and 3. Can it make a recall or
evade move in this situation?

Any recall or evade move would take it into both Unit 2 and 3. That would mean
interpenetrating two bodies, which, reading the rules literally, is precluded.
There seem to me to be three possibilities:

(1) The tactical move simply cannot be made, per the way the rules are written.
Unit 1 may well have to waver test (if it was in a test or recall situation),
or it may have to halt its evade directly in front of Units 2 and 3 and suffer
the consequences. I think this reading is fine, but I'll bet most people
haven't been playing this situation this way.

(2) Either Unit 2 or Unit 3, whichever is contacted second, is the shoulder of a
gap as a "body that cannot be interpenetrated" since interpenetration has
already begun on the other body, and only one body in a turn can be
interpenetrated. Thus Unit 1 contracts elements to pass the gap, and is
inserted in contracted form beyond the interpenetrated body. This too seems
consistent with the rules, but seems like an odd consequence in this situation.
Note also that this might require the presence of some other Unit 4 to form the
other shoulder of the gap, and that the whole gap might have to be narrower
than Unit 1.

(3) Clarify the rules to say that no _element_ in a body may interpenetrate more
than one body in a tactical move. I'd be happy with this result too, as it makes
some real world sense: Joe, at one end of the line who is evading back through
Unit 2, isn't really going to care that Fred, at the opposite end of the line,
is evading back through a unit other than Unit 2.

Anyway, I'm unclear on which of these three is the correct way to understand the
situation.


-Mark Stone

[joncleaves]

I think I will stop answering rules questions that include the note that the
player does not have the rules with them...lol

Mark, I'll be happy to look up the clarifications for you. The one you are
looking for is:


6.52 (Pg 54) Fourth Paragraph, last sentence: Add “simultaneous or� between
“interpenetration is� and “involuntary�.

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Stone <mark@...>
To: warrior <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Fri, 13 May 2005 16:09:25 +0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] rules question: interpenetration


So, this has come up in the last couple of games I've played. It has probably
come up a lot more than that, and I just haven't noticed, but it's an odd
situation that needs clarification.

The rules pretty clearly state (don't have them with me, sorry) that in a given
tactical move you may only interpenetrate one body. This makes perfect sense
when applied to the situation I think it is intended to handle:

Unit 1 is a light infantry unit at the head of a "column" of units, with Unit 2
of spearmen 40p behind Unit 1 and Unit 3 of cavalry 40p behind Unit 2. What we
don't want is the Unit 1 making a recall move that "teleports" it all the way
to the back of the whole column. Thus if it can't fit between Unit 2 and Unit
3, then it can't make the recall move (and might have to waver test) as it can
only interpenetrate one body in a tactical move.

Where things get odd is in the following situation, the one I have finally been
noticing (though it doubtless occurs more often):

Unit 1 is a light infantry unit, say, 3 stands wide and 2 ranks deep, and behind
it Unit 2 and Unit 3 are side by side (let's say they're each 2 stands wide and
2 ranks deep). Unit 1 is 40p in front of Unit 2 and 3. Can it make a recall or
evade move in this situation?

Any recall or evade move would take it into both Unit 2 and 3. That would mean
interpenetrating two bodies, which, reading the rules literally, is precluded.
There seem to me to be three possibilities:

(1) The tactical move simply cannot be made, per the way the rules are written.
Unit 1 may well have to waver test (if it was in a test or recall situation),
or it may have to halt its evade directly in front of Units 2 and 3 and suffer
the consequences. I think this reading is fine, but I'll bet most people
haven't been playing this situation this way.

(2) Either Unit 2 or Unit 3, whichever is contacted second, is the shoulder of a
gap as a "body that cannot be interpenetrated" since interpenetration has
already begun on the other body, and only one body in a turn can be
interpenetrated. Thus Unit 1 contracts elements to pass the gap, and is
inserted in contracted form beyond the interpenetrated body. This too seems
consistent with the rules, but seems like an odd consequence in this situation.
Note also that this might require the presence of some other Unit 4 to form the
other shoulder of the gap, and that the whole gap might have to be narrower
than Unit 1.

(3) Clarify the rules to say that no _element_ in a body may interpenetrate more
than one body in a tactical move. I'd be happy with this result too, as it makes
some real world sense: Joe, at one end of the line who is evading back through
Unit 2, isn't really going to care that Fred, at the opposite end of the line,
is evading back through a unit other than Unit 2.

Anyway, I'm unclear on which of these three is the correct way to understand the
situation.


-Mark Stone





Yahoo! Groups Links






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