Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Rob Turnball]

WRG 7.5 has always stated that you have to have even ranks for the first two
ranks, per last years NICT ruling(and I know old rulings arent worth the
paper they are writtten on), and the rulebook.
My question is how do we deal with contraction and expansion of units if you
are not using small units. I.e. I use 48 man spear units (regulars) to expand
from a column two elements wide by this rule I have to expand twice in on
turn or expand to three elements wide not four and from 3 twice as I cannot
be four or five elements wide , sounds a little like game mechanics taking
precedence over any semblance to reality to me when your options to expand
and contract are limited by aesthetics and not by any sort of history.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding the new rules?
Thanks
Robert Turnbull

[Don Coon]

> Warning: the next comment is based on 7th.....
>
> It is/was legal for a regular body to have one uneven rank after the
> second. And of course this doesn't pose a problem for the 1- to 4-wide
> manouvre, where the intermediate stage could be a 2-wide block.

That is how we played 7th, but this is a different game.

> [If the rule on no uneven ranks is absolute, one gets silly situations
> where e.g. Swiss - 4 ranks pike, 1 rank halberd detachment - can never
> expand from column .

Agree. Another one we had was a REG HC CINC joined a 4 element body of REG
HC. The cav was 2X2 prior to the joining. What formation does it assume
upon the joining? Per the rules the joined body can only be 1X5 or 5X1. So
I guess the HC must do a manuever to expand (or contract), then the CINC can
move up and join. If the cav does not get 1X4 or 4X1 pripr to the joining
it appears it can not take place. We feel this is an area that should have
been pursued further but was not. Irr troops have more formation
flexibility than Reg troops. At the very least we might propose an X rule:
"Reg troops may have 1 uneven rank".

Don

[joncleaves]

Ed

> This after the last discussion over whether Warrior is, or is not, an
> "absolute" system ?
>

Warrior is not an absolute system. It has an absolute ground scale. Two
different things.

> <<This matter of "aesthetics" effect the way the game is played and which
> armies are competitive. >>

Yes, but we don't alter rules to make armies more or less competitive.

<< Competition games of 7th and Warrior are almost > the only ones seen at
> conventions >>

Hmm, DB[X] still has more overall people due to the dark years when WRG let
7th go. And the last con I was at also had Armati, WAB and AW/MW played
competitively. But anyway....

>>and this "game 'look' and 'feel' " > issue is germane if you are trying for
> a simulation and somewhat of a balanced game. >>

I agree.

> <<Your following statement should also indicate the advantage for irr
> forces defending, as irr forces have more options to close these gaps
> than do reg forces.>>

Note that the only exception to a regular having even ranks in a block is
when it enters and is in a gap. 6.53, third paragraph.

>
> <<If reg were allowed to be in uneven formations for the purpose of
> changing formation and defending gaps between terrain, most of my
> complaints would go away.>>

As 6.53 allows regs to enter and defend gaps and as regs changing formation
only care how they look after the last maneuver and not any theoretical
intervening ones, I think we are at the complaints go away stage. Sure,
there is nothing to be done about 3 element regular foot units wanting to be
two elements across in an open field, but we at FHE decided to not worry
about that case a long time ago in order to get what we wanted.

> <<Jon, your skin is getting a bit thin when it comes to constructive
> criticism. Pointing out holes (IMHO) in the rules is constructive, no
> matter how much you may wish certain issues to just go away.>>

It's not so much criticism or wanting issues to go away, per se. It is
choosing which issues are really issues. As the rules allow both of your
concern areas to occur, I am not sure which hole you are referring to. I,
and my rules, are quite imperfect - I know that better than anyone. But this
is, and has been, a non-issue.

Jon


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

[Ed Forbes]

> Our reasons for the regulars in even ranks is primarily aesthetic,
> which I
> have told you before. ....
>
> Jon
>
>

This after the last discussion over whether Warrior is, or is not, an
"absolute" system ?

This matter of "aesthetics" effect the way the game is played and which
armies are competitive. Competition games of 7th and Warrior are almost
the only ones seen at conventions and this "game 'look' and 'feel' "
issue is germane if you are trying for a simulation and somewhat of a
balanced game. However, if everything is only relative.....

I know I am flogging a dead horse on this issue as far as you are
concerned, but here is another example of how your "aesthetics" effect
the game.

It is not only the 3 stand reg units that have problems.

4 stands of reg close order 2HCT in a 2x2 formation defending the center
of a 3 stand wide gap between rough terrain. They are not allowed to move
into a 3 stand forward and 1 stand back formation to defend this gap as
would happen historically. They are charged by 3 stand wide close order
enemies. They will be forced to conform to their enemies and be over
lapped the following turn.

Increase the gap to 4 stands wide and use a 6 stand unit. The same
effect arrises. I know I am not the only one who sees the problem here.

Your following statement should also indicate the advantage for irr
forces defending, as irr forces have more options to close these gaps
than do reg forces.
".....All should note that this (philosophically) gives the edge to
chargers and
penalizes (in addition to the beyond the rules concept of support)
'defenders' who leave open spaces for charges to fit......"

If reg were allowed to be in uneven formations for the purpose of
changing formation and defending gaps between terrain, most of my
complaints would go away. Require the unit to revert to even ranks at
first possible to take care of your "aesthetics" concerns, not take a
"sludge hammer" to an entire class of troops for "aesthetics".

Explain to me again about how "aesthetics often get in the way of
getting every drop of blood out of a list." This is a legitimate concern
and I resent your "But that is certainly not ever going to be the reason
for me to change my mind about a rules mechanic". My interest is, and
has always been, in furthering an understanding of the era. I do not
stoop to this level of personal abuse and would like the same courtesy
from you.

Jon, your skin is getting a bit thin when it comes to constructive
criticism. Pointing out holes (IMHO) in the rules is constructive, no
matter how much you may wish certain issues to just go away.

Ed

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.

[Ed Forbes]

>
> Note that the only exception to a regular having even ranks in a
> block is
> when it enters and is in a gap. 6.53, third paragraph.

OK, defense of gaps was my main concern. My impression was that reg
could NEVER be in uneven ranks. Glad to see this is not an issue.
I was told in a earlier e-mail last year that reg inf was not allowed to
drop stands back and be in an uneven block to pass a terrain gap. This
was probably miscommunication. I was asking about terrain and was
answered for in the open.

I also do not care that much about formations in the open field on the
issue of even ranks. Somewhat of an issue when moving up to plug holes
in the line, but not that big a deal for me.
This does raise the question: In the open field, can reg be uneven ranks
to move into the gap between 2 flanking units?

Only issue left is restrictions on changing formation. The example of a
reg close order unit 1 stand deep by 12 stands long.
Is it possible for reg close order to stand in place and contract back to
a block ?
Is it possible to stand in place as a block and expand out into a line?

Waiting for the rules to arrive, so I am going by the tone of other posts
that this would not be allowed. At least not without having to do
something weird, such as turn to the flank to form a column. If they can
not, they should.

Later,

Ed

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.

[joncleaves]

Ed

> This does raise the question: In the open field, can reg be uneven ranks
> to move into the gap between 2 flanking units?
>

Yes. Gap is a gap whether one or both shoulders is a terrain feature or a
body.

> Only issue left is restrictions on changing formation. The example of a
> reg close order unit 1 stand deep by 12 stands long.
> Is it possible for reg close order to stand in place and contract back to
> a block ?
> Is it possible to stand in place as a block and expand out into a line?


I guess we will look at this, but I would never have thought to work on an
exception to the rules to support reg units (or any unit) 1 deep and 12 wide.
Yikes!

Jon


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

[Chris Bump]

Jon,

Just so I am clear on this and to confirm that I am reading what it is you are
writing:), a regular unit-solong as it is in a gap, any gap, can be in an
uneven formation and remain that way until it leaves said gap or said gap in the
case of flanking units leave said regular unit. Is that what you are saying?
Chris

[Ed Forbes]

> > Is it possible to stand in place as a block and expand out into a
> line?
>
>
> I guess we will look at this, but I would never have thought to work
> on an
> exception to the rules to support reg units (or any unit) 1 deep and
> 12 wide.
> Yikes!
>
> Jon
>

Jon,

I have never used the above formation, but it strikes at the heart of the
discussion on restricting reg formations from doing something they would
have had been able to do.

I think a simple "must revert to even ranks at first opportunity" or some
such would cover the problem. Takes care of your aesthetics and does not
keep them from doing something they could have done.

Ed

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.

[joncleaves]

<<Just so I am clear on this and to confirm that I am reading what it is you are
writing:), a regular unit-solong as it is in a gap, any gap, can be in an
uneven formation and remain that way until it leaves said gap or said gap in the
case of flanking units leave said regular unit. Is that what you are saying?>>

Not just me, 6.53! :)

[Ed Forbes]

Jon,

I am assuming that for a reg unit to change formation in a gap formed by
terrain, or friendly bodies, in order to defend this gap, and to end in
uneven ranks in this gap, that it end its formation change with less than
1 stand width, in total, to each shoulder of the gap (no room to
squeeze in another stand if one flank of the unit were touching one
shoulder of the gap).

I assume this because, under 6.53, if the body was moving through the
gap, it would contract "by the minimum number of elements necessary to
allow it to fit"

If not correct, please give some direction on the mechanics of how
defending a gap with reg units would work on the table and some examples
of what would, and would not, be allowed.

Thanks,

Ed

On Tue, 23 Apr 2002 23:36:20 EDT JonCleaves@... writes:
> snip
>
> Note that the only exception to a regular having even ranks in a
> block is
> when it enters and is in a gap. 6.53, third paragraph.
>
> >
> > <<If reg were allowed to be in uneven formations for the purpose
> of
> > changing formation and defending gaps between terrain, most of my
> > complaints would go away.>>
>
> As 6.53 allows regs to enter and defend gaps and as regs changing
> formation
> only care how they look after the last maneuver and not any
> theoretical
> intervening ones, I think we are at the complaints go away stage.
> Sure,
> there is nothing to be done about 3 element regular foot units
> wanting to be
> two elements across in an open field, but we at FHE decided to not
> worry
> about that case a long time ago in order to get what we wanted.

>snip

> Jon
>

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.

[joncleaves]

Ed,
That will work.
Jon


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