Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Chris Bump]

In a message dated 11/15/2002 11:47:11 AM Central Standard Time,
damourc@... writes:


> While I'm at it, does anyone fight with Pikes in more than two ranks?
> Yes they do. Indeed, I have more often seen pikemen deployed 4 deep
> than otherwise. Having said that, going two deep often makes sense in
> game terms and is an historical deployment in my (not so) humble opinion.


Definitely do fight 4 deep with the Swiss. They get to expand into that
desireable line while following up. Lots of folks like John Green keep their
32 man pike blocks in 4x2 lines. Helps with casualties and acts more like
moveable terrain. Selucids I tend to fight in line, because I need to take
up board space often.
Chris






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

[Mark Stone]

I have a couple of questions, one a genuine rules question, and one a tournament
rules question.

Tournaments:

I know that in two-list tournaments your army has to be from the same
period/year. What I'm wondering about is lists that say things like "troops A
cannot be used with troops B".

Does this mean that I can't have both A and B on the same list (obviously it
means at least this), or does it mean that if I have a list with A, my other
list cannot have B, and vice versa?

A typical example would be Russ, Dark Ages #30, which says: "Pecheneg and Bulgar
allies cannot be used together". Does that mean I can have one list with
Pechenegs and one with Bulgars, or that for both lists I have to make a choice
between Pechenegs and Bulgars?

Rules:

My question concerns combat results, section 11.212, "Winning and Losing". Let
me set the context first.

As a guy who plays primarily knight armies, I'm often confronted with a
situation in which my cavalry can beat a pike block straight up on the first
bound, but only just or lose, but only just. I often have foot who, if I can get
them going impetuously, but cannot recoil a pike block on bound one, taking away
their follow up bonus on the subsequent bound. A tactic to get around this is to
have the foot and cavalry charge the pike block together, since the cavalry
cause the pike to recoil, and in follow up the foot have the staying power to
win out.

So here's a particular situation:
I'm facing a 32 figure MI pike block frontally, deployed in two ranks. I charge
it impetuously with 6 EHK L,Sh in two ranks, and 16 HI LTS,Sh in two ranks.
Everyone rolls even.
Pikes vs. knights: the pikes do 8@4=24; the knights do 5@5=20.
Pikes vs. LTS: the pikes do 16@2=32; the LTS do 16@3=40.
Pikes: take 60 overall, deal out 56 overall, they lose and take at least 1 CPF
LTS: take 32 overall, deal out 40 overall, they win
Knights: take 24 overall, deal out 20 overall, they lose

I'm very clear on what happens to the knights. They must either break off or
recoil, and I'd choose to have them recoil.

It's what happens to the pikes that is at issue. I have had _many_ players -- it
feels like every pike player I've ever fought -- argue that the pikes do not
recoil, because they did not lose to mounted. However, that's _not_ what the
rule says. The rule states:
"A body that receives more hand-to-hand casualties than it inflicted and at
least 1 CPF is destroyed if artillery, or if exhausted. If not foot fighting
mounted troops recoil and become disordered, unless the mounted break-off or
rout."

My reading is that the pike were fighting mounted, and did lose while taking at
least 1 CPF, and the mounted did not break off or rout, hence the pike recoil
disordered, and the LTS follow up. My reading is that if the intention were that
the pikes not recoil in this situation, the rule would read "unless the mounted
lose."

So I guess I'm not looking for clarification so much as affirmation that the
rule means what it says. Jon?


-Mark Stone

[joncleaves]

ok, Mark, I have cut in your situation so everyone can follow along.

<<So here's a particular situation:
I'm facing a 32 figure MI pike block frontally, deployed in two ranks. I charge
it impetuously with 6 EHK L,Sh in two ranks, and 16 HI LTS,Sh in two ranks.
Everyone rolls even.
Pikes vs. knights: the pikes do 8@4=24; the knights do 5@5=20.
Pikes vs. LTS: the pikes do 16@2=32; the LTS do 16@3=40.
Pikes: take 60 overall, deal out 56 overall, they lose and take at least 1 CPF
LTS: take 32 overall, deal out 40 overall, they win
Knights: take 24 overall, deal out 20 overall, they lose

I'm very clear on what happens to the knights. They must either break off or
recoil,>>

Good so far.

<< and I'd choose to have them recoil.>>

Up to you, but I see why you'd choose that in this case.

<<It's what happens to the pikes that is at issue. I have had _many_ players --
it
feels like every pike player I've ever fought -- argue that the pikes do not
recoil, because they did not lose to mounted. However, that's _not_ what the
rule says. The rule states:
"A body that receives more hand-to-hand casualties than it inflicted and at
least 1 CPF is destroyed if artillery, or if exhausted. If not foot fighting
mounted troops recoil and become disordered, unless the mounted break-off or
rout."

My reading is that the pike were fighting mounted, and did lose while taking at
least 1 CPF, and the mounted did not break off or rout, hence the pike recoil
disordered, and the LTS follow up. My reading is that if the intention were that
the pikes not recoil in this situation, the rule would read "unless the mounted
lose."

So I guess I'm not looking for clarification so much as affirmation that the
rule means what it says. Jon?>>

You are correct. It specifically says 'fighting mounted' and not 'lost to
mounted' for that reason. In this case the P would recoil disordered.

A note to all: if you are off on your own and don't have a clarification handy -
READ WARRIOR LITERALLY. It takes care of 99.9% of issues. This is an excellent
example: 11.212 says 'fighting mounted' not 'lost to mounted' for a very good
reason and it means exactly what it says.

> <<So here's a particular situation:
> I'm facing a 32 figure MI pike block frontally, deployed in two
ranks. I charge
> it impetuously with 6 EHK L,Sh in two ranks, and 16 HI LTS,Sh in
two ranks.


NO, I don't have my rules with me right now.

I thought mounted and foot couldn't charge the same enemy at the same
time.

Am I just remembering TOG or making stuff up?

While I'm at it, does anyone fight with Pikes in more than two ranks?

John Meunier

[joncleaves]

<<I thought mounted and foot couldn't charge the same enemy at the same time.>>

Mounted and NON-IMPETUOUS foot.

<<Am I just remembering TOG or making stuff up?>>

:)

<While I'm at it, does anyone fight with Pikes in more than two ranks?>>

I do.

> <While I'm at it, does anyone fight with Pikes in more than
> two ranks?>>

I try to. It's a work in progress though

[Chris Damour]

Since I wish to avoid the punishment booth, I'll let Jon answer the
"rules question". <<grin>>

On Fri, 15 Nov 2002, scribblerm wrote:
> NO, I don't have my rules with me right now.
>
> I thought mounted and foot couldn't charge the same enemy at the same
> time.
>
> Am I just remembering TOG or making stuff up?
>
> While I'm at it, does anyone fight with Pikes in more than two ranks?
Yes they do. Indeed, I have more often seen pikemen deployed 4 deep
than otherwise. Having said that, going two deep often makes sense in
game terms and is an historical deployment in my (not so) humble opinion.

--
Chris Damour

[Don Coon]

> While I'm at it, does anyone fight with Pikes in more than two ranks?
>
> John Meunier

Depends on what I am facing. When there is a preponderance of enemy cav I
usually thin my line out two ranks deep to maximize frontage. If I am
facing impetuous capable foot I do the same. When I manage to get sqaured
away on reg foot or uneasy/tired Irr foot however, I usually go 4 deep.

Don

[Patrick Byrne]

I think the awesome-ness of the Pike is this ability to fight 2 or 4 ranks
deep.
-PB

> From: <jjendon@...>
> Reply-To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 12:50:45 -0600
> To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: two rules questions
>
>
>> While I'm at it, does anyone fight with Pikes in more than two ranks?
>>
>> John Meunier
>
> Depends on what I am facing. When there is a preponderance of enemy cav I
> usually thin my line out two ranks deep to maximize frontage. If I am
> facing impetuous capable foot I do the same. When I manage to get sqaured
> away on reg foot or uneasy/tired Irr foot however, I usually go 4 deep.
>
> Don
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

What about the line -
Other pike armed foot recoil if already disordered, otherwise become
disordered. Three lines down.
How does that play into the mixed charge scenerio?


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 11/15/2002 20:14:48 Central Standard Time,
parrishbob@... writes:

> What about the line -
> Other pike armed foot recoil if already disordered, otherwise become
> disordered. Three lines down.

'Other' in that sentence is literal - meaning other than any foot mentioned
in any line before this one.

This is also true in all places where 'other' appears in a list.



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

[scott holder]

Does this mean that I can't have both A and B on the same list (obviously it m
eans at least this), or does it mean that if I have a list with A, my other li
st cannot have B, and vice versa?
A typical example would be Russ, Dark Ages #30, which says: "Pecheneg and Bulg
ar allies cannot be used together". Does that mean I can have one list with Pe
chenegs and one with Bulgars, or that for both lists I have to make a choice b
etween Pechenegs and Bulgars?

>The "can't be used together" clause indicates either the armies were used in
different years or very different geographic areas. As such, if you play in a
two-list tourney, you must choose between Pechenegs or Bulgars and can't have
one in one list and the other in the other list. If that clause isn't in the
re, then you could have one list with one ally and another list with the other
.

>Very good question. This brings up a point. The Theme tourneys (and Doubles
tourney) next year will be ONE list tournaments (although the Theme tourneys
might be a campaign theme in which case it's still one 1600 point list but whi
ch 1200 points you deploy each round could differ). The Mini at Hcon and NICT
/Open at Hcon will still be 2 list tourneys although I'm moving toward limitin
g those but don't want to do everything in one year. Plus I want to gauge how
one list tourneys work before I institute some widespread change.

>I also want to emphasize that how people do this at their own events is entir
ely there own bidness.

scott
list ho
ump ho

[Steve Hollowell]

First, (see high speed diagram below ) if one LI unit evades the charge of
another to its rear at what point to they pop through and successfully evade the
charger. In this example, GG rolls short in brush, BG rolls normal in brush. All
of the back element of GG is able to interpenetrate Knights, only the front edge
of the front element of GG is able to interpenetrate the Knights. Does BG catch
GG?

BGBGBG

GGGGGG

Knights



Question 2



A light cav unit charges a LI unit, the LI unit shakes on the waver test. Combat
happens, the LC doesn't do one CPF and chooses to break off. The LI unit changes
states from Shaken to Disordered. During the next approach phase, the disordered
LI approaches. Is this a legal approach or are they required to rally?

Thanks in advance and I am still waiting on the painted MP.

Learning new rules the hard way,

SH


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today!

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

[joncleaves]

First, (see high speed diagram below ) if one LI unit evades the charge of
another to its rear at what point to they pop through and successfully evade the
charger. In this example, GG rolls short in brush, BG rolls normal in brush. All
of the back element of GG is able to interpenetrate Knights, only the front edge
of the front element of GG is able to interpenetrate the Knights. Does BG catch
GG?

BGBGBG

GGGGGG

Knights>>
[
By your description, Steve, BG does not catch GG. If there was a rank that did
not get inot the kinghts, then that would stay on the charger's side and if the
charger could catch that rank, it would fight there.



<<Question 2

A light cav unit charges a LI unit, the LI unit shakes on the waver test. Combat
happens, the LC doesn't do one CPF and chooses to break off. The LI unit changes
states from Shaken to Disordered. During the next approach phase, the disordered
LI approaches. Is this a legal approach or are they required to rally? >>

They need to rally first, which will complete in the end phase.

<<Thanks in advance and I am still waiting on the painted MP.>>

I'll have him for you this weekend. I am sorry you still feel you need
him....lol

J

[Steve Hollowell]

JonCleaves@... wrote:
First, (see high speed diagram below ) if one LI unit evades the charge of
another to its rear at what point to they pop through and successfully evade the
charger. In this example, GG rolls short in brush, BG rolls normal in brush. All
of the back element of GG is able to interpenetrate Knights, only the front edge
of the front element of GG is able to interpenetrate the Knights. Does BG catch
GG?

BGBGBG

GGGGGG

Knights>>
[
By your description, Steve, BG does not catch GG. If there was a rank that did
not get inot the kinghts, then that would stay on the charger's side and if the
charger could catch that rank, it would fight there.


<
A light cav unit charges a LI unit, the LI unit shakes on the waver test. Combat
happens, the LC doesn't do one CPF and chooses to break off. The LI unit changes
states from Shaken to Disordered. During the next approach phase, the disordered
LI approaches. Is this a legal approach or are they required to rally? >>

They need to rally first, which will complete in the end phase.

SH - Ok, this is what I thought, but I am not sure why they need to rally...
meaning I couldn't back up my argument! :(

<>

I'll have him for you this weekend. I am sorry you still feel you need
him....lol

SH - I am getting better with it, but Light Cav still seems to want to hang out
in intersections despite my installation of traffic signals.

J




Yahoo! Groups Links








__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

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