Warrior Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules
A Four Horsemen Enterprises Rules Set
 
  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups AlbumAlbum   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

opening a dialog, detachments and evaders

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules Forum Index -> Rules
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Historian
Recruit
Recruit


Joined: 27 Feb 2011
Posts: 239
Location: Pennsylvannia

PostPosted: Mon Jul 11, 2011 6:33 pm    Post subject: opening a dialog, detachments and evaders

Jon,
My 2 cents of possible rules that could be revisited.
Regarding Detachments: When a detachment is absorbed by the parent, the parent acquires the fatigue of the detachment if the detachments fatigue is higher, and visa-versa.

This can create some “unrealistic” situations like this weekend where a detachment of 6 figures of LI with 14 fatigue caused its parent of 24 HI to go from zero to nearly exhausted when it joined.

Evaders choice: When a unit evades, it must either go “Away from the charge, or straight to its own rear.” This sometimes can be abused. In one incident, the skirmisher was charged directly from behind , and then opted to go straight to its own rear, thus heading straight into the charge. The reason was the evader was going to be caught and broken, and was avoiding downstream waver checks. (I also guess it could be argued that when caught, the evader could be shielded and fight back.)

Thought to amend this rule: “When the evade move is complete, all evading elements must be further away from the charger as when they started.”

If the Evade rule is being opened, I would also advocate that evaders could also opt to evade directly their front. After all, you can run away faster if you are running in the direction you are already facing. And the “…all evading elements must be further away from the charge…” amendment should keep it from being abused.

_________________
Phil
Japanese telephones work pretty much like ours, except the person on the other end can't understand you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message [ Hidden ] Visit poster's website
joncleaves
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Posts: 16447

PostPosted: Tue Jul 19, 2011 3:40 pm    Post subject:

I get you. And I agree in principle that people are abusing that rule when they evade to their rear to go directly at the charger to avoid wavers, when its obvious what should happen is that they evade away.

The problem is, the rulebook is already unwieldy due to attempts to cover every base that can be abused. As each new abuse arose, my habit had been to correct it with rules.

The game is a simulation, and so breaks down a little when these ancient armies become little groups of missiles moving at all angles and in and causing surrounded situations. I am personally loathe to add more rules to correct poor behavior occuring inside ahistorical situations. But I am open to what the group wants. I'll talk to Scott about what he wants to do.

_________________
Roll Up and Win!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
lilroblis
Legionary
Legionary


Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 567
Location: Cleveland Ohio

PostPosted: Tue Jul 19, 2011 8:45 pm    Post subject: I think this is a much broader topic

You get to second level complexities on this. If I am an evader I would try to maximize my distance from the charge - including turning 90 degrees and moving along the edge of impassable terran after ensuring the officer involved in getting me in such a poor position got to stay behind as a rearguard on foot - I would not neccessarily go directly to my rear or away from the charge - unless that made the most sense.
this assumes that a group of 100 riders can make that decision on the fly - and I have never been a rider in such a position so dont really understand the visbility - any re-enactors out there?
My vote leave it as it is - very seldom will this change a game beyond redemption
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
scott holder
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6032
Location: Bonnots Mill, MO

PostPosted: Wed Jul 20, 2011 5:19 pm    Post subject:

Like Rob, while I see this happen, I don't consider it to be significant enough to warrant messing with.

Same for detachments. Yes, we do see them because some armies are built around them but for the most part, we don't. Again, it doesn't rise to the level of significance to warrant a change.

scott

_________________
These Rules Suck, Let's Paint!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   Visit poster's website
lilroblis
Legionary
Legionary


Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 567
Location: Cleveland Ohio

PostPosted: Wed Aug 17, 2016 4:13 pm    Post subject: Detachments

My memory is that we cha nged to keeping seperate fatigue logs for detachments and their parent bodies - irrespective of where they are - am I correct?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Frank Gilson
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: Orange County California

PostPosted: Wed Aug 17, 2016 7:39 pm    Post subject:

The detachment rules now do not address fatigue specifically, thus fatigue for parent and detachment are tracked separately.

Upon joining nothing happens to the fatigue total of either body.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules Forum Index -> Rules All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group