Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Patrick Byrne]

We had a game last Saturday that instigated several of the below
questions. The result was over a half hour of gaming lost (on a tightly
scheduled day), and people being a little upset (except for the Scottish
Highlanders who quickly recovered and kicked some ass)

These questions regard an example under 6.165 labeled "Contacting the
flank in a Charge #1" and rule 6.53 "Gaps".

Q1. Can unit 'Y' not charge because gap 'g2' is not wide enough for the
element to fit or because gap 'g2' is not 120p?

Q2. Should the double arrow be drawn from the front right corner of unit
'B' to the front left corner of unit 'C'? (as that is the first portion
of the gap by definition of 'shoulder' in 6.53).

Q3. If Unit 'C' was orientated in such a way that the shortest distance
of gap 'g2' was 110p but that Charging unit 'Y' could physically contact
Unit 'B' through a portion of the gap that was 130p. Could unit 'Y'
charge?

Q4. If unit 'C' was a broken and routing unit friendly to Unit 'Y',
could unit 'Y' still charge unit 'B' (given that gap 'g2' was say 90p)?
- Under 6.53, one of the shoulders is unbroken enemy (even though it is
the one being charged) and would seem to constitute unit 'Y' as 'not
being able to charge'.
-PB

[Don Coon]

> These questions regard an example under 6.165 labeled "Contacting the
> flank in a Charge #1" and rule 6.53 "Gaps".
>
> Q1. Can unit 'Y' not charge because gap 'g2' is not wide enough for the
> element to fit or because gap 'g2' is not 120p?

Since the gap is 90p wide per the example, it must be the second statement.
Jon if B and C were facing each other and still 90p apart, would Y still be
prohibited from charging (the now front edge) due to 6.53 (less than 2
element gap between non friendlies)

> Q2. Should the double arrow be drawn from the front right corner of unit
> 'B' to the front left corner of unit 'C'? (as that is the first portion
> of the gap by definition of 'shoulder' in 6.53).

I think so.

> Q3. If Unit 'C' was orientated in such a way that the shortest distance
> of gap 'g2' was 110p but that Charging unit 'Y' could physically contact
> Unit 'B' through a portion of the gap that was 130p. Could unit 'Y'
> charge?

This is a great question. A line drawn normal to B and C will be shorter
than one drawn front right corner of B to front left corner of C. Your
situation can occur.

> Q4. If unit 'C' was a broken and routing unit friendly to Unit 'Y',
> could unit 'Y' still charge unit 'B' (given that gap 'g2' was say 90p)?
> - Under 6.53, one of the shoulders is unbroken enemy (even though it is
> the one being charged) and would seem to constitute unit 'Y' as 'not
> being able to charge'.

All of Patricks questions are in my opinion excellent an need clarification.
Why are all the gap examples for flank charges. Is the same prohibition in
effect for frontal charges? Imagine 3 units 1X2 of Reg C MI JLS+Sh in good
order standing shoulder to shoulder (note the use of THAT shoulder word).
They are facing 2 1X2 units of Reg C MI JLS+Sh in good order also shoulder
to shoulder. The bodies are all exactly parallel to each other, but the 2
body group is offset 1/2 element to the 3 body group such that the 3 body
group sticks out past the 2 body group by 1/2 element on each end. Got it?
Now if the bodies are facing off at 80p, it appears per 6.53 that the middle
body of the 3 body group can not charge either of the enemy because the GAP
is not 2 elements wide. Interestingly enough while our resident West
Pointer says they CAN, while he totally agrees with the 6.165 contacting the
flank example #1, saying Y cannot charge B or C. Why this apparent
contradiction? Chris says SHOULDERS only extend to a bodies FLANK. 6.53
says SHOULDERS are just the things forming the gap (A tree , a bog, a units
front edge). I know the word shoulder has been pounded to death here before
and that is not what I am trying to bring up. I am trying to point out that
as the rules are written, in my MI example above the charge IS illegal per
6.53. Help. As PB said we had a huge argument/discussion over this. I
think you need my MI example in the book in 6.53 showing it to be an illegal
charge (I hope it IS a legal charge, if not, boy does this change the game!)
Or clarifying to explain why it is legal.

As an extra example in 6.163 last example, can the Companion HC frontally
charge the Gaul LMI? The gap is less than 120p, so per 6.153 the answere is
no. In fact in your text, you say the Companions can charge through the
Cretan LI which would almost certainly bring them in contact with the Gauls
front. Why is this legal? (I want it to be BTW, the rules just do not
support it). Per 6.53 this is an illegal charge. This is a huge difference
to the way we play. We use the Cav slipping in from the side charge
situation a lot. It appears from 6.53 all I have to do to protect my front
from this is to get within 119p of another body.

Don

[joncleaves]

Pat

Thank you. Good stuff in here and I am (trying to be) working on this rule
as we speak. Rather than answer the questions, I'll send out a copy of the
new rule section when I get done.

Jon

[Don Coon]

> Pat
>
> Thank you. Good stuff in here and I am (trying to be) working on this
rule
> as we speak. Rather than answer the questions, I'll send out a copy of
the
> new rule section when I get done.
>
> Jon

Thanks for acknowledging his questions Jon. Your answere is sufficient for
me at this point. We will continue to play it the way we THINK it should be
until your published rule comes out. Really no problem for us at this at
this juncture.

Don