Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

srawls · Recruit Joined: 18 Apr 2006 Posts: 86

We had a question come up this weekend regarding replacing a unit in combat.

Rick Parish and I each had 4 element units of Roman Legionnaires in combat with each other. I charged in a 2 element unit of Legionnaires to replace my unit in combat. On page 62 it states "The charging body completes its charge and the body replaced is moved to behind the charger the minimum distance necessary to be clear." Does this mean the 4 element Legion being replaced loses complete contact with the unit it was fighting, or does it merely lose contact with the elements now fighting the 2 element Legion?

Steve Rawls

Frank Gilson · Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2015 3:35 am Post subject:

Hmm, although I don't recall playing this way the rules in:
6.52 Interpenetration
and
6.523 Replacing in Combat

both imply that the replaced 'body' as a whole is moved out of the way.

Scott is going to have to weight in for actual practice. The rules seem fairly clear, but my personal experience has been to move only the elements replaced and not the entire body.

Don't charge enemy LI with your LC unless you can rout said LI without being impetuous (or there are no enemy lancers behind them)?

scott holder · Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2015 8:11 pm Post subject:

Element by element so the entire body does not break contact.

srawls · Recruit Joined: 18 Apr 2006 Posts: 86

So interpret "Body" in this instance to mean element.

Thanks, Scott!

Steve

Historian · Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2015 1:22 pm Post subject: body and elements

Changing the meaning of Bodies and Elements? That is a dangerous precedence.

scott holder · Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2015 3:58 pm Post subject:

Oi vey, don't read anything "big" into this people. For all I know I'll change my mind on this.

I know this has come up in games in the past--I don't remember how I ruled it.

scott

scott holder · Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2015 9:49 pm Post subject:

Surely somebody out there remembers me ruling on this during a tourney. My guess is I pulled the entire body out of contact but I'd like to know what I might have done.

scott

Frank Gilson · Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2015 2:56 am Post subject:

Nope...although, in these forums, I did ask this question previously in November of 2007...with no answer. Wink

A search of forum posts for 'replacing' reveals no answer also.

Frank

Frank Gilson · Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2015 3:01 am Post subject:

Although, when searching based on the word 'replace' and not 'replacing' I find:

http://www.fourhorsemenenterprises.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16613&highlight=replace

Where Jon replies 'correct' to my old mention of various units charging with a replacement of routers...which would seem to imply that Jon is saying yes to my statement that the routers are entirely replaced.

But not necessarily Wink

.

Frank

scott holder · Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2015 3:04 pm Post subject:

Admitedly, the more I read this (and more importantly the Circulating Combatants rules), it's pretty clear: body means body, not element by element.

So, go with that. Phil can now rest easier not musing over precedents. Razz

Frank Gilson · Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2015 7:50 pm Post subject:

Ok...I'll will inform some folks (as we have been doing element by element and not bodies)...and try to remember Wink

...not that it happens frequently.

lilroblis · Posted: Sat Nov 28, 2015 3:18 am Post subject: replacing

so I remember having ruled that charging through routers it was by element - but whateverthe ruling is works for me - I like the element - but can see ways to make the other a great strategem

jamiepwhite · Recruit Joined: 21 Apr 2006 Posts: 213 Location: Florida

It just seems a little strange when larger infantry units are fighting across a three or four element wide frontage, that a combat replacement across one element frontage is cleanly allowing the losing replaced unit to break contact.

Here are some odd situations:
1. It's legal to replace a nonimpetuous winning unit. One might charge through with light infantry on one element frontage to free up a wider winning unit cleanly because it would be overwhelmed in the second round by an even wider unit.

2. Sacrificial light infantry units stationed behind infantry lines can save you from any disordered attackers

3. I'm not good at the replacement rules for New World and Roman, but haven't you just allowed a two element unit behind a three wide six element unit to always step in when losing and restart the combat?

lilroblis

Agreed- LI,Jls, sh - becomes agreat troop type behind pike

Frank Gilson · Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2015 7:02 am Post subject:

Let's think first about when you would want your LI JLS,Sh to charge through your pike.

Presumably they have lost or will lose...so you send 2E Reg C LI JLS,Sh through...

Well, first of all the LI have to be able to legally declare a charge, which will be almost never (unless whatever is or will beat your pike is disordered, or light troops).

Still, let's say the enemy are disordered, and most likely so are your pike (otherwise how could they be at risk for losing?)...

LI will be disordered (interpenetrating disordered troops). Your pike, replaced in combat, are disordered must rally troops (for a full bound).

Your LI will now lose, and at least recoil, but may rout. If they rout, the enemy is likely to pursue into your disordered pike...not something you want.

If the LI merely recoil, well, your pike are still rallying the entire following bound...so when the LI rout, your pike get hit again anyway, halted disordered.

I suppose it might 'save' your pike in some weird circumstance, maybe...but this doesn't justify your having little LI units hanging out behind all your pike.