Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Frank Gilson]

Various parts of the rules (detachments, block formation) talk about elements having to be in "side edge and corner-to-corner" contact.

We all know what that means and play properly...but...the detachment issue, and where parent and detachment elements can be or are...throws this off a little bit.

Technically, given a very strict reading of "side edge AND corner-to-corner" (emphasis mine), most units fail this test...

Why? Well, because some of the elements in most units are NOT in contact at all with some of the other elements in the unit (but only in some kind of chain contact through side edges OR corners, at a distance). Clearly that's not what the rules mean, or how we play.

Yet...how we play, or what the rules mean, is 'strained' by detachments and parent bodies attempting to combine and then expand, contract, follow-up, turn, pass gaps, etc.

I had 'thought' that how we play, and what this kind of element contact means, would permit a detachment, combined with a parent body, to form an 'L' shape as long as other parts of the rules weren't violated.

Jon has stated that this is wrong, and that the word 'intermingled' is supposed to take care of it...but it really doesn't...

And hey...is the front edge or rear edge of an element a 'side edge' for these purposes?

Frank

[joncleaves]

I think I am being inaccurately represented.

the "l-shape" - if I am right about what you are referring to - is indeed illegal for a combined body.

*You* were uncomfortable with the word intermingled as it applies to preventing that configuration.

I asked for suggested rules language to place in an errata so that you would feel we had it covered.

Is that what this thread is - trying to get to that langauge?

[Frank Gilson]

Given your clarification of uneven rear rank, the 'L' shape is indeed an illegal formation. I did mistakenly quote you .

I'm starting a new detachments Rules thread as I don't want things to get lost or muddled.

Frank