Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[John Murphy]

I am a bit confused by some of the rules with the advent of the new
circulating combatants list rules and some of the clarifications
here. So there are a lot of questions.

Assuming steady EIR Legionaries armed with HTW, just how much can be
squeezed out of these guys...

case (a) A 4E unit 1E wide and 4 ranks deep charges someobody and
sticks after one bound of HtH. Next bound they use the new Roman
circulating combatants list rule (or the old standard exchanging
ranks rule if they recoiled) to exchange ranks 1-2 with ranks 3-4 and
now hopefully (?) the new 1st and 2nd ranks are in "1st contact".

Nobody gets disordered for being interpenetrated because it is the
same body, right?
Do they get _any_ HTW as "first contact"?
Do they get half the (new) second rank, as HTW, in "first contact"?
(I presume otherwise the normal rank restrictions for 1HCW would
apply)
Being a "move intented to result in HtH" do these exchanged ranks
count as charging?

Does the _enemy_ unit subjected to the circulating combatants
treatment in the second bound count as charging (?) and / or 1st
contact (?), which if any?

case (b) A 2E unit 1E wide and 2 ranks deep charges somebody and
sticks after one bound of HtH. Next bound its identical 2E buddy
directly to its rear successfully declares a charge interpenetrating
the first unit to replace it in HtH.

Even if the first unit was disordered during the first bound of HtH,
the new unit is not, right? This is new for circulating combatants.
Even if the first unit was _not_ disordered in the first bound of HtH
it _is_ disordered by being interpenetrated, right?
They obviously count as charging, right (?), and they count as first
contact with HTW in rank and a half even though they are fighting an
enemy already in contact with friends, right? (seems like a similar
situation to say a unit that charges and hits an exposed overlapping
element like Mark Stone was suggesting)

Now, in _this_ situation (replacement in HtH by circulating
combatants as presented above in this case) does the _enemy_ unit
subjected to the circulating combatants treatment in the second bound
count as charging (?) and / or 1st contact (?), which if any?

That is a whole lot of questions but all tied together should clear
it all up for me. Thanks.

I still have some uncertain areas on reverting to 1HCW but let me
look the rules, and previous posts, over some more and see if the
answers to these jump out at me first before I ask.

One last thing though on this particular item. In the Fast Warrior
lists Romans can charge through their LI, not normally possible under
the rules at all (?) and not even be disordered.
In the full-blown Warrior even with the new ROmal list rules EIR
Legionaries - being close order - still can't charge thru their
skirmishers, right, and so can never even replace them in HtH?
Since Classical Warrior is in the works... any likelihood this will
change in some way for Republicans and their various skirmish foot
screens?

[John Murphy]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "J. Murphy" <jjmurphy@s...>
wrote:
> Now, in _this_ situation (replacement in HtH by circulating
> combatants as presented above in this case) does the _enemy_ unit
> subjected to the circulating combatants treatment in the second
bound
> count as charging (?) and / or 1st contact (?), which if any?

Oh, and related to this bit...

Does the enemy unit get _any_ charge responses? Can it counter-
charge? If light troops can it evade? If mounted can it cancel the
legion charge if the legion is steady but not willing or eager? (in
which case, man that's a mess)

[John Murphy]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "J. Murphy" <jjmurphy@s...>
wrote:
Crud, one more piece of this, sorry... for both cases, who if anyone
is eligible to support shoot in the second bound (first circulating
combatants bound) of these cases? Rank-exchanging Romans? Their
enemies? Interpenetrating Romans? _Their_ enemies?

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/16/2004 4:14:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
jjmurphy@... writes:

> case (a) A 4E unit 1E wide and 4 ranks deep charges someobody and
> sticks after one bound of HtH. Next bound they use the new Roman
> circulating combatants list rule (or the old standard exchanging
> ranks rule if they recoiled) to exchange ranks 1-2 with ranks 3-4 and
> now hopefully (?) the new 1st and 2nd ranks are in "1st contact".>>

No. First contact is "the element charged, counter-charged, or stood to face a
charge this bound" and that is not the case.

>
> Nobody gets disordered for being interpenetrated because it is the
> same body, right?>>

You are correct that no interpenetration has taken place in your case a).

> Do they get _any_ HTW as "first contact"?>>
No.

> Do they get half the (new) second rank, as HTW, in "first contact"?>>

They get it, but as other weapons.

> (I presume otherwise the normal rank restrictions for 1HCW would
> apply)
> Being a "move intented to result in HtH" do these exchanged ranks
> count as charging?>>

No.

>
> Does the _enemy_ unit subjected to the circulating combatants
> treatment in the second bound count as charging (?) and / or 1st
> contact (?), which if any?>>

No, not in the exchange ranks case. Exchanging ranks of HTW for ranks of HTW
would be meaningless. Exchanging ranks of HTW for ranks of JLS would not be...
;)


>
> case (b) A 2E unit 1E wide and 2 ranks deep charges somebody and
> sticks after one bound of HtH. Next bound its identical 2E buddy
> directly to its rear successfully declares a charge interpenetrating
> the first unit to replace it in HtH.
>
> Even if the first unit was disordered during the first bound of HtH,
> the new unit is not, right? >>

Right.

<<> Even if the first unit was _not_ disordered in the first bound of HtH
> it _is_ disordered by being interpenetrated, right?>>

Yes.


> They obviously count as charging, right (?),>>

Yes.

<< and they count as first
> contact with HTW in rank and a half even though they are fighting an
> enemy already in contact with friends, right? >>

Yes.

(> Now, in _this_ situation (replacement in HtH by circulating
> combatants as presented above in this case) does the _enemy_ unit
> subjected to the circulating combatants treatment in the second bound
> count as charging (?) and / or 1st contact (?), which if any?>>

Yes and yes. But realize that is true of any replacment in combat which happens
all the time without IW - IW just makes Romans able to do it with close order
through close order - the rules are the same after that.

>
> One last thing though on this particular item. In the Fast Warrior
> lists Romans can charge through their LI, not normally possible under
> the rules at all (?) and not even be disordered.
> In the full-blown Warrior even with the new ROmal list rules EIR
> Legionaries - being close order - still can't charge thru their
> skirmishers, right, and so can never even replace them in HtH?>>

True, but the relationship between what had been velites and the line had
changed by then.

> Since Classical Warrior is in the works... any likelihood this will
> change in some way for Republicans and their various
> skirmish foot
> screens?>>

We don't know yet. We are busy with Oriental....

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/16/2004 4:26:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
jjmurphy@... writes:

> > Now, in _this_ situation (replacement in HtH by circulating
> > combatants as presented above in this case) does the _enemy_ unit
> > subjected to the circulating combatants treatment in the second
> bound
> > count as charging (?) and / or 1st contact (?), which if any?
>
> Oh, and related to this bit...
>
> Does the enemy unit get _any_ charge responses?>>

The only time a unit in contact gets charge responses is: "non-impetuous
pursuers still in contact with
broken enemy may make charge responses (6.166)."

<<Can it counter-
> charge? If light troops can it evade?>>

See above.

<< If mounted can it cancel the
> legion charge if the legion is steady but not willing or
> eager?>>

??? willing/eager has nothing directly to do with a cancelled charge. in any
case, counter charges never cancel anything as they are not declared.

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/16/2004 4:29:25 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
jjmurphy@... writes:

> Crud, one more piece of this, sorry... for both cases, who if anyone
> is eligible to support shoot in the second bound (first circulating
> combatants bound) of these cases? Rank-exchanging Romans?
> Their
> enemies? Interpenetrating Romans? _Their_ enemies?>>

nothing about the list rule changes support shooting eligibility.

[John Murphy]

PART ONE OF TWO (PART TWO FOLLOWS BELOW)

The willing/eager is in the Roman swordsmen list rule to avoid having
their charge cancelled by impetuous or mounted.

But I get the point about counter-charges. Good, that one is cleared
up then. You see how that could get kind of cyclical if one doesn't
understand about the distinction beteen charges and counter-charges
for charge cancellation. Whew!

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:

> ??? willing/eager has nothing directly to do with a cancelled
charge. in any case, counter charges never cancel anything as they
are not declared.


PART TWO OF TWO

Okay, Jon, now you have got me on this one!

Here are your two responses to two messages. They appear to me to
conflict. My bad for not geting all this question into one message so
it was more coherent.

But can you please resolve this one?
Sorry for the confusion.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:

(> Now, in _this_ situation (replacement in HtH by circulating
> combatants as presented above in this case) does the _enemy_ unit
> subjected to the circulating combatants treatment in the second
bound
> count as charging (?) and / or 1st contact (?), which if any?>>

Yes and yes. But realize that is true of any replacment in combat
which happens
all the time without IW - IW just makes Romans able to do it with
close order
through close order - the rules are the same after that.

> > Does the enemy unit get _any_ charge responses?>>

> The only time a unit in contact gets charge responses is: "non-
impetuous pursuers still in contact with
> broken enemy may make charge responses (6.166)."

> <<Can it counter-
> > charge? If light troops can it evade?>>

> See above.

[John Murphy]

Aw, come on cut me a break here...

It isn't the circulating combatants list rule that is unclear to me
wrt support shooting. It is the basic rules regarding replacement in
HtH, which have come up as a result of trying to understand a new
capability for my troops they did not previously have. This is a
whole concept that is not commonly used in games I have played but
not as much ink was devoted to it in the rulebook as could have been
either in my opinion. It is not like I have not read it before asking
in this case, I just am unable for whatever reason, call me stupid if
you like, to discern a clear intent on a lot of these items.

So I must ask again, if you do not mind...

Does a unit charging and replacing another unit in HtH (list rule
aside) still get support shot at like a charging unit, or like a unit
in a subsequent bound of HtH? And is this different for the enemy who
is target of the replacing charge as opposed to another enemy unit?

It is not clear conceptually, because for the duration of the charge
move it is blocked by the unit it replaces. Hence my request for
clarification even tho you could ask "what in rules would say
otherwise". Sorry for using up your time on this.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 4/16/2004 4:29:25 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
jjmurphy@s... writes:
>
> > Crud, one more piece of this, sorry... for both cases, who if
anyone
> > is eligible to support shoot in the second bound (first
circulating
> > combatants bound) of these cases? Rank-exchanging Romans?
> > Their
> > enemies? Interpenetrating Romans? _Their_ enemies?>>
>
> nothing about the list rule changes support shooting eligibility.

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/16/2004 12:26:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
jjmurphy@... writes:

> This is a
> whole concept that is not commonly used in games I have played but
> not as much ink was devoted to it in the rulebook as could have been
> either in my opinion. >.

Hmmm, hard to argue with that....lol

<<It is not like I have not read it before asking
> in this case, I just am unable for whatever reason, call me stupid if
> you like, to discern a clear intent on a lot of these items.>.

I was not calling you stupid, John. I was checking to be sure this was a
problem with basic support shooting/replacement. If you had said 'hey, ok, it's
the same, then, thanks' I would be saving both of us an unnecessary explanation.
Now that I am sure it is necessary, here it is.

>
> Does a unit charging and replacing another unit in HtH (list rule
> aside) still get support shot at like a charging unit, or like a unit
> in a subsequent bound of HtH? And is this different for the enemy who
> is target of the replacing charge as opposed to another enemy unit?>>

Nothing about replacement affects the support shooting ability of the charger,
which is covered by 8.81.

For the body being charged by a 'replacer', let's look at 8.83:

"Bodies already in hand-to-hand contact from the previous bound can only shoot
at their opponents and
then only with bow from a rank of figures not eligible to fight (9.2)."

So, he can't use CB or LB, etc and he can't use any figs in ranks eligible to
fight. This is different (more limited) than if he were just sitting there not
already in hth when the charger hit him - one of the many reasons to replace in
combat - roman or otherwise.

<< Sorry for using up your time on this.>>

Not a problem at all.

J

[John Murphy]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> I was not calling you stupid, John. I was checking to be sure this
was a problem with basic support shooting/replacement. If you had
said 'hey, ok, it's the same, then, thanks' I would be saving both of
us an unnecessary explanation. Now that I am sure it is necessary,
here it is.

Thanks, and I was not implying you called me that because you did
not. I was just saying with my understanding level of the rules
minutiae one could make that claim regarding me <g>! You know how I
am, at least over-internet.

Okay, your answer clears up support shooting. We are making progress!

A clarification statement might be good to the effect that "HtH from
previus bounds" also applies if contact was exchanged between two
different units using HtH replacement.

If this also somehow covered the question regarding charge responses
of the target of a replacement charge that would be real smooth.

But you haven't yet resolved your two answeres to that one for me yet
so while I could guess at this point I am still a bit confused on
charge responses unless there is something implicit in your support
shooting answer which should apply there as well.

But I certainly can't complain about you getting right back to me on
this so far.

>
> >
> > Does a unit charging and replacing another unit in HtH (list rule
> > aside) still get support shot at like a charging unit, or like a
unit
> > in a subsequent bound of HtH? And is this different for the enemy
who
> > is target of the replacing charge as opposed to another enemy
unit?>>
>
> Nothing about replacement affects the support shooting ability of
the charger, which is covered by 8.81.
>
> For the body being charged by a 'replacer', let's look at 8.83:
>
> "Bodies already in hand-to-hand contact from the previous bound can
only shoot at their opponents and
> then only with bow from a rank of figures not eligible to fight
(9.2)."
>
> So, he can't use CB or LB, etc and he can't use any figs in ranks
eligible to fight. This is different (more limited) than if he were
just sitting there not already in hth when the charger hit him - one
of the many reasons to replace in combat - roman or otherwise.
>
> << Sorry for using up your time on this.>>
>
> Not a problem at all.
>
> J

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/16/2004 2:09:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
jjmurphy@... writes:

> But you haven't yet resolved your two answeres to that one for me yet
> so while I could guess at this point I am still a bit confused on
> charge responses unless there is something implicit in your
> support
> shooting answer which should apply there as well.>.

Well, the body already in hand to hand who is the target of a charger who is
replacing cannot make any charge responses (note that support shooting is NOT a
charge response). There is ONE exception - a non-impetuous pursuer in contact
only with broken troops *can* make charge responses.

So, normally the guy the roman is replacing against will not get a charge
response and would only get support shooting if he had B in a rank that was not
eligible to fight.

Of course the above is exactly the same for 'non-roman' replacement.

J

[John Murphy]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> Well, the body already in hand to hand who is the target of a
charger who is replacing cannot make any charge responses (note that
support shooting is NOT a charge response). There is ONE exception -
a non-impetuous pursuer in contact only with broken troops *can* make
charge responses.
> So, normally the guy the roman is replacing against will not get a
charge response and would only get support shooting if he had B in a
rank that was not eligible to fight.
> Of course the above is exactly the same for 'non-roman' replacement.

So he does not get a charge response. Now looking at it I see your
other answer that was causing me problem here is actually to a slight
different question. To whit...

>(> Now, in _this_ situation (replacement in HtH by circulating
>> combatants as presented above in this case) does the _enemy_ unit
>> subjected to the circulating combatants treatment in the second
bound
>> count as charging (?) and / or 1st contact (?), which if any?>>

>Yes and yes. But realize that is true of any replacment in combat
which happens
all the time without IW - IW just makes Romans able to do it with
close order
through close order - the rules are the same after that.

Soo... to be sure I understand because this is seeming like a
peculiar distinction...

The unit which is the contacted _target_ of the replacement charge
does not get charge responses and counts as subsequent bounds of HtH
for support shooting but ALSO counts as charging and in first contact
for HtH?

Or did I simply not make the "count as charging/1st contact for HtH"
part of this question sufficiently clear and your answer applied to
the replacing unit and not its charge target?

Sorry to keep this going, and I am still going to bug you probably
about reverting to 1HCW too after I finish looking it up for sure,
but I think since this is a part of the rules that is suddenly going
to see a lot more use than in the past it is vital to get the details
down.

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/16/2004 2:38:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
jjmurphy@... writes:

> The unit which is the contacted _target_ of the replacement charge
> does not get charge responses and counts as subsequent bounds of HtH
> for support shooting but ALSO counts as charging and in first contact
> for HtH?>>

It would not count as charging, but yes to first contact with those elements
that are charged.

>
> Sorry to keep this going, and I am still going to bug you probably
> about reverting to 1HCW too after I finish looking it up for sure,
> but I think since this is a part of the rules that is suddenly going
> to see a lot more use than in the past it is vital to get
> the details
> down.>>

Ok by me - it is my intent to make Warrior the best supported rules anywhere, so
there is no real limit to rules questions you can ask. The only thing I ever
ask is that folks read the rules first and don't just do the 'hey, Jon, my rule
book is at home and I am at work, but could you tell me...' lol

J

[John Murphy]

Got it. I pasted this whole bunch of stuff into a text file for me to
refer back to because I am likely to forget!

But, Jon, do you see how this is more than just a bit weird since
they count as subsequent bounds of HtH for support shooting but first
contact for the actual HtH resolution? (see the snipped quotes below
if I am mis-speaking here in which case I do not understand as well
as I think I do!)

I think I understand now, but this should definitely get a
clarification and elaboration in a second printing I would hope.

I am also concerned it is going to cause a lof people, who are not
reading this barrage, massive confusion at Historicon when suddenly
half the players or more are using these rules for the first time.
Maybe for the Historicon Roman Empire theme Scott Holder, or whomever
is the theme umpire if he is taking that day off, could put out a
clarification of this in line with what you have said? And God help
us all if he doesn't interpret this the same way! I guess that would
pretty unusual though.

Talk about "Medieval German Princes from Hell" these new Romans are
going to be a bit complex themselves! But glad they came out like
they did anyway. Just gonna take some time to figure out.

Also, I had been planning on asking some questions regarding Roman
Swordsmen "reversion" to 1HCW but when I look over the new rules,
even with regard to Fulcum and dropping out of Fulcum, they seem to
hang together pretty well and I can not seem to find the obfuscation
that I had seen there previously.

On that subject, wasn't there an earlier post a while back (weeks)
from Mark Stone (I think it was) asking for clarification on 1HCW
legionaries, maybe wrt Fulcum? I might have even asked a question at
that time as well. Sorry to say I think that was when I started
having problems understanding it because the clarification was the
exact opposite of what I had incorrectly assumed for whatever reason.
So now I am concerned since it seems so clear that I am back to the
same incorrect assumption!

I'll take a look back thru the archives sometime and see if I can dig
it up again, and if so see wether it makes more sense to me now.

So if that raises yet naother question to ask here I will, otherwise
everything is wonderful!

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> > The unit which is the contacted _target_ of the replacement
charge counts as in first contact
> > for HtH?>>
> yes to first contact with those elements that are charged.

and earlier...
For the body being charged by a 'replacer', let's look at 8.83:
"Bodies already in hand-to-hand contact from the previous bound can
only shoot at their opponents and then only with bow from a rank of
figures not eligible to fight (9.2)."
So, he can't use CB or LB, etc and he can't use any figs in ranks
eligible to fight. This is different (more limited) than if he were
just sitting there not already in hth when the charger hit him - one
of the many reasons to replace in combat - roman or otherwise.

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/17/2004 19:22:39 Central Daylight Time,
jjmurphy@... writes:
(> Now, in _this_ situation (replacement in HtH by circulating
> combatants as presented above in this case) does the _enemy_ unit
> subjected to the circulating combatants treatment in the second
bound
> count as charging (?) and / or 1st contact (?), which if any?>>

Yes and yes. But realize that is true of any replacment in combat
which happens
all the time without IW - IW just makes Romans able to do it with
close order
through close order - the rules are the same after that.
John, I guess it is the above that is causing confusion and the answer should
have been NO and yes.

Jon


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]