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 

2 questions

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


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1122
Location: Foxborough, Massachusetts

PostPosted: Tue Nov 19, 2019 2:24 pm    Post subject: 2 questions

Two questions came up at an Ed Con in Western MA.

1 - can temporary fortifications like stone walls or palisades or ditches be placed in terrain (brush, woods or hills and the like)?

2 - A general who is shaken can obviously rally himself (even when in combat) in a full turn. If said general is also in contact with another shaken unit can he rally himself AND the other shaken unit at the same time?

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: 1368
Location: Orange County California

PostPosted: Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:28 pm    Post subject: Re: 2 questions

Todd Kaeser wrote:
Two questions came up at an Ed Con in Western MA.

1 - can temporary fortifications like stone walls or palisades or ditches be placed in terrain (brush, woods or hills and the like)?

2 - A general who is shaken can obviously rally himself (even when in combat) in a full turn. If said general is also in contact with another shaken unit can he rally himself AND the other shaken unit at the same time?

Todd


1) NO (unless they specifically state that they can, like Plashing in Woods)

2) I think this is yes, as the rules don't specifically say NO that I can find, but it could be an interpretation issue subject to Scott.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Todd Kaeser
Centurion
Centurion


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1122
Location: Foxborough, Massachusetts

PostPosted: Wed Nov 20, 2019 3:14 pm    Post subject:

Quote:
1) NO (unless they specifically state that they can, like Plashing in Woods)


We were looking in the rules and there are no rules that state any restrictions to placement. I'll look things up to make my point in a bit.

I see both sides "historically" (not that we don't always mess a little with history).

A stone wall could easily be placed historically in a rocky/brush area - right? They could gather the rocks to build the wall right from the area - or a rocky hill right?. A palisade could be made right from the woods its being placed in.

On the other hand, temporary fortifications are already very powerful (especially for their overall point cost). They can restrict a board and prevent a flank and cause quite a few 1-1 games IMO. We've seen people use them to "turtle up" and create a fortress and be content to let the enemy die upon your battlements (or sit there looking at each other all battle). I would be all for restricting the use of temporary fortifications to tournament battles to "1."

Todd

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


Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 5902
Location: Bonnots Mill, MO

PostPosted: Wed Nov 20, 2019 3:42 pm    Post subject:

Doesn't matter (to me) if it's specifically outlined in the rules, the answer to #1 is an emphatic NO.

This has been asked before, maybe not here but it's come up over the years.

NO.

The answer to #2 is also another emphatic NO. The general's too busy exerting is mental energy rallying himself and doesn't have any time to deal with others.

Any time something like this comes up, you'd think y'all would understand one of the underlying philosophies of mine in these rules: we don't reward failure and don't ever find a way to make it easier to recover from failure.

Soooo, next time something like this comes up, remember that and err on the side of not rewarding failure.

scott

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


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1368
Location: Orange County California

PostPosted: Wed Nov 20, 2019 5:35 pm    Post subject:

Todd Kaeser wrote:
Quote:
1) NO (unless they specifically state that they can, like Plashing in Woods)


We were looking in the rules and there are no rules that state any restrictions to placement. I'll look things up to make my point in a bit.

I see both sides "historically" (not that we don't always mess a little with history).

A stone wall could easily be placed historically in a rocky/brush area - right? They could gather the rocks to build the wall right from the area - or a rocky hill right?. A palisade could be made right from the woods its being placed in.

On the other hand, temporary fortifications are already very powerful (especially for their overall point cost). They can restrict a board and prevent a flank and cause quite a few 1-1 games IMO. We've seen people use them to "turtle up" and create a fortress and be content to let the enemy die upon your battlements (or sit there looking at each other all battle). I would be all for restricting the use of temporary fortifications to tournament battles to "1."

Todd


It seems as though it is difficult to find the rules on the interaction between TFs and terrain, so:
12.324 Temporary Fortifications
(contains some relevant text)
Ditch : Cannot be placed in Woods, defender counts higher.
Abatis : Must be in a Woods feature.
Plashing : Must be at edge of Woods feature.

14.33 Terrain Feature Size and Positioning
Abatis and plashing must be placed in (abatis) or at the edge of (plashing) a Woods feature.

14.43 Army Deployment (also this rules text is generally added to army lists that offer TFs)
Note that placement of immobile TFs must abide by the terrain positioning rules of 14.31. For this purpose, Open Spaces are still considered to be in place through deployment. Note that abatis and plashing MUST be deployed in a Woods feature.
(there is an error here as this should not state 14.31, which is determining the number of terrain features, but generally 14.3, the terrain section - or 14.33 Positioning Rules)

Yes, there isn't an explicit call out in the rules about not placing TFs on top of terrain, however that is implied by the positioning rules that only permit certain limited TF placement in/on terrain features and contains the line:
"Combinations not listed (including the reverse of those listed) are prohibited."

Given all of this, unless Abatis or Plashing in Woods, you cannot place TFs on top of terrain features and it is actually in the rules, if not perhaps clear enough.

Also note:
"A feature, including an Open Space, cannot be placed within one element’s frontage of another feature."
Which means that you can't run one TF right exactly into another for a continuous line, you have to have at least a one element gap between all parts of one TF and all parts of any other.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Frank Gilson
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1368
Location: Orange County California

PostPosted: Wed Nov 20, 2019 5:42 pm    Post subject:

scott holder wrote:
Doesn't matter (to me) if it's specifically outlined in the rules, the answer to #1 is an emphatic NO.

This has been asked before, maybe not here but it's come up over the years.

NO.

The answer to #2 is also another emphatic NO. The general's too busy exerting is mental energy rallying himself and doesn't have any time to deal with others.

Any time something like this comes up, you'd think y'all would understand one of the underlying philosophies of mine in these rules: we don't reward failure and don't ever find a way to make it easier to recover from failure.

Soooo, next time something like this comes up, remember that and err on the side of not rewarding failure.

scott


I've witnessed folks recovering from shaken or rout more than one unit at a time (by intercepting such with one general)...so...this latter point is unclear and is not specified in the rules.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
scott holder
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 5902
Location: Bonnots Mill, MO

PostPosted: Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:21 pm    Post subject:

Next time you witness folks pulling that crap, tell them they're doing it wrong.

Please don't send me an email on how we should clarify this.

scott

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


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1368
Location: Orange County California

PostPosted: Thu Nov 21, 2019 7:38 am    Post subject:

scott holder wrote:
Next time you witness folks pulling that crap, tell them they're doing it wrong.

Please don't send me an email on how we should clarify this.

scott


Ok, I’m now not sure how certain things work.

Is it ‘just’ that a general can recover one and only one body at a time?

Or, is it that a general must recover himself first if shaken before recovering anything else?

“Punishing Failure” would suggest we take the most restrictive case that a shaken general must self recover first.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
scott holder
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 5902
Location: Bonnots Mill, MO

PostPosted: Thu Nov 21, 2019 12:43 pm    Post subject:

I know over the years that I've ruled that a shaken general must recover himself first before he can work on anybody else.

I've made that ruling numerous times.

I've also ruled, although maybe just once or twice, that generals can only rally one unit from shaken at a time.

I'll admit that the latter is something we could, at some point, put in the rules.

scott

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


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1368
Location: Orange County California

PostPosted: Thu Nov 21, 2019 1:44 pm    Post subject:

scott holder wrote:
I know over the years that I've ruled that a shaken general must recover himself first before he can work on anybody else.

I've made that ruling numerous times.

I've also ruled, although maybe just once or twice, that generals can only rally one unit from shaken at a time.

I'll admit that the latter is something we could, at some point, put in the rules.

scott


All in the 'collection' of rules thingies to discuss when time is available.

Just for clarity sake, here is a scenario as I think it is supposed to play out given what you've said here.

A unit not of LI is routing and headed toward its base edge. It is over 240p from enemy and eligible to be intercepted and recovered from rout (to shaken).

A friendly general not merely a staff element capable of intercepting it moves (probably staff move, maybe approach or counter, or even march, not specifically important) to do so.

Upon getting to 120p from the routed non-LI unit said general must now test for that rout.

He fails his waver and shakes.

Clearly his movement can (generally speaking) continue. So, this now shaken general's unit can touch the routing unit.

The recovery from Routing section (5.233) states intercepted by an unbroken general. This is true. Thus, the routing unit is now shaken.

At this point, according to your statement above, the general must recover his own unit from shaken before recovering any other shaken unit.

So, to recover both units the general recovers his first, then the other, which takes in total two full bounds.

Frank
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
jamiepwhite
Recruit
Recruit


Joined: 21 Apr 2006
Posts: 202
Location: Florida

PostPosted: Fri Jan 03, 2020 2:02 pm    Post subject: Shaken generals rallying more than one unit

For what its worth, we've been playing that a shaken general could rally however many units the staff element was in base to base contact with. So 4 was our theoretical maximum number of units that could be rallied.

I'm happy to play either way but if one is the maximum no matter how many the general is in contact with, then the errata should be updated. Perhaps 4.1.1 would be a good place for such a cap.

Also, for the case a general rallying a parent unit and detachment, they would be considered one unit for this purpose?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Frank Gilson
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1368
Location: Orange County California

PostPosted: Fri Jan 03, 2020 2:43 pm    Post subject: Re: Shaken generals rallying more than one unit

jamiepwhite wrote:
For what its worth, we've been playing that a shaken general could rally however many units the staff element was in base to base contact with. So 4 was our theoretical maximum number of units that could be rallied.

I'm happy to play either way but if one is the maximum no matter how many the general is in contact with, then the errata should be updated. Perhaps 4.1.1 would be a good place for such a cap.

Also, for the case a general rallying a parent unit and detachment, they would be considered one unit for this purpose?


If a parent unit and detachment are attached, they are one unit for recovery purposes. If, however, they are detached, they are two units for said purpose.

One is the maximum for one general, recovering, at a time.
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