Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Don Coon]

If supported Irr C LMI foot are 120 away and in front of SHC, can the Irr C go impetuous (no other significant factors apply)?  Frontally charging the SHC is a cause of unease, but under impetuous charges, its say troops uneasy AT DECLARATION are unable to go impetuous.  Since the Irr C are not uneasy at declaration (and only appear to be while actually charging) it seems they can go impetuous.  It is my feeling the intent of this cause of unease is to apply against units declaring or charging a SHC (among others) preventing impetuous LMI charges?  What is anyone elses impression? 
 
I am trying to get this worked out as I paint my Palmyrans, who will face Patricks Norse Irish.  It would be pretty cool to coast up to an Irr LMI (LHI) body and not have them go impetuous on me (also since they could not, my inevitable charge would cause a waver test too!).
 
Don

[joncleaves]

Should be declaring, Don, and since I am one page away from the final edit, I
can actually clear that up in the final product.

Jon, I agree (one unease if ATTEMPTING to charge Super Heavy troops),
and that's how we've always played it. But could you clarify the
situation for counter-charges vs super heavy troops?


--- In WarriorRules@y..., JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> Should be declaring, Don, and since I am one page away from the
final edit, I
> can actually clear that up in the final product.

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 10/13/2002 19:58:27 Central Daylight Time,
jjendon@... writes:


> 1. Is this a converted charge. The rules are not too clear on this. We
> felt it was a converted charge and played it that way. It seemed wrong
> that
> the enemy I contacted in my rout (In this case a HC L,B,Sh) was now stuck
> in
> place and cued up for my waiting cataphracts (who passed the waver test for
> seeing friendly in rout).
>
No. Other bodies may influence this combat.



> 2. Regardless of the answer to #1, if the blocking enemy unit is contacted
> to flank by my router, and by some miracle I manage to do enough damage to
> break through, do I? The rules say break throughs only happen from front to
> rear. If that applies to routers attempting to break through, any router
> who contacts an enemy to flank will never be sucessful. I am not lobbying
> that they should be, I am merely asking if it is the intent that they would
> automatically fail.
>

No 'through the side' break throughs. Any router that contacts to the flank
will fail to b-t.


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

[Chris Bump]

In a message dated 10/13/2002 8:09:36 PM Central Daylight Time,
JonCleaves@... writes:

<< 1. Is this a converted charge. The rules are not too clear on this. We
> felt it was a converted charge and played it that way. It seemed wrong
> that
> the enemy I contacted in my rout (In this case a HC L,B,Sh) was now stuck
> in
> place and cued up for my waiting cataphracts (who passed the waver test for
> seeing friendly in rout).
>
No. Other bodies may influence this combat. >>

So then the question begs, if it is not a converted charge, then does the
non-routing enemy body blocking the path who is about to be contacted,
although not converted into have charge options open to him, ie evade to
avoid said contact?

If not, a truly cheese tactic would be to sacrifice some poor irrelevant unit
in such a way as to insure or highly likely have his route path carry him
into an otherwise difficult to contact opponent, thereby pinning him and
cueing him up for a charge. Are we allowing for the tactical advantage of
creating our own routers to pin our opponents? I am not currying favor on
this question either, just being sure that your intent is what it appears to
be.
Chris

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 10/13/2002 23:54:55 Central Daylight Time, cncbump@...
writes:


> So then the question begs, if it is not a converted charge, then does the
> non-routing enemy body blocking the path who is about to be contacted,
> although not converted into have charge options open to him, ie evade to
> avoid said contact?

Evade's a charge response. This is being contacted by a router, not being
charged, and does not occur in the charge phase as an evade would have to.

>
> Are we allowing for the tactical advantage of
> creating our own routers to pin our opponents?

Nope. Getting one of your units surrounded and then deliberately getting it
into contact when you know it will break isn't my idea of 'tactical ad
vantage'...lol Oh, and the enemy has a vote in this ....um.....'Bump
maneuver'. Too funny.


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

[Don Coon]

We had a situation come up yesterday. I had a unit break. His rout path
was blocked by an enemy unit, and there was no gap large enough close enough
to deviate to. So I contact the enemy unit blocking my path and attempt to
breakthrough next bound.

The questions:

1. Is this a converted charge. The rules are not too clear on this. We
felt it was a converted charge and played it that way. It seemed wrong that
the enemy I contacted in my rout (In this case a HC L,B,Sh) was now stuck in
place and cued up for my waiting cataphracts (who passed the waver test for
seeing friendly in rout).

2. Regardless of the answer to #1, if the blocking enemy unit is contacted
to flank by my router, and by some miracle I manage to do enough damage to
break through, do I? The rules say break throughs only happen from front to
rear. If that applies to routers attempting to break through, any router
who contacts an enemy to flank will never be sucessful. I am not lobbying
that they should be, I am merely asking if it is the intent that they would
automatically fail.

Don

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 10/14/2002 05:22:15 Central Daylight Time,
jjendon@... writes:


> I will readily place my LC forward daring him to charge my
> LC so I can rout into his pesky HC.

Ok, guys. The LC 'placed forward' doesn't explain the enemy unit that
wanders in behind the LC and the other units that block all gaps. Just being
far forward isn't enough to create this situation, the enemy has to also put
a unit on the rout path and you both have to put terrain and units to block
the gap. I am not seeing this as a 'tactic' and would like you to show me a
diagram before you scare the children any more.......


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

[Don Coon]

Ok. Does the enemy unit being contacted get a charge response? If the
answer to this is yes, it may be that said unit has already made a charge
response this bound, does he get another?

This creates a RARE but interesting way to get my cataphracts able to
contact a HC - L,B, Sh unit, who normally just continues to skirmish and
evade away.

FYI - We were playing 1600 points per side of 15mm on a 5X8 board which
allowed lots of space. 2 cav based armies (Palmyran and Saladins
Egyptians). Made for quite a chess match. The large tracts of open real
estate is what caused the situation to occur in the first place. I had a LC
unit get over extended and wind up well forward of his supporting SHC.

BTW - No problem on the automatic fail to B/T. The combat therefore is only
resolved for potential CPF to the blocking enemy.

> > 1. Is this a converted charge. The rules are not too clear on this. We
> > felt it was a converted charge and played it that way. It seemed wrong
> > that
> > the enemy I contacted in my rout (In this case a HC L,B,Sh) was now
stuck
> > in
> > place and cued up for my waiting cataphracts (who passed the waver test
for
> > seeing friendly in rout).
> >
> No. Other bodies may influence this combat.
>
>
>
> > 2. Regardless of the answer to #1, if the blocking enemy unit is
contacted
> > to flank by my router, and by some miracle I manage to do enough damage
to
> > break through, do I? The rules say break throughs only happen from front
to
> > rear. If that applies to routers attempting to break through, any
router
> > who contacts an enemy to flank will never be sucessful. I am not
lobbying
> > that they should be, I am merely asking if it is the intent that they
would
> > automatically fail.
> >
>
> No 'through the side' break throughs. Any router that contacts to the
flank
> will fail to b-t.

[Don Coon]

> Nope. Getting one of your units surrounded and then deliberately getting
it
> into contact when you know it will break isn't my idea of 'tactical ad
> vantage'...lol Oh, and the enemy has a vote in this ....um.....'Bump
> maneuver'. Too funny.

I like the name "Bump Manuever" although it was me who executed it.
However, the tactical advantage of me sacrificing a 50 point LC unit in
order to cue up a difficult to hit HC- L,B, Sh enemy with my cataphracts is
difficult to achieve but there nonetheless. If the enemy chooses not to
participate (i.e not charging the LC in the first place) then the LC is
still functioning for me as he is behind the enemy front line affecting
enemy unease and enemy approach ability. This mauever works best with LC,
as they can get deep in one charge move. They also try to break off from
HTH when recieving 1 CPF and more HTH casualties, and will break if caught.
This makes them easier to break than most units when they are in tight
quarters.

Let me assure you, there is a tactical advantage here (if you can get into
the rare position to have it exist in the first place).

I am not lobbying for anything here. I am relating an incident in a game,
and burning the setup it into my memory becasue when the setup occurs again
(may take years), I will readily place my LC forward daring him to charge my
LC so I can rout into his pesky HC. Now I am the one LOL (maniacally - more
of a Bwa ha ha).

Don

funny.(more of a chuckle HO HO HO HAHAHAH.)


>From: <jjendon@...>
>Reply-To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
>To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
>Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Question
>Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 05:32:31 -0500
>
>
> > Nope. Getting one of your units surrounded and then deliberately
>getting
>it
> > into contact when you know it will break isn't my idea of 'tactical ad
> > vantage'...lol Oh, and the enemy has a vote in this ....um.....'Bump
> > maneuver'. Too funny.
>
>I like the name "Bump Manuever" although it was me who executed it.
>However, the tactical advantage of me sacrificing a 50 point LC unit in
>order to cue up a difficult to hit HC- L,B, Sh enemy with my cataphracts is
>difficult to achieve but there nonetheless. If the enemy chooses not to
>participate (i.e not charging the LC in the first place) then the LC is
>still functioning for me as he is behind the enemy front line affecting
>enemy unease and enemy approach ability. This mauever works best with LC,
>as they can get deep in one charge move. They also try to break off from
>HTH when recieving 1 CPF and more HTH casualties, and will break if caught.
>This makes them easier to break than most units when they are in tight
>quarters.
>
>Let me assure you, there is a tactical advantage here (if you can get into
>the rare position to have it exist in the first place).
>
>I am not lobbying for anything here. I am relating an incident in a game,
>and burning the setup it into my memory becasue when the setup occurs again
>(may take years), I will readily place my LC forward daring him to charge
>my
>LC so I can rout into his pesky HC. Now I am the one LOL (maniacally -
>more
>of a Bwa ha ha).
>
>Don
>




_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

[Greg Regets]

Isn't there a bit of historical precident for units that are surrounded,
deciding to just surrender?

I don't want to scare the children either, but have seen the situation come up
more than once. Perhaps it is the result of playing with 15mm cavalry armies.

G
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Russell
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 6:22 PM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Question


funny.(more of a chuckle HO HO HO HAHAHAH.)


>From: <jjendon@...>
>Reply-To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
>To: <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
>Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Question
>Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 05:32:31 -0500
>
>
> > Nope. Getting one of your units surrounded and then deliberately
>getting
>it
> > into contact when you know it will break isn't my idea of 'tactical ad
> > vantage'...lol Oh, and the enemy has a vote in this ....um.....'Bump
> > maneuver'. Too funny.
>
>I like the name "Bump Manuever" although it was me who executed it.
>However, the tactical advantage of me sacrificing a 50 point LC unit in
>order to cue up a difficult to hit HC- L,B, Sh enemy with my cataphracts is
>difficult to achieve but there nonetheless. If the enemy chooses not to
>participate (i.e not charging the LC in the first place) then the LC is
>still functioning for me as he is behind the enemy front line affecting
>enemy unease and enemy approach ability. This mauever works best with LC,
>as they can get deep in one charge move. They also try to break off from
>HTH when recieving 1 CPF and more HTH casualties, and will break if caught.
>This makes them easier to break than most units when they are in tight
>quarters.
>
>Let me assure you, there is a tactical advantage here (if you can get into
>the rare position to have it exist in the first place).
>
>I am not lobbying for anything here. I am relating an incident in a game,
>and burning the setup it into my memory becasue when the setup occurs again
>(may take years), I will readily place my LC forward daring him to charge
>my
>LC so I can rout into his pesky HC. Now I am the one LOL (maniacally -
>more
>of a Bwa ha ha).
>
>Don
>




_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



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

[Don Coon]

Thats pretty much why it happened to us. 1600 points of 15mm on 5X8.
Palmyrans vs. Saladins Egyptians. Almost 200 total scouting factors were on
the board.

Don

From: "Greggory A. Regets" <gar@...>


> Isn't there a bit of historical precident for units that are surrounded,
deciding to just surrender?
>
> I don't want to scare the children either, but have seen the situation
come up more than once. Perhaps it is the result of playing with 15mm
cavalry armies.
>
> G

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 10/14/2002 19:07:01 Central Daylight Time, gar@...
writes:


> I don't want to scare the children either, but have seen the situation come
> up more than once. Perhaps it is the result of playing with 15mm cavalry
> armies.
>

How about a picture?


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

[Mark Mallard]

Hi,

Support question - mid game

close and loose order foot support

Can a unit anywhere within 120 of the flank be a supporting unit of that
flank?


or does it have to be on the flank within 120 of the unit?

in our game there are two units to the left one is 120 away from the right
flank - can it support the right flank?

mark mallard



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