Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 10/26/2002 02:05:20 Central Standard Time,
rockd@... writes:

>
> 2.52 Detachments states:
> "How a detachment deploys...If the detachment is currently THE front
> rank(s) of the combined body, it simply moves away. When a
> detachment is IN THE rear rank(s) the move must abide by the rules
> for interpenetration, maneuvers, etc."
>
> The rule does not explicitly cover the case where the detachment
> forms PART of the front rank. Therefore, any interpretation must be
> the same for this case:
> PPPPPPPPdd
> and this case:
> PPPPddPPPP
> I'm not going to try to parse intentions from the rules' different
> wording for front/rear rank. But I have observed from the list that
> apparently people have no problem with "simply moving away" in the
> first case. Therefore the second case is handled in the same manner.
> This results in the parent unit being in an illegal formation (6.4).
>
> John M. said "The formation can't be illegal after the detachment
> leaves" but I cannot find the rule stating so. Resolve this rules
> question.

John was summing up 6.4's impact on your situation. The parent can't end the
movement phase in which the detachment departs (or any other movement phase,
for that matter) in an illegal formation. If, due to available maneuvers,
you could both detach the detachment and get the parent into a legal
formation, then ok. If the departure of the detachment leaves the parent in
an illegal formation AND the parent cannot or does not get into a legal
formation, then the departure of the detachment is illegal in that case.

>
> I also see that according to 6.4, a player could declare the
> detachment to be "detached" without actually moving it away. It
> would then be impossible for the parent to get into a legal formation
> without moving the whole front rank away. Resolve this one, too.
>

I am not aware of any part of 6.4 saying such a thing. Could you tell me
what you are looking at more specifically?


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

[joncleaves]

Now I realize that I was actually asking a more fundamental question-
and you have given me the answer in another post:

If an action (or result) is about to happen to body A which would
result in something illegal for body B (in this example, an illegal
formation), do you:
1) disallow A's action.

2) Allow A to continue, but require body B to take action
_attempting_ to become legal at each opportunity thereafter until
becomes legal.

3) Allow A to continue if &only if body B can still, &does, take
action in the same Phase which will result in its becoming legal.

4) Allow A to continue if &only if body B can still, &does, take
action in the same Bound which will result in its becoming legal.


Doug, man, I am trying. But I do not see a question yet. I alos cannot sign
up for any one of 1-4 because there are all both hypothetical and
situational.

>
>
> DIFFERENCE BETWEEN #3 and #4:
>
> As I understand it, per 2.53, the ACT OF SEPARATION is NOT a change
> of formation, it is merely a declaration by the owning player. It is
> usually associated with immediately moving away, but need not be. In
> 2.53 there is no limitation on WHEN the player can make that
> declaration. Correct?

Incorrect. 2.53, paragraph 7.

>
> _I_ never wanted to go here; all I wanted was for somebody to tell me
> how to launch my Berserks
> --
>

There is a difference between 'how to' from a rules perspective and 'how to'
from a tactics perspective. If there are questions about detachment rules, I
will answer them as I am the FHE rules guy and I have signed up for that. If
there are tactical questions out there, I will get involved in those threads
I wish to be a part of, just as any other Warrior player on this list. And I
am not interested, as a player, in this particular line of tactical
questioning. I feel very strongly that no one should attempt to use
detachments until they are comfortable with the rules, something I advise all
the players I recruit.

Just so you know, I use 2E dets of irr A to stop and hold an enemy body I
want to really kill with something else next bound, generally the parent. As
you cannot charge as a means of separation, those dets must be separate by
the time you want to charge. When I run them as dets, it is usually more to
use the parent to recover the det AFTER they have fought, not as a means of
bringing them into battle.

J


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

[Doug]

> and this case:
> > PPPPddPPPP
>> PPPPddPPPP
>> PPPPPPPPPP

> > I also see that according to 6.4, a player could declare the
>> detachment to be "detached" without actually moving it away. It
>> would then be impossible for the parent to get into a legal formation
>> without moving the whole front rank away. Resolve this one, too.
>>
>
>I am not aware of any part of 6.4 saying such a thing. Could you tell me
>what you are looking at more specifically?

Oops, got confused. I meant 2.53. Second & third paragraphs:
"...a detachment is either JOINED ... or SEPARATE."
and
"If COMBINED...may not become 'intermingled."

So the detachment can be SEPARATE and COMBINED (touching but not
intermingled). Which is consistant with the rest of the rules;
separate bodies are always allowed to touch one another- its a
fundamental necessity in order to form a continuous line of more than
one body. As opposed to some other rules that require or define
units/groups to be separated by some distance. So for people coming
from those other rules this might be a "notable difference."

The above is a tedious "parsing" of the rules & I hate writing it as
much as you hate reading it but was floundering around trying to find
a single path from question to answer. I might be on the completely
wrong track.
*****

Now I realize that I was actually asking a more fundamental question-
and you have given me the answer in another post:

If an action (or result) is about to happen to body A which would
result in something illegal for body B (in this example, an illegal
formation), do you:
1) disallow A's action.

2) Allow A to continue, but require body B to take action
_attempting_ to become legal at each opportunity thereafter until
becomes legal.

3) Allow A to continue if & only if body B can still, & does, take
action in the same Phase which will result in its becoming legal.

4) Allow A to continue if & only if body B can still, & does, take
action in the same Bound which will result in its becoming legal.

Any of the choices is equally workable- its a "design choice;" but I
don't find the choice spelled out in the rules.

You chose #3 (or maybe #4 ?):
[It works unless A and B belong to different players who disagree :0 ]
>>>
If the departure of the detachment leaves the parent in
an illegal formation AND the parent cannot or does not get into a legal
formation, then the departure of the detachment is illegal in that case.
>>>

You also answered John M.:
>>>>>
John M. commented:
> A combined unit of viking warriors and beserkir are arranged so that the
>2-base beserkir detachment takes up the middle two slots of a 4-base front
>rank.

>On the viking approach phase, the 2-base detachment moves forward. This
>leaves the warriors in an illegal formation. But on your answer to Doug, you
>seemed to imply that the remaining warriors could use their own approach to
>bring the unit into a legal formation.

JON: That is true.
> Is this so? Does it count as a change of formation under the maneuver
> rules?
JON:Yes.
>>>>>

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN #3 and #4:

As I understand it, per 2.53, the ACT OF SEPARATION is NOT a change
of formation, it is merely a declaration by the owning player. It is
usually associated with immediately moving away, but need not be. In
2.53 there is no limitation on WHEN the player can make that
declaration. Correct?

If correct, then by solving my example problem with choice #3, you
have created a de facto limitation: _sometimes_ the declaration can
only be made in a Phase where the main body can still Maneuver.
Dunno if this is a significant observation or not. Dunno if it has
wider implications. Starting to babble now...

But if you pick #4, something might occur in the interim that
prevents body B from fulfilling its obligation-- which creates a
whole 'nuther mess...

_I_ never wanted to go here; all I wanted was for somebody to tell me
how to launch my Berserks
--

Doug
The price of freedom is infernal vigilantes

I live in Maryland. We top the list for heroin addiction, syphilis,
violent crime, and political corruption. So if you visit, expect to
be drugged, raped, robbed, and then taxed for the experience.[Attrib
to Bulldozer]

[scott holder]

Doug said:
I never wanted to go here; all I wanted was for somebody to tell me
how to launch my Berserks :(

>Buy them in 2 element units, your choice of 2HCW or 2SA (I always buy shields
tho). Take those 4 units and use them as the "first wave" to stop or break up
the opponent. Go in with the next wave of Irr B Hirdsmen (who will, presumably,
be better able to withstand the waver test should the Beserks explode or rout
prematurely) to hopefully mop up the opponent. Use the Irr C Warriors to cover
your flanks, screen woods, etc. If you use Irr C Warrior Bowmen (wth the LHI,
JLS upgrade), they are some of the best flank protectors around, assuming you
toss some terrain for them to be in or anchor on. All fwiw since much of my
self-proclaimed Viking expertise came 10 years ago running them in 15mm.

Jon said:
I feel very strongly that no one should attempt to use
detachments until they are comfortable with the rules, something I advise all
the players I recruit.

>Amen to that. As someone who's used some of the most "unusual" detachments
over the years (the Khmer EL detachments to parent LMI/LHI) I would also like to
warn everybody here about wading in with detachments until you are really
comfortable with the nuances of movement mechanics. Plus, in virtually all
cases, detachments don't give you enough "help" to be worth the hassle of
learning them early on.

[Doug]

> > 2.53 there is no limitation on WHEN the player can make that
>> declaration. Correct?
>
>Incorrect. 2.53, paragraph 7.

Aha, missed that.
--

Doug
The price of freedom is infernal vigilantes

I live in Maryland. We top the list for heroin addiction, syphilis,
violent crime, and political corruption. So if you visit, expect to
be drugged, raped, robbed, and then taxed for the experience.[Attrib
to Bulldozer]