Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Jon,

I noted that EIR get Legionary Cavalry detachments for Legionaires and Auxilla. So here we go. . . Does a unit of Auxilla become disordered when charging or counter charging enemy when they have these cav attached as part of their unit in brush? The answer seems to be yes, but it seems that there should be some kind of list rule to cover this as the Romans wouldn't do this if it degraded their combat power. What is your take on this,

Kelly

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Okay, I'm feeling the general groan here. Kelly is trying to get some advantage or cause turmoil on the board. It's been a little too quiet here lately and actually I've been mulling over a way to make the EIR work for me. I like the period and believe this to be the most professional army's for the whole of the Roman Army's existence. It just seems to me that if cav. whether it's open order or loose order in a third rank of Auxilla should not cause the whole unit to be disordered in brush (for example) especially if they are not in a fighting rank. Warrior as a system or rather the army list makes this type of formation possible for "terrain troops" which is (as far as I can tell) historical. In the historical situation, I doubt that any such formation would have any detrimental effects if they charged enemy in combat with cav attached(in brush/rocky ground). Is there any way in Warrior we can mitigate this, because I think it is intriguing to see legionary cav. attached to Cohort sized units. If this is the wrong forum, I can happily copy and paste it in the Army List section.

Kelly

[joncleaves]

Kelly, I am sorry, I answered your question yesterday, but now I don't see it. Let me try again.

Combined units only ever have one troop state (although fatigue is tracked separately) so if a combined auxilia/cav unit charged through rough terrain, it would be disordered.

No list rule change to this is planned for EIR.

I have no idea why I got on tonight and my answer from yesterday was not here. Sorry for any inconvenience.

Jon

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Jon,

Thanks for the quick reply. The internet can be tricky and I realize that even though you are very dedicated as a Rules person, for reasons unknown, things occur. For some reason a while back I recall coming on this forum and it was all white which was quite odd. . . Anyway, I sort of expected your answer but found it an interesting situation nonetheless. It's too bad the legionaires have to pay for all that armor, more troops would make it much more fun like their Camillan friends.

Kelly

PS Thanks again and how about those Steelers, at least they're not stinking up the league like the Chiefs.

[Fred Stratton]

Jon:

As a follow-up to Kelly's question on combined units:

Should a unit of Elephants with LI escorts, or any other combined unit treated for movement/charging purposes as per the front rank of the unit. For example, two elephant models with two elements of LI attached behind the elephants would move during the cavalry phase of approaches. If the LI were attached in front of the elephants, the unit would move during the infantry phase of approaches. Charges would also depend upon the front rank for target type, and charge distance would be limited to the slowest portion of the combined unit. Of course, terrain should hamper a combined unit as per all types of figures present.

Is all of this correct or I am I just plain wrong?

Fred Stratton

[joncleaves]

There's some apples and oranges there, Fred. Nothing about troop state (the answer to Kelly's question) has to do with what a combined usint counts as for approach precedence. For approach precedence, an El/LI unit is foot.

Jon