Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

Now that Historicon is over, I wanted to put out a few issues for
discussion that occurred to me while observing various games.

Let me start by saying that I enjoy our group more than ever. I think that
rules and clarifications can only do so much to avoid disagreements and
conflicts. Ultimately it's the people involved that matter. We have a
great group of people now, and overall I think we set a high standard for
gentlemanly competition. That's really the thing that has changed the most
over the last ten years.

Now, about those rules.

1. Mounted shooting. I heard tell that chariot archers, elephant archers,
and bowmen from a second rank of cav were being allowed to shoot at
evaders in pursuit. This is in complete contradiction to everything I've
seen on the table over the last ten years, and made me wonder what basis
there could be for this interpretation in the rules.

The ambiguity seems to be around chargers who fail to contact. If a charge
that fails to contact is still a charge, then chargers may shoot in
support, I guess, though what they'd be "supporting" is unclear since
they've failed to contact. But my understanding is that a charge that
fails to contact becomes a pursuit, and pursuers are not eligible to
shoot.

It's really that simple: if I'm charging, I can shoot; if I'm pursuing, I
cannot. I think the rules make it quite clear that in failing to contact
evaders I am pursuing, but I could be wrong. In any case clarification on
this point is urgently needed.

2. Baggage. I know at Cold Wars and Historicon we were to treat camps as
if occupied by Irr D with IPW, but this just seems bizarre to me. There's
no basis for this in the rules at all. Camps are just unmanned transport
elements, aren't they? Why is that so hard? They're like wagons that can't
move, or stakes/chains that have been left in the ground by troops that
have moved on. They can presumably be destroyed by engineering damage, but
can't be attacked, can be defended by any troops that choose to occupy
them, and can simply be occupied by the enemy if undefended. At least,
that's what I had always thought. If there's a reason to do something more
complicated, let me know, but I worry that we are making a simple rule
needlessly complex.

3. Skirmish. I'm finding it difficult to understand the requirement for
going into skirmish. It's something like: must be eligible to prep shoot,
or could become eligible as a result of an enemy approach. Let me first
say that I've never thought this made any sense. It would have been like
saying, back in the days of wedge, that you had to be eligible to charge
to go into wedge, or assuming that you can only go into orb if you could
be charged (we _don't_ make that requirement). That's just silly. Troops
assume eligible formations in anticipation of future events, whether
immediate or in a subsequent bound. I can't see how an enemy posture
affects what formations my troops are capable of.

Be that as it may, I'm now trying to understand how English longbowmen can
put down stakes in skirmish. Never mind the realism point here (soldier
runs to the front of the formation, strikes a hammer blow to his stake,
runs to the rear, then runs forward for another hammer
blow... riiiight). Troops who place stakes are not eligible to prep
shoot. If you aren't eligible to prep shoot, how can you be in skirmish?

I know that this skirmish rule was put in place to limit armies that went
into skirmish at the earliest opportunity, and simply faded away from the
enemy. I know that this skirmish rule was put in place to encourage more
decisive battles. But aren't there other ways we could achieve the same
affect? Here are a couple of suggestions:
- mild: units in skirmish take a shooting fatigue in prep shooting,
whether they have an eligible target or not.
- extreme: units in skirmish take a CPF.

4. Staff elements joining other bodies. Years ago I used to use this rule
to sleaze around the disorder due to dismount. It went like this. The rule
says something like: staff elements joining another body have the morale
and cohesion of the body joined, cohesion being the key here. So a staff
element of knights 40 paces behind, say, javelinmen facing pikemen would
dismount -- becoming disordered -- and move 40 to join the javelinmen. The
knights go to the front of the body (generals are always in the front),
and the whole has the cohesion of the javelinmen, namely steady, _not_
disordered.

From a realism point of view this should probably be allowed. Why should
one staff element disorder a much larger body?

From a playability point of view this should probably be disallowed; there
are no non-sleazy reasons to pull this maneuver.

I'd vote for disallowing, but some clarification is in order.


-Mark Stone

[joncleaves]

<< Now, about those rules.

1. Mounted shooting. I heard tell that chariot archers, elephant archers,
and bowmen from a second rank of cav were being allowed to shoot at
evaders in pursuit. This is in complete contradiction to everything I've
seen on the table over the last ten years, and made me wonder what basis
there could be for this interpretation in the rules.

The ambiguity seems to be around chargers who fail to contact. If a charge
that fails to contact is still a charge, then chargers may shoot in
support, I guess, though what they'd be "supporting" is unclear since
they've failed to contact. But my understanding is that a charge that
fails to contact becomes a pursuit, and pursuers are not eligible to
shoot. >>

Mark, a charge that fails to charge is a charge. A pursuit happens as a
result of hand to hand combat - AFTER one is fought. True in WRG 7th - true
also in Warrior.

I have heard rumors that people have assumed that the rules MEANT to allow
only shooters who made contact to shoot at evaders. Don't know where that
comes from myself, but it seems a pretty widespread phenom. I will open this
issue when I send my 'what you can do about Warrior production' email. Not
going to comment on it further until then.

<< 2. Baggage. I know at Cold Wars and Historicon we were to treat camps as
if occupied by Irr D with IPW, but this just seems bizarre to me. There's
no basis for this in the rules at all. Camps are just unmanned transport
elements, aren't they?>>

yes, they are. they will be Irr D transport elements without other 'guard
figures' when the rules are published. Scott was concerned too many people
had never fought against transport and didn't get it. Well, they are gonna
hafta.

<< 3. Skirmish. I'm finding it difficult to understand the requirement for
going into skirmish. >>

Skirmish wasn't defensive, it was done to allow more shooters by cycling
them. This one isn't gonna change in the base rules. I suggest holding off
on this one until x-rules time.


<< 4. Staff elements joining other bodies. Years ago I used to use this rule
to sleaze around the disorder due to dismount.>>

Hey, Mark, I'll talk to Scott, but allowing a staff element to dismount and
go steady in a whole body doesn't bother me at all.

[joncleaves]

Thanks, Don.

[Don Coon]

> 1. Mounted shooting. I heard tell that chariot archers, elephant archers,
> and bowmen from a second rank of cav were being allowed to shoot at
> evaders in pursuit. This is in complete contradiction to everything I've
> seen on the table over the last ten years, and made me wonder what basis
> there could be for this interpretation in the rules.
>
> The ambiguity seems to be around chargers who fail to contact. If a charge
> that fails to contact is still a charge, then chargers may shoot in
> support, I guess, though what they'd be "supporting" is unclear since
> they've failed to contact. But my understanding is that a charge that
> fails to contact becomes a pursuit, and pursuers are not eligible to
> shoot.
>
> It's really that simple: if I'm charging, I can shoot; if I'm pursuing, I
> cannot. I think the rules make it quite clear that in failing to contact
> evaders I am pursuing, but I could be wrong. In any case clarification on
> this point is urgently needed.


Wow. I thought the rules were clear that chargers could shoot. We have
always allowed chargers who do not make contact to shoot at eveaders. It
says chargers can shoot. Failing to contact an evader does not make you a
pursuer. Pursuit is only done to a routing body to my knowledge. Where do
you see that failing to make contact makes you a pursuer?

Don

[joncleaves]

A charge against evaders is a variable move (6.112) and NOT a pursuit. A
pursuit is a combat results move (6.33) and only takes place after a hand to
hand is fought (11.0).

The above is not an element of a debate. It is a rules summary.
Jon

[Eric Turner]

DONALD COON wrote:

>
> > 1. Mounted shooting. I heard tell that chariot archers, elephant
> archers,
> > and bowmen from a second rank of cav were being allowed to shoot at
> > evaders in pursuit. This is in complete contradiction to everything
> I've
> > seen on the table over the last ten years, and made me wonder what
> basis
> > there could be for this interpretation in the rules.
> >
> > The ambiguity seems to be around chargers who fail to contact. If a
> charge
> > that fails to contact is still a charge, then chargers may shoot in
> > support, I guess, though what they'd be "supporting" is unclear
> since
> > they've failed to contact. But my understanding is that a charge
> that
> > fails to contact becomes a pursuit, and pursuers are not eligible to
>
> > shoot.
> >
> > It's really that simple: if I'm charging, I can shoot; if I'm
> pursuing, I
> > cannot. I think the rules make it quite clear that in failing to
> contact
> > evaders I am pursuing, but I could be wrong. In any case
> clarification on
> > this point is urgently needed.
>
>
> Wow. I thought the rules were clear that chargers could shoot. We
> have
> always allowed chargers who do not make contact to shoot at eveaders.
> It
> says chargers can shoot. Failing to contact an evader does not make
> you a
> pursuer. Pursuit is only done to a routing body to my knowledge.
> Where do
> you see that failing to make contact makes you a pursuer?
>
> Don

Don,

I disagree your statement and Mark is correct. Yes, Chargers may shoot.
But as soon as you roll the die for a veritable move distance, your has
become a pursuit. 8.81 states "Bodies who charge or counter-charge can
shoot.......". A charge has a set distance and persuit may vary in
distance. This is very straight forward to me.

Eric

>
>
>
> 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.

[Don Coon]

> Don,
>
> I disagree your statement and Mark is correct. Yes, Chargers may shoot.
> But as soon as you roll the die for a veritable move distance, your has
> become a pursuit. 8.81 states "Bodies who charge or counter-charge can
> shoot.......". A charge has a set distance and persuit may vary in
> distance. This is very straight forward to me.
>
> Eric

Eric,

Where in the rules do you see any support for the statement "as soon as you
roll the die for a veritable move distance, your has become a pursuit"?
I have read 6.33 (which is the para you should have used to defend your
position), and I totally disagree with you. 6.33 defines what a pursuit
move is and in part says "pursuit moves are similar to charges at evading
troops." Notice it does not say pursuit moves INCLUDE charges at evading
troops, just that they are similar (the similarity being the variable
distance). Pursuit can only occur as a result of para 11.2 which says in
part "pursuit is a tactical move made when all opponents break off or rout"
Nothing about charging with out contact here. Notice all the other evidence
in 6.33 like "impetuous pursuers must convert thier pursuit into a charge
into the new enemy" since a converted charge can only occur as a result of
combat (see 6.167 for full clarification on this issue) pursuit is
impossible in the charge phase. Read also 6.165 para 2 sentance 3. For
those charges that result in charging troops contacting... No where in here
does it say anything about troops not contacting doing anything but a charge
move. Notice also 6.16 item c (which comes after item b) "charge moves.
The thing you do in item c is a CHARGE MOVE and what your opponent did in
item b is irrelavant to this. Also see 6.112 variable moves bullet 2
"charges at evading or routing troops". Yes a charge at an evader is
variable move, but this does not make it a pursuit. It just makes it a
charge move of variable length. You two guys have manufactured something
out of thin air. There is plenty of rule support to defend my position. As
a concession to you I might like to see 6.33 rewroded to "Pursuit moves are
made when all HTH opponents break off or rout. They are similar to charge
moves after evading troops." Would that solidify it for you? Jon?

Don (a nice guy, but a rules lawyer)