Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

> Unit A is fighting units X & Y (for simplicity all are legions)
>
> unit A does more than unit Y but not 1CPF
> units X&Y do more than unit A and 1CPF
>
> result unit A recoils with both X&Y following up.
>
> This is correct?
>
> He was concerned about the unit that took more than it gave
> out following up.>>

Y follows up because all of its opponents recoiled (or routed/broke off).
11.221

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/9/2003 4:25:42 AM Eastern Standard Time, markmallard77
writes:

> personally i would have thought (in my humble opinion) that as long as the
> cumulative charge reach is 80 paces then the scythes should
> count.>>

That is correct and the text of 16.26 isn't worded the best way. I will add
this to the next clarification update.

Jon

[Mark Mallard]

Jon,

thx again for answers. i hope you dont mind. i am hoping to get a regular
game going every sunday and run a tourny in a few months time so i need to be
a little more clear on the odd situation to have any authority.

here is another situation we found tricky

Unit A is Irr Lc 3 elements wide skirmishing with bow

to its front are three enemy reg cav units one element wide each

unit X is 40 paces away and LC reg jls in skirmish
unit Y is 80 paces away and HC reg lance
unit Z is same as X

they are set up like this:

AAA
AAA

X Z
X YZ
Y

Unit A declares an impetuous charge
Units Y & Z also declare charges

Is unit A's charge cancelled because of unit Y's charge?

Would the answer be the same if unit A declared a non impetuous charge?

thx
mark mallard

ps for scott - i was at derby in the 90s with seleucids and a pal of mine had
mongols. in those days i could get 10 bounds in the alotted time.


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

[Don Coon]

> > Unit A is fighting units X & Y (for simplicity all are legions)
> >
> > unit A does more than unit Y but not 1CPF
> > units X&Y do more than unit A and 1CPF
> >
> > result unit A recoils with both X&Y following up.
> >
> > This is correct?
> >
> > He was concerned about the unit that took more than it gave
> > out following up.>>
>
> Y follows up because all of its opponents recoiled (or routed/broke
off). 11.221

Just for total clarity - Y MAY follow up due to 11.221, but since it
is not mounted or IMP, it does not have to.

Correct?

Don

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/9/2003 8:53:14 AM Eastern Standard Time,
jjendon@... writes:

> Just for total clarity - Y MAY follow up due to 11.221, but
> since it
> is not mounted or IMP, it does not have to.
>
> Correct?>>

Yes. And can't if took a mounted charge at a halt.

[Mark Mallard]

Jon,

thx for being so quick - there have been several interpretations of this one
in our group. i guess this is where aour games get slowed down.

so...basically the LC units X & Z have allowed unit A to charge unit Y. where
it would not normally be allowed to do so.?

the LC (A) charges into the HC (Y)and LC (Z) and vice versa

resulting in

AAA
YZ
YZ

if unit Z had not declared a charge it would have had to evade
so assuming Z evaded if A was not impetuous it would still have
charged into the charging unit Y?

it may look simple to all you experts but confusion arises because normally
lights cannot charge heavy troops.

i thought the logic thread might be as follows

at the time of the charge the LC are charging LC and thus can declare a
charge
they can be impetuous because they are IRR
if they are impetuous they can now hit ANY unit in the charge path not just
the LC

but jon said it made no difference if they were impetuous or no

so the logic thread must be

at the time of the charge the LC are charging LC and thus can declare a
charge
they can hit any unit charging into the charge path not just the LC

is that right?

answer much appreciated

mark



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

[joncleaves]

<<Is unit A's charge cancelled because of unit Y's charge?>>

No.

<<Would the answer be the same if unit A declared a non impetuous charge?>>

As A is mounted, impetuous has nothing to do with this situation.

[joncleaves]

>
> so...basically the LC units X & Z have allowed unit A to charge unit Y. where
> it would not normally be allowed to do so.?>>

That is a misleading rewording of what I said. A could not and did not declare
a charge on Y.

> the LC (A) charges into the HC (Y)and LC (Z) >>

A charges Z. Y charges A. A did not declare a charge on Y and could not have.
Where Y finds A when it contacts them is charging (and in contact with) Z. Just
because in 99% of cases LC is evading in such a situation does not mean it's
impossible for a HC unit to find itself in contact with an LC that charged
someone else.

> > if unit Z had not declared a charge it would have had to evade>>

No - it could have stood. And A's situation has nothing to do with Z charging.
The situation would have been the same if Z had charged or evaded. I think you
should read again what exactly cancels a charge - it doesn't include this
situation, but your continued references to A being impetuous are making me
think you are treating this as though A were foot.

< so assuming Z evaded if A was not impetuous it would still have charged into
the charging unit Y?>>

Y would have hit A while A was making its charge move. Has nothing to do with
anyone in this entire situation being impetuous since they are all mounted.
There is no cancel charges case where an HC in the charge path of LC cancels a
legally declared charge by that LC.

[Mark Mallard]

Jon,

These are real easy ones, just needing clarification.

Can the CinC prompt anyone in his army?

The next one is similar to an earlier question of mine.

A unit is already disordered it is then recoiled with a disordering combat
result, it fails its waver and goes shaken. The other unit had done enough to
break through so now opts to break through. This is another cause of
disorder, so is it another waver test.?

mark mallard



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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 5/3/2003 08:17:23 Central Daylight Time,
markmallard77@... writes:

> Can the CinC prompt anyone in his army?

Only if he has joined the body. 4.3

>
> The next one is similar to an earlier question of mine.
>
> A unit is already disordered it is then recoiled with a disordering combat
> result, it fails its waver and goes shaken. The other unit had done enough
> to
> break through so now opts to break through. This is another cause of
> disorder, so is it another waver test.?
>

No. No matter how many causes of disorder (in the same shooting/hth phase)
apply to a disordered body, there is only one waver test as that is all only
one cause of a waver test even if multiple causes of disorder.


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

[Chris Bump]

In a message dated 5/4/2003 10:41:52 AM Central Standard Time,
JonCleaves@... writes:


> No. No matter how many causes of disorder (in the same shooting/hth phase)
> apply to a disordered body, there is only one waver test as that is all
> only
> one cause of a waver test even if multiple causes of disorder.
>

So are you saying that an entire turn is considered or just per phase? By
shooting/ hth are you speaking of support shooting or are you including prep
shooting? The obvious question that rises if you are talking an entire turn
as opposed to phase is a unit receiving disorder in prep shooting and then
again in hth. We have played that such a unit does in fact take a waiver
test. Have we misinterpreted your intent?
Chris


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 5/4/2003 11:12:42 Central Daylight Time, cncbump@...
writes:

> So are you saying that an entire turn is considered or just per phase?

Combat Phase (prep, support, hand to hand)


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

[Chris Bump]

In a message dated 5/4/2003 11:14:53 AM Central Standard Time,
JonCleaves@... writes:


> > So are you saying that an entire turn is considered or just per phase?
>
> Combat Phase (prep, support, hand to hand)
>

So then we have been playing it wrong by requiring that a unit becoming
disordered in prep and then again in hth take a waiver test? This brings up
some additional interesting questions. If a unit of cav charges a unit of
camels and is disordered in hth and or support shooting is the cav then
required to take a waiver test? He is disordered by the camels and then
again by the results of hth/support shooting, but this all took place within
the same "combat" phase. This, of course, then begs the parallel question of
rough terrain. If a cav unit charges a foot unit beyond difficult terrain
and in the course of hth/ support shooting the cav unit becomes disordered,
is the cav unit required to take a waiver test? He was disordered by
charging across the rough terrain and subsequently in hth, but again this
took place in the same phase.

It would seem, assuming I am reading your recent posts correctly that quite a
change from how we've read/ interpreted the rules is in order.
Chris


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 5/4/2003 12:28:01 Central Daylight Time, cncbump@...
writes:

> So then we have been playing it wrong by requiring that a unit becoming
> disordered in prep and then again in hth take a waiver test?>>


Ok, let me get this all back under control...lol

First, you have read the clarifications, yes? It makes my job SO much more
difficult when I get asked a question and the asker has not even read the
rules. I am not a free rules-reading service. I am here for you when you
think the rules, after you have read them, remain unclear. I am not here
because you (the plural you) don't have the energy to crack the book. And
the clarifications are the book as much as the book is.

Here's the quotation I have taken the time to cut in from the clarifications
available on both this group and our website:

"5.52 (Pg 31) Under "Combat-caused disorder", add the following after the
bulleted list:

"Note a body only takes one waver test from suffering a second disorder from
combat even if it suffers multiple combat-caused disorder results
simultaneously."

The rule from the book that make the body take the test says:

"(SECOND DISORDER). Receiving a "become disordered" combat result while
already disordered...."

Please note that nowhere does it say that the reason the body is already
disordered has to be from combat.

I think that should do it. :)


This brings up >
> some additional interesting questions. If a unit of cav charges a unit of
> camels and is disordered in hth and or support shooting is the cav then
> required to take a waiver test?

Waivers are for football players...lol. But the answer is yes. At the time
the cav receives a combat cause of disorder, it is already disordered.

He is disordered by the camels and then >
> again by the results of hth/support shooting, but this all took place
> within
> the same "combat" phase.

Actually, no. There is a charge phase and there is a hand to hand combat
phase, but that is actually irrelevant to your question as asked.

This, of course, then begs the parallel question of >
> rough terrain. If a cav unit charges a foot unit beyond difficult terrain
> and in the course of hth/ support shooting the cav unit becomes disordered,
>
> is the cav unit required to take a waiver test?


Waver test. Yes.

He was disordered by >
> charging across the rough terrain and subsequently in hth, but again this
> took place in the same phase.
>

No it did not and again that is irrelevant which makes me wonder why you keep
bringing it up Chris.

I was confused by all this talk of turns and phases, so i tried to clear up
that you didn't have to 'remember' causes of disorder from turn to turn or
even phase to phase and that you could take several '2d disorder' wavers in a
TURN but never EVER two in the same PHASE. Somehow that all got twisted....

> It would seem, assuming I am reading your recent posts correctly that quite
> a
> change from how we've read/ interpreted the rules is in order.
>

No, I don't think so. As you seemed to 'want' it to be that I answered yes
but were worried I was going to answer no for some reason.

Jon


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 5/4/2003 20:30:03 Central Daylight Time,
jjendon@... writes:

> I am a bit foggy on how you consider Prep disorder and HTH disorder to be
> simultaneous combat causes. Note the rule (cut and pasted from your
> response to Chris):
>

I do not so consider. ALL I said was that those three phases were all
'combat' phases (as in a common name for all three), not that combat disorder
in any one was somehow simultaneous with combat disorder in another.

Man, Scott was right about you....lol

Once again I STRONGLY recommend that rules questions from your group be
handled offline. Please just ask me privately and cc the other guys.
Thanks.

Jon


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