Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Greg Regets]

This all sounds like a wonderful reason to go back to wrapping ... ha-ha!

Greg ~with an evil
grin~

[Ed Forbes]

Hi Jon,

This weeks game had a discussion on flank charges.

1) It was clear by the examples on what had to happen if the charge
started outside the flank per 1.26.


2) It is less clear on what happens if the charge started partially
behind the flank per 1.26.

....1.261 defines being behind the flank if "any" part of the unit is
behind the flank.
....Lining up for flanks at p. 42 require the "entire" unit to end
behind the flank.

These are two different definitions for being behind the flank. Per the
above rule (P. 42 Flank Charges), a unit 2 or more elements wide,
starting partially or fully behind the flank per 1.261, charging to
contact the enemy flank, can not line up on the flank unless every
element in the unit ends the move behind the line that defines the flank.

P. 42 Flank Charges: "For the unit to be able to pivot against and line
up on an enemy side edge, all of the unit's front edge must end the
charge move behind the enemy flank (1.26)"


Should not P. 42 Flank Charges: be negated for units starting the charge
partially or fully behind the flank as defined per 1.261? We could not
find anything that allowed a line to charge another line in the flank and
allow the chargers to center the attack at the center of the chargers
line. The entire unit is not behind the flank.

Ed

________________________________________________________________
Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
Only $9.95 per month!
Visit www.juno.com

[joncleaves]

Should not P. 42 Flank Charges: be negated for units starting the charge
partially or fully behind the flank as defined per 1.261? >>

Essentially yes. I say essentially because rather than 'negate' anything, we'll
clarify that you can also hit a flank if you start behind it.

[joncleaves]

So when you talk of the clarification are you going to say you can hit a
flank if you start PARTIALLY beyond it?>>

I don't know the exact wording yet, but yes, you will be able to charge if you
START behind the flank, even if partially. All that stuff in 6.165 is for
bodies that don't start there.

<< Are you going to further restrict
it to having to actually also cintact the flank prior to pivoting and ling
up (I sure hope so). >>

Don't know yet.

<< If you do this will open up more (not a lot more, just
more) legal flank charges.>>

Actually this is already legal, just not worded well. Warrior is designed to be
hell on open flanks.

[Don Coon]

We have had this same discussion. Jon, I want to make sure you are
answering the question that was asked (or ours if that isnt what Ed meant).


The distances in the following example are 25mm scale:

Imagine a 3X2 unit of IRR C LMI JLS,Sh aligned perfectly 90 degrees to and
80p from a 1X2 unit of REG B HI HTW,Sh. The 40 mm depth of the HI is
exactly centered on the middle element of the 3X2 LMI. Therefore as the LMI
is facing the HI, 70mm of the LMI frontage is 'in front' of the line
defining the HI flank. Now the LMI declares a legal charge and moves 80p
straight ahead. The middle element of the 3X2 formation hits the side edge
of the HI perfectly, but because the entire unit is not beyond the line
defining the HI flank it is not a flank charge. True per today's written
rules.

This leads us to the seemingly cumbersome move of advancing the LMI 40p and
contracting to a 1X6 just to be able to flank charge. Seems unrealistic.
Maybe the rule should read 'all elements that start at least partially
beyond the line defining the target units flank must contact that flank
prior to pivoting and ling up' or some such (I do not have my rules in front
of me).

So when you talk of the clarification are you going to say you can hit a
flank if you start PARTIALLY beyond it? Are you going to further restrict
it to having to actually also cintact the flank prior to pivoting and ling
up (I sure hope so). If you do this will open up more (not a lot more, just
more) legal flank charges.

Don

----- Original Message -----
From: <JonCleaves@...>
To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 1:07 PM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] flank charge ?


> Should not P. 42 Flank Charges: be negated for units starting the charge
> partially or fully behind the flank as defined per 1.261? >>
>
> Essentially yes. I say essentially because rather than 'negate' anything,
we'll clarify that you can also hit a flank if you start behind it.

[Ed Forbes]

On Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:07:19 -0500 JonCleaves@... writes:
> Should not P. 42 Flank Charges: be negated for units starting the
> charge
> partially or fully behind the flank as defined per 1.261? >>
>
> Essentially yes. I say essentially because rather than 'negate'
> anything, we'll clarify that you can also hit a flank if you start
> behind it.
>


Do you define behind the flank under 1.26? In other words, will
starting partially behind the flank allow one to align on a flank for
combat?

Ed

________________________________________________________________
Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
Only $9.95 per month!
Visit www.juno.com

[Don Coon]

Ok dude. I will be patient. I pretty much know your intent (and FULLY
agree that an open flank should be severly punished!).

Don

> So when you talk of the clarification are you going to say you can hit a
> flank if you start PARTIALLY beyond it?>>
>
> I don't know the exact wording yet, but yes, you will be able to charge if
you START behind the flank, even if partially. All that stuff in 6.165 is
for bodies that don't start there.
>
> << Are you going to further restrict
> it to having to actually also cintact the flank prior to pivoting and ling
> up (I sure hope so). >>
>
> Don't know yet.
>
> << If you do this will open up more (not a lot more, just
> more) legal flank charges.>>
>
> Actually this is already legal, just not worded well. Warrior is designed
to be hell on open flanks.