Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Greg Preston]

Dear Jon,

Seeking some clarification on a few things as a result of our comp down
here on the weekend.

1. Some confusion arose regarding an off-table unit and command
demoralisation.

The situations was this.
Player A had a command with 7 units in it. 3 of the units were in
rout. A fourth unit from this command then pursued an enemy unit off
table.

Thus at the moment the pursuing unit leaves the table the command
becomes demoralised (as per 5.15)

That command’s order then becomes RETREAT in the order change phase of
the next bound. (as per 5.151)

a) OK so far ?

The confusion emerged relating the opportunity for the pursing unit to
return.

The unit would clearly have an opportunity to roll for a return if the
command was not on retreat orders. (as per 6.81 )

Under 4.6 COMMAND AND CONTROL OFF-TABLE The off-table body has the same
orders as the rest of its command (ie Retreat) and therefore may not
enter the table unless that order changes.
Confirmed by 6.823 Returning troops (dot point 4)

However the requirement for recovery from demoralisation (5.152)states
that the balance (......in the ratio of broken etc units.......) must
be corrected by units recovering OR RETURNING. (my emphasis)

This seems to imply that it is possible for a situation to arise where
units of a demoralized command may re-enter.

b) Is this to cover a potential timing difference between when a
command becomes demoralized and when that command’s order changes to
retreat or are we missing something here.

c) If it is the timing issue I would be grateful is you could give an
example of how this could occur.

2. Scythed chariot question 1

Under 16.23 Expendables are destroyed immediately at the moment they
become exhausted.

A scythed chariot which has previously charged is on 13 FP. It must
continue its charge straight ahead. The additional FP’s from the
continuing charge will therefore exhaust it.

a) OK so far ?

b) If there is no body in the charge path- no problem- the chariot
becomes exhausted and is removed. Yes ?

Potential questions arise with the timing of the removal and whether or
not the charge is “one action” which accrues the FP’s or if the FP’s
for the charge are “pro-rata”

c) If there is a body in the charge path- does the chariot get to fight
exhausted (if it makes contact) before being removed ?

d) If there is a body in the charge path which is required to test for
being “charged” by mounted in the open (eg LI) (or test for charged
while shaken) does the unit test before any fight or removal ?

e) If there is a body which needs to test for being “contacted” by
expendables (eg HC) does the unit test before any fight or removal ?

3. Scythed Chariot question 2.

A player deploys two Scythed chariots between three Pike blocks. The
pike blocks are all 2E wide and 4E deep. The sequence is Pike block,
Ex, Pike block, Ex, Pike block.

The following is the deployment position.

P P Ex P P Ex P P
P P P P P P

In foot approaches the player advances each of the Pike blocks 80 paces
and expands to “cover” the front of the Chariots.

Position after foot approaches.
PPPP PPPP PPPP
Ex Ex Ex

The chariots are now flush against the rear of the Pike blocks.

There was some discussion as to the “legality” of this move.
The key issues seeming to be the RUSH orders and the statement in 16.24
which states “An expendable may never voluntarily move such that there
is a friendly body between it and the nearest enemy body”

Is such a move (outlined above) legal ?



Thanks in advance,

Greg Preston

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

[joncleaves]

> 1. Some confusion arose regarding an off-table unit and command
demoralisation.
>
> The situations was this.
> Player A had a command with 7 units in it. 3 of the units were in rout. A
fourth unit from this command then pursued an enemy unit off table.
>
> Thus at the moment the pursuing unit leaves the table the command becomes
demoralised (as per 5.15)>>

Correct.
>
> That command’s order then becomes RETREAT in the order change phase of the
next bound. (as per 5.151)>>

Correct.


> The confusion emerged relating the opportunity for the pursing unit to return.
>
> The unit would clearly have an opportunity to roll for a return if the command
was not on retreat orders. (as per 6.81 )
>
> Under 4.6 COMMAND AND CONTROL OFF-TABLE The off-table body has the same orders
as the rest of its command (ie Retreat) and therefore may not enter the table
unless that order changes.

> Confirmed by 6.823 Returning troops (dot point 4)
>
> However the requirement for recovery from demoralisation (5.152)states that
the balance (......in the ratio of broken etc units.......) must be corrected by
units recovering OR RETURNING. (my emphasis)
>
> This seems to imply that it is possible for a situation to arise where> units
of a demoralized command may re-enter.>>

It is. :)

> b) Is this to cover a potential timing difference between when a command
becomes demoralized and when that command’s order changes to retreat or are we
missing something here.

Both timing differences and possible scenario or campaign special rules.

> c) If it is the timing issue I would be grateful is you could give an example
of how this could occur.>>

Demoralization occurs in bound x. The retreat order occurs in bound x+1. If,
during bound x, a unit returns (the command is demoralized but not yet under
retreat orders) then it recovers before the retreat order takes effect.

You could, for example, have a body go shaken in prep shooting and makes its
command demoralized (but not yet under retreat) but a returning body from the
same command charges onto the table and recovers the command from
demoralization.

But this sort of truly esoteric thing only happens in Texas....so no worries.
:)

> 2. Scythed chariot question 1
>
> Under 16.23 Expendables are destroyed immediately at the moment they become
exhausted.
>
> A scythed chariot which has previously charged is on 13 FP. It must continue
its charge straight ahead. The additional FP’s from the continuing charge will
therefore exhaust it.
>
> a) OK so far ?>>

Yep.

> b) If there is no body in the charge path- no problem- the chariot becomes
exhausted and is removed. Yes ?>>
>

Yes.

<< Potential questions arise with the timing of the removal and whether or not
the charge is “one action” which accrues the FP’s or if the FP’s for the charge
are “pro-rata”

> c) If there is a body in the charge path- does the chariot get to fight
exhausted (if it makes contact) before being removed ?>>

No.

> d) If there is a body in the charge path which is required to test for being
“charged” by mounted in the open (eg LI) (or test for charged while shaken)
does the unit test before any fight or removal ?>>

Yes. before removal, which is before support shooting, as at that point the
charge has been made and therefore FP accrued.

>
> e) If there is a body which needs to test for being “contacted” by expendables
(eg HC) does the unit test before any fight or removal ?>>

yes, before removal. See above.

> 3. Scythed Chariot question 2.
>
> A player deploys two Scythed chariots between three Pike blocks. The pike
blocks are all 2E wide and 4E deep. The sequence is Pike block, Ex, Pike block,
Ex, Pike block.
>
> The following is the deployment position.
>
> P P Ex P P Ex P P
> P P P P P P
>
> In foot approaches the player advances each of the Pike blocks 80 paces
> and expands to “cover” the front of the Chariots.
>
> Position after foot approaches.
> PPPP PPPP PPPP
> Ex Ex Ex
>
> The chariots are now flush against the rear of the Pike blocks.
>
> There was some discussion as to the “legality” of this move.
> The key issues seeming to be the RUSH orders and the statement in 16.24
> which states “An expendable may never voluntarily move such
> that there
> is a friendly body between it and the nearest enemy body”
>
> Is such a move (outlined above) legal ?
>
No, it is illegal. If the guy who did it says, "well since the Pike moved
first".....hit him. :)


>
> Thanks in advance,

You are most welcome.

Jon

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 8/18/2003 21:06:01 Central Daylight Time,
edgdp@... writes:

> >>d) If there is a body in the charge path which is required to test
> >for being “charged� by mounted in the open (eg LI) (or test for
> >charged while shaken) does the unit test before any fight or removal
> >?>>
> >
> >Yes. before removal, which is before support shooting, as at that
> >point the charge has been made and therefore FP accrued.
> >
> >>
> >>e) If there is a body which needs to test for being “contacted� by
> >expendables (eg HC) does the unit test before any fight or removal ?>>
> >
> >yes, before removal. See above.
> >
>
> If a body in question which fails the test in (d) or (e) above becomes
> shaken do they -recover-from shaken when the chariot is removed at
> contact (as per 5.143) ?

No, the chariots were never hand to hand opponents. ???

>
>
>
>
> >>3. Scythed Chariot question 2.
> >>
> >>A player deploys two Scythed chariots between three Pike blocks.
> >The pike blocks are all 2E wide and 4E deep. The sequence is Pike
> >block, Ex, Pike block, Ex, Pike block.
> >>
> >>The following is the deployment position.
> >>
> >> P P Ex P P Ex P P
> >> P P P P P P
> >>
> >>In foot approaches the player advances each of the Pike blocks 80
> >paces
> >>and expands to “cover� the front of the Chariots.
> >>
> >>Position after foot approaches.
> >>PPPP PPPP PPPP
> >> Ex Ex Ex
> >>
> >>The chariots are now flush against the rear of the Pike blocks.
> >>
> >>There was some discussion as to the “legality� of this move.
> >>The key issues seeming to be the RUSH orders and the statement in
> >16.24
> >>which states “An expendable may never voluntarily move such
> >>that there
> >>is a friendly body between it and the nearest enemy body�
> >>
> >>Is such a move (outlined above) legal ?
> >>
> >No, it is illegal. If the guy who did it says, "well since the Pike
> >moved first".....hit him.
>
> I always prefer to use a rules argument before going to the much more
> enjoyable physical violence
>
> Can you give me a pointer to the section of the rules which prevents
> this move ?

Well, the chariots have rush orders, they must move as fast as possible
towards the enemy. If the pikes are moved like that, the expendables did not
move
as fast as possible...

In addition, I know the general guidance (until you can get to me) is to read
the rules literally, so some of you might be thinking 'An expendable may
never voluntarily move such that there is a friendly body between it and the
nearest enemy body.' does not include its converse, but then any such literal
reading of rush orders would take care of that, so i haven't really worried
about
it. You can't have it both ways....

Besides, now that you have an answer from me, the take it literally until you
can get an answer now no longer applies, so i am NOT geting into a long
thread over the whys and wherefores. The ruling is out and there is no way I am
changing it no matter how long this thread grows...

I have promised a clarification to keep everyone happy - Until then, add
"and other friendly bodies cannot be moved such that there is a friendly body
between it and the nearest enemy body."

>
>
> Message 6213
> >2.A mounted unit is under "RUSH" orders and therefore must move "as
> fast as
> >possibleÃ… "
> >(a) does this mean the mounted unit must pre-empt foot if this means
> it
> >will move "faster"?
>
> No. You'd be making an assumption about the foot's movement.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> It seems I have misinterpreted your reply. Sorry about that.

You asked if the expendable was required to preempt. It isn't. But the pike
can't make the move described either.



J


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

[Greg Preston]

Dear Jon,
Thanks again for the fast reply.

Some follow ups
<snip>

But this sort of truly esoteric thing only happens in Texas....so no
worries. 
>

Hmmmm.............Sounds like we have a lot in common with the Texans :)



> > 2. Scythed chariot question 1
> ><snip>

> > d) If there is a body  in the charge path which is required to test
> for being “charged” by mounted in the open (eg LI)  (or test for
> charged while shaken) does the unit test before any fight or removal
> ?>>
>
> Yes.  before removal, which is before support shooting, as at that
> point the charge has been made and therefore FP accrued.
>
> >
> > e) If there is a body which needs to test for being “contacted” by
> expendables (eg HC) does the unit test before any fight or removal ?>>
>
> yes, before removal.  See above.
>

If a body in question which fails the test in (d) or (e) above becomes
shaken do they -recover-from shaken when the chariot is removed at
contact (as per 5.143) ?




> > 3. Scythed Chariot question 2.
> >
> > A player deploys two Scythed chariots between three Pike blocks. 
> The pike blocks are all 2E wide and 4E deep. The sequence is Pike
> block, Ex, Pike block, Ex, Pike block.
> >
> > The following is the deployment position.
> >
> >     P P Ex P P Ex P P
> >     P P       P P     P P
> >
> > In foot approaches the player advances each of the Pike blocks 80
> paces
> > and expands to “cover” the front of the Chariots.
> >
> > Position after foot approaches.
> > PPPP PPPP PPPP
> >      Ex      Ex      Ex
> >
> > The chariots are now flush against the rear of the Pike blocks.
> >
> > There was some discussion as to the “legality” of this move.
> > The key issues seeming to be the RUSH orders and the statement in
> 16.24
> > which states “An expendable may never voluntarily move such
> > that there
> > is a friendly body between it and the nearest enemy body”
> >
> > Is such a move (outlined above) legal ?
> >
> No, it is illegal.  If the guy who did it says, "well since the Pike
> moved first".....hit him.  :)

I always prefer to use a rules argument before going to the much more
enjoyable physical violence :)

Can you give me a pointer to the section of the rules which prevents
this move ?



The interpretation which I have mistakenly employed was based on a
response to a question I asked some months ago

Message 6213
> 2.A mounted unit is under "RUSH" orders and therefore must move "as
fast as
> possibleÅ "
> (a) does this mean the mounted unit must pre-empt foot if this means
it
> will move "faster"?

No. You'd be making an assumption about the foot's movement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

It seems I have misinterpreted your reply. Sorry about that.

Thanks again for the fast responses.

Cheers,

Greg Preston

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

[Greg Regets]

Why would expanding pikes in front of expendables be illegal? What if
the expendables never moved?

I can appreciate not liking such a tactic (or expendables for that
matter), but here in Texas, where most players have handguns, it is
rather wise to avoid hitting random strangers. An actual rule might
prove more helpful. ~wink~

G <--- The Other Greg

[Don Coon]

I have promised a clarification to keep everyone happy - Until then, add
"and other friendly bodies cannot be moved such that there is a friendly
body
between it and the nearest enemy body."


This works for me. I understand the logic, now I have it written .

Don

Thanks for the ruling about scythed chariots.

At the Newcastle tournament at the weekend I fought two armies with
scythed chariots (Pontic and Seleucid).

It was a pain having to deal with them all, taking bounds and bounds
to defuse all of the things. My poor Sassanids had limited time to do
much killing.

The ruling will mean that they are a little quicker to defuse.

We don't carry handguns here as far as I know, but I am not sure that
it would be a good idea to hit anyone just for using Scythed Chariots
in a particular way!

Adrian Williams


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 8/18/2003 21:06:01 Central Daylight Time,
> edgdp@a... writes:
>
> > >>d) If there is a body in the charge path which is required to
test
> > >for being “charged� by mounted in the open (eg LI) (or test
for
> > >charged while shaken) does the unit test before any fight or
removal
> > >?>>
> > >
> > >Yes. before removal, which is before support shooting, as at
that
> > >point the charge has been made and therefore FP accrued.
> > >
> > >>
> > >>e) If there is a body which needs to test for being
“contacted� by
> > >expendables (eg HC) does the unit test before any fight or
removal ?>>
> > >
> > >yes, before removal. See above.
> > >
> >
> > If a body in question which fails the test in (d) or (e) above
becomes
> > shaken do they -recover-from shaken when the chariot is removed
at
> > contact (as per 5.143) ?
>
> No, the chariots were never hand to hand opponents. ???
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >>3. Scythed Chariot question 2.
> > >>
> > >>A player deploys two Scythed chariots between three Pike
blocks.
> > >The pike blocks are all 2E wide and 4E deep. The sequence is
Pike
> > >block, Ex, Pike block, Ex, Pike block.
> > >>
> > >>The following is the deployment position.
> > >>
> > >> P P Ex P P Ex P P
> > >> P P P P P P
> > >>
> > >>In foot approaches the player advances each of the Pike blocks
80
> > >paces
> > >>and expands to “cover� the front of the Chariots.
> > >>
> > >>Position after foot approaches.
> > >>PPPP PPPP PPPP
> > >> Ex Ex Ex
> > >>
> > >>The chariots are now flush against the rear of the Pike blocks.
> > >>
> > >>There was some discussion as to the “legality� of this move.
> > >>The key issues seeming to be the RUSH orders and the statement
in
> > >16.24
> > >>which states “An expendable may never voluntarily move such
> > >>that there
> > >>is a friendly body between it and the nearest enemy body�
> > >>
> > >>Is such a move (outlined above) legal ?
> > >>
> > >No, it is illegal. If the guy who did it says, "well since the
Pike
> > >moved first".....hit him.
> >
> > I always prefer to use a rules argument before going to the much
more
> > enjoyable physical violence
> >
> > Can you give me a pointer to the section of the rules which
prevents
> > this move ?
>
> Well, the chariots have rush orders, they must move as fast as
possible
> towards the enemy. If the pikes are moved like that, the
expendables did not move
> as fast as possible...
>
> In addition, I know the general guidance (until you can get to me)
is to read
> the rules literally, so some of you might be thinking 'An
expendable may
> never voluntarily move such that there is a friendly body between
it and the
> nearest enemy body.' does not include its converse, but then any
such literal
> reading of rush orders would take care of that, so i haven't really
worried about
> it. You can't have it both ways....
>
> Besides, now that you have an answer from me, the take it literally
until you
> can get an answer now no longer applies, so i am NOT geting into a
long
> thread over the whys and wherefores. The ruling is out and there
is no way I am
> changing it no matter how long this thread grows...
>
> I have promised a clarification to keep everyone happy - Until
then, add
> "and other friendly bodies cannot be moved such that there is a
friendly body
> between it and the nearest enemy body."
>
> >
> >
> > Message 6213
> > >2.A mounted unit is under "RUSH" orders and therefore must
move "as
> > fast as
> > >possibleÃ… "
> > >(a) does this mean the mounted unit must pre-empt foot if this
means
> > it
> > >will move "faster"?
> >
> > No. You'd be making an assumption about the foot's movement.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >
> > It seems I have misinterpreted your reply. Sorry about that.
>
> You asked if the expendable was required to preempt. It isn't.
But the pike
> can't make the move described either.
>
>
>
> J
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Greg Preston]

Dear Jon,

Thanks for the clarification on the scythed chariot issues.
Re the Pike/expandable issue,
I'm not too worried about the words- I think I know what you are trying
to stop from happening here and the actual - game examples- will
probably be pretty clear.

To throw in my two cents worth for the wording of the clarification,

::A player may not approach, march, counter or retire a body in such a
way that it prevents an expendable from moving its maximum distance.::

There are probably a 100 things wrong with this but it may help in your
development of the final wording

Cheers,