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 

Obstacles

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules Forum Index -> Rules
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
jhill4913@comcast.net
Recruit
Recruit


Joined: 21 Aug 2017
Posts: 49

PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2018 5:35 pm    Post subject: Obstacles

In trying to understand rule 12.323 I'm a bit confused. Are attacking close order foot disordered when first attacking across stakes? In other words tactical -2 "disordered", as well as -2 for "fighting across defended obstacle"? As for ditches, are close order foot the same -4 for the fighting across the ditch? Assuming the defender is pushed back, are the following up close order foot still disordered if any element remains in/on the stakes or ditch? If so, could they expand to avoid the problem?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
jamiepwhite
Recruit
Recruit


Joined: 21 Apr 2006
Posts: 181
Location: Florida

PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2018 7:40 pm    Post subject: Obstacles

For portable obstacles like stakes, you need to distinguish between fighting across the stakes and walking across the stakes. For a pike block, charging into melee with an opponent behind stakes is -2 for the obstacle but the unit isn't yet walking across the stakes to get disordered. Other obstacles like the side of a gully could be different, the terrain itself is disordering as well being an obstacle.

A defended ditch is -4, -2 for defended obstacle and -2 for fighting uphill. A close order unit would disordered after recoiling its opponent and following up across the ditch, not disordered if the close order foot did not follow up

Scott or Steve will likely correct me on something that isn't quite right, but this should be close.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Frank Gilson
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1180
Location: Orange County California

PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2018 9:07 am    Post subject:

Jamie, you have the -2 and -2 for -4 total for attacking across a Ditch correct (opponents higher and defending obstacle).

But, close order foot would be disordered by the Ditch PRIOR to the combat...so you should never ever (almost, unless the enemy is holding it with shieldless LI) send your pikemen across a Ditch (5.221, 6.714, importantly 9.5, 12.31 Cohesion and Movement, 12.323 and also importantly 12.324A). This is unlike a Stone Wall, where the pikemen would not be disordered until they followed up and moved over the wall.

Note that mounted cannot cross a Temporary Fortification, and so cannot declare charges against anything on the other side of such (6.162, 6.163D, 6.711).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
jhill4913@comcast.net
Recruit
Recruit


Joined: 21 Aug 2017
Posts: 49

PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2018 3:13 pm    Post subject:

Frank,
How about the stakes? Do they have to be "crossed" in a follow up to disorder an opponent?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Frank Gilson
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1180
Location: Orange County California

PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2018 5:28 pm    Post subject:

Those same referenced rules discuss stakes...and the answer in their case is no, stakes do not disorder prior to the hand to hand combat, unlike gully and ditch.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
jhill4913@comcast.net
Recruit
Recruit


Joined: 21 Aug 2017
Posts: 49

PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2018 6:02 pm    Post subject:

Thanks for that clarification but what about the last part of my original question. Suppose a 4E pike unit pushes back a 4E LB unit then expands. The Pike is across the stakes, which I suppose are place directly behind the following up pike unit. Is the pike unit disordered at this point? What if he hadn't expanded, leaving the stakes in the midst of his ranks?

I guess what I'm trying to understand is if it's not fighting over the stakes that disorders close foot, is it passing through them or continuing to fight among them that does the disordering.

Sorry to be so dense,

Jimmy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Frank Gilson
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1180
Location: Orange County California

PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2018 8:52 am    Post subject:

Close order troops cannot expand in a follow up.

Crossing the stakes will disorder the pike as 'cessation cured'. I answered your specific question about this in another forum post.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Todd Kaeser
Centurion
Centurion


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1026
Location: Foxborough, Massachusetts

PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2018 11:39 am    Post subject:

Hi Jim,

Close foot will be disordered when they cross the obstacle. They could charge the troops - recoil them, not follow up (if regular) and then in a counter, pick up the stakes for yourself Smile

Also remember that if you have shooters behind the stakes then their shooting factors do not take into account "ending in contact" as you do not. This allows your longbowmen (typical troops behind stakes) to shoot up chargers much easier.

Elephants ignore stakes as well.

Todd

_________________
Nolite te Bastardes Carborundorum
"Don't let the Bastards Grind You Down"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message [ Hidden ]
Frank Gilson
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1180
Location: Orange County California

PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2018 1:04 pm    Post subject:

Todd, non-impetuous foot need not follow-up, whether reg/irr close/loose, what have you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Todd Kaeser
Centurion
Centurion


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1026
Location: Foxborough, Massachusetts

PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2018 7:32 pm    Post subject:

correct Herr Gilson
_________________
Nolite te Bastardes Carborundorum
"Don't let the Bastards Grind You Down"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message [ Hidden ]
Ed Kollmer
Centurion
Centurion


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 989

PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2018 11:56 pm    Post subject:

OK now I am totally confused. (I know it doesn't take much)
If I have a unit of reg LMI bow,sh defending a ditched palisades. A unit of close order Lts , sh attack.
How does one adjudicate this.
EK
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Frank Gilson
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1180
Location: Orange County California

PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 8:06 am    Post subject:

Ok, the close order LTS,Sh foot let's assume are MI...they must be at 40p to declare a charge against the LMI B,Sh (close movement allowance across obstacle/TF is 40p). They do so and move to contact.

They are disordered before the combat (Ditch).

LMI B,Sh support shoot (let's assume everybody is 4E here):
16 @ 2 +1 for MI target disordered but not shieldless (no -2 for in contact as combat is across the Ditch) for around 40 casualties (ouch)...+1 die roll will disorder the close foot again, causing a waver. Let's assume Prep just does 2 CPF (which it will with a down 1 roll, or evens).

MI LTS,Sh are in trouble here as they are 16 figures at 3, -2 for disorder, -2 for fighting across defended obstacle (Ditch), -2 for opponent higher (Ditch) and -2 for support shot for 16 @ -5 for nothing.

LMI B,Sh respond with 8 @ 3 for 20...that does an additional CPF for a total of 3 and is many times as many.

So the MI LTS,Sh rout off the LMI B,Sh...don't send your close order foot against a TF, particularly a Ditch, particularly defended by dense shooting.

Frank
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Ed Kollmer
Centurion
Centurion


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 989

PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:44 pm    Post subject:

Whee....
Thanks Sir Frank.
WOW. OK I see now.
The one REALLY surprising point was the support shot. I thought that the LMI would take the -2 for in contact.
Is that only because of the defended obstacle. Would it also apply to just a fence or wall.???
EK
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Mark Stone
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 2016
Location: Buckley, WA

PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2018 9:22 am    Post subject:

Ed Kollmer wrote:
Whee....
Thanks Sir Frank.
WOW. OK I see now.
The one REALLY surprising point was the support shot. I thought that the LMI would take the -2 for in contact.
Is that only because of the defended obstacle. Would it also apply to just a fence or wall.???
EK


It applies to any defended obstacle. "Fence", to my knowledge, is not a thing in Warrior. But stone walls are also an obstacle.

And of course the usual caveat about elephants applies: in the specific case of stakes, elephants ignore stakes, and so the defenders do not get any of the benefits of defending an obstacle, which means that any support shooting would be at a -2 for in contact.

Simple, no?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   MSN Messenger
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