Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

After playing a couple of games yesterday with an Early Visigoth list,
I have a question about detachment movement and/or joining.

In my army, I have 8 element parent units of MI javelinmen with 4
element units of LI archer detachments. If my archer detachment is in
front of my MI's, and the MI's move up to join the archers (assuming
that the archers have not moved this phase) then a combined unit is
formed with the archers now in the rear rank. Would the front location
of this unit now be at the original location of the archers (i.e.,
would the MI now be moved up for free to occupy the position the LI's
were in) or would the front of the unit now be at the location of the
front of the MI's (i.e., would the LI simply move to the back of the
combined unit once the separate units are joined.)?

I ask this because reflecting on my play yesterday, could I have done
the following:

The archers are within 80 paces of the enemy.

My MI's move up to join the archers.

The MI effectively replace the archers since the LI now move to the
rear ranks, and now my MI are actually within 80 paces of the enemy.

The combined unit declares a charge in the charge phase, impetuously
(assuming the combined unit is steady) with a front rank of IrrA.

I know the combined unit would now assume the highest FP of the two
separate units, but otherwise the rest of this seems legal to me. Am I
interpreting this correctly?

Thanks,

Peter

Any answer/reply upcoming on this in the near future, or have I asked
something really silly? Let me know if I need to rephrase it.

Thanks again

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Celella" <pcelella@c...>
wrote:
>
> After playing a couple of games yesterday with an Early Visigoth list,
> I have a question about detachment movement and/or joining.
>
> In my army, I have 8 element parent units of MI javelinmen with 4
> element units of LI archer detachments. If my archer detachment is in
> front of my MI's, and the MI's move up to join the archers (assuming
> that the archers have not moved this phase) then a combined unit is
> formed with the archers now in the rear rank. Would the front location
> of this unit now be at the original location of the archers (i.e.,
> would the MI now be moved up for free to occupy the position the LI's
> were in) or would the front of the unit now be at the location of the
> front of the MI's (i.e., would the LI simply move to the back of the
> combined unit once the separate units are joined.)?
>
> I ask this because reflecting on my play yesterday, could I have done
> the following:
>
> The archers are within 80 paces of the enemy.
>
> My MI's move up to join the archers.
>
> The MI effectively replace the archers since the LI now move to the
> rear ranks, and now my MI are actually within 80 paces of the enemy.
>
> The combined unit declares a charge in the charge phase, impetuously
> (assuming the combined unit is steady) with a front rank of IrrA.
>
> I know the combined unit would now assume the highest FP of the two
> separate units, but otherwise the rest of this seems legal to me. Am I
> interpreting this correctly?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Peter

[joncleaves]

<<In my army, I have 8 element parent units of MI javelinmen with 4
element units of LI archer detachments. If my archer detachment is in
front of my MI's, and the MI's move up to join the archers (assuming
that the archers have not moved this phase) then a combined unit is
formed with the archers now in the rear rank. Would the front location
of this unit now be at the original location of the archers (i.e.,
would the MI now be moved up for free to occupy the position the LI's
were in)>>
[
Yes.

<< or would the front of the unit now be at the location of the
front of the MI's (i.e., would the LI simply move to the back of the
combined unit once the separate units are joined.)?>>
[
No.

<<I ask this because reflecting on my play yesterday, could I have done
the following:

The archers are within 80 paces of the enemy.

My MI's move up to join the archers.

The MI effectively replace the archers since the LI now move to the
rear ranks, and now my MI are actually within 80 paces of the enemy.

The combined unit declares a charge in the charge phase, impetuously
(assuming the combined unit is steady) with a front rank of IrrA.

I know the combined unit would now assume the highest FP of the two
separate units, but otherwise the rest of this seems legal to me. Am I
interpreting this correctly?>>
[
Yes.

Jon

Jon,

Once again, I may be making an inappropriate comparison between rules,
so please bear with me.

First, my understanding of the question (at least one form the question
may take) and answer:

A parent body moves its entire tactical move distance forward and
manages to come into contact with its detachment.

The bodies combine, and the parent body is moved even further forward,
as it replaces the detached body which now moves to the rear.

One result of this is that the parent body has moved more than its
allowable movement.

Now, as a clarification to 6.52, the rules state that as a result of
interpenetration, any element that moves more than its tactical move
distance may not prep shoot nor may it charge.

I know that this may be a different case since we are talking about
detachments.

Would you please comment on this situation?

Thanks in advance.

-- Charles

Here are the relevant parts from earlier posts:

On Jan 21, 2005, at 10:35 AM, JonCleaves@... wrote:

> <<In my army, I have 8 element parent units of MI javelinmen with 4
> element units of LI archer detachments. If my archer detachment is in
> front of my MI's, and the MI's move up to join the archers (assuming
> that the archers have not moved this phase) then a combined unit is
> formed with the archers now in the rear rank. Would the front location
> of this unit now be at the original location of the archers (i.e.,
> would the MI now be moved up for free to occupy the position the LI's
> were in)>>
> [
> Yes.





> <<I ask this because reflecting on my play yesterday, could I have
> done
> the following:
>
> The archers are within 80 paces of the enemy.
>
> My MI's move up to join the archers.
>
> The MI effectively replace the archers since the LI now move to the
> rear ranks, and now my MI are actually within 80 paces of the enemy.
>
> The combined unit declares a charge in the charge phase, impetuously
> (assuming the combined unit is steady) with a front rank of IrrA.
>
> I know the combined unit would now assume the highest FP of the two
> separate units, but otherwise the rest of this seems legal to me. Am I
> interpreting this correctly?>>
> [
> Yes.
>


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

[joncleaves]

<<First, my understanding of the question (at least one form the question
may take) and answer:

A parent body moves its entire tactical move distance forward and
manages to come into contact with its detachment.

The bodies combine, and the parent body is moved even further forward,
as it replaces the detached body which now moves to the rear.>>
[
Yes.

<<One result of this is that the parent body has moved more than its
allowable movement.>>
[
Yes. And there are other things in Warrior that cause this to happen as well.


<<Now, as a clarification to 6.52, the rules state that as a result of
interpenetration, any element that moves more than its tactical move
distance may not prep shoot nor may it charge.>>
[
Yes.

<<I know that this may be a different case since we are talking about
detachments.
Would you please comment on this situation?>>
[
Yes, my comment is, I have to think about whether that clarification matches our
intent for the detachment rule. Good point and stand by...

Jon

Jon:

I'm playing a game Friday night, using my detachments. Any
suggestions/recommendations on how to play this until you have a final
determination?

Thanks

Peter

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
> <<First, my understanding of the question (at least one form the
question
> may take) and answer:
>
> A parent body moves its entire tactical move distance forward and
> manages to come into contact with its detachment.
>
> The bodies combine, and the parent body is moved even further
forward,
> as it replaces the detached body which now moves to the rear.>>
> [
> Yes.
>
> <<One result of this is that the parent body has moved more than
its
> allowable movement.>>
> [
> Yes. And there are other things in Warrior that cause this to
happen as well.
>
>
> <<Now, as a clarification to 6.52, the rules state that as a result
of
> interpenetration, any element that moves more than its tactical
move
> distance may not prep shoot nor may it charge.>>
> [
> Yes.
>
> <<I know that this may be a different case since we are talking
about
> detachments.
> Would you please comment on this situation?>>
> [
> Yes, my comment is, I have to think about whether that clarification
matches our intent for the detachment rule. Good point and stand
by...
>
> Jon

[joncleaves]

Jon:

I'm playing a game Friday night, using my detachments. Any
suggestions/recommendations on how to play this until you have a final
determination?

Thanks

Peter>>

Peter, I am not on this problem at the moment, but it is not my intent to permit
a parent to move up to the back of a long detachment in column and suddenly
teleport 400p into the face of the enemy and then charge. I would bet I will
issue a clarification to this effect when I have looked at it all in detail. I
would suggest you play it the same way as the clarification to 6.52 for now.

Jon

Thanks for the suggestion. I hadn't thought of the long column
situation specifically. Yes, I agree - that would be ridiculuous. I'll
check out the clarification in 6.52.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
> Peter, I am not on this problem at the moment, but it is not my
intent to permit a parent to move up to the back of a long detachment
in column and suddenly teleport 400p into the face of the enemy and
then charge. I would bet I will issue a clarification to this effect
when I have looked at it all in detail. I would suggest you play it
the same way as the clarification to 6.52 for now.
>
> Jon

Okay - I read the 6.52 clarification, but I have one more question.
And sorry if I'm being a pain. If I play it the way you suggest, the
detachment could be pushed back up to 100 paces. Technically, this is
not an interpenetration, right? - since the detachment is actually
joining it's parent and being put in the rear ranks. So the joined
unit would not then be disordered by this "interpenetration" -
correct?

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Celella" <pcelella@c...>
wrote:
>
> Thanks for the suggestion. I hadn't thought of the long column
> situation specifically. Yes, I agree - that would be ridiculuous.
I'll
> check out the clarification in 6.52.
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> >
> > Peter, I am not on this problem at the moment, but it is not my
> intent to permit a parent to move up to the back of a long
detachment
> in column and suddenly teleport 400p into the face of the enemy and
> then charge. I would bet I will issue a clarification to this
effect
> when I have looked at it all in detail. I would suggest you play it
> the same way as the clarification to 6.52 for now.
> >
> > Jon

[joncleaves]

Okay - I read the 6.52 clarification, but I have one more question.
And sorry if I'm being a pain. >>

Not at all a pain. Answering player's questions is a duty I take very
seriously.

<<If I play it the way you suggest, the
detachment could be pushed back up to 100 paces. >>

Or more.... And not pushed back per se. The old front edge of the detachment
is the new front edge of the parent, so it might 'look like' the detachment is
being 'pushed back' or 'through' the parent. But from a mechanics standpoint,
this is not true. Better to think of it as a 'switch' in position. Like
exchanging ranks.

<<Technically, this is
not an interpenetration, right? - since the detachment is actually
joining it's parent and being put in the rear ranks.>>

Correct - it is not an interpenetration.

<< So the joined
unit would not then be disordered by this "interpenetration" -
correct?>>

Correct.

I recommended the 6.52 clarification because both ideas have the same intent.
To permit the function to occur (interpen or parent joining detachment) but not
to permit long column hidden charge shenanigans.

Jon