Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[jhill4913@comcast.net]

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?

[jamiepwhite]

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.

[Frank Gilson]

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).

NOTE: I'm wrong here...mounted can charge defended TFs, or chariots defended Obstacles due to:
"In fact, the "Line of Effect" rules clarifications clear things up with the wording:
"For all rules the words “crosses an/the obstacle” will mean “crosses an/the obstacle’s LOE”. “Across an/the obstacle” will mean “across a/the LOE.”

For the purposes of 9.5, “defending the obstacle” is the same as “the (first) body in contact with the LOE.” “Entering combat” is the same as “contacting the LOE as part of a charge.”""

[jhill4913@comcast.net]

Frank,
How about the stakes? Do they have to be "crossed" in a follow up to disorder an opponent?

[Frank Gilson]

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.

[jhill4913@comcast.net]

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

[Frank Gilson]

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.

[Todd Kaeser]

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

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

[Frank Gilson]

Todd, non-impetuous foot need not follow-up, whether reg/irr close/loose, what have you.

[Todd Kaeser]

correct Herr Gilson

[Ed Kollmer]

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

[Frank Gilson]

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

[Ed Kollmer]

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

[Mark Stone]