Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mark Mallard]

A unit of LI (irr 10 elements 4 wide) attempted to charge through a gap about
3.5 elements wide.

The gap was between two friendly units of EHC & Elephants. It could drop
back an elements width on the side of the EHC to enable passing through the
gap.

On contacting the enemy, the LI were lined up and now the 3rd rank of LI are
interpenetrating the Elephants.

According to the INTERPENETRATION & FIT rules 6.163 page 38 this means the
charge may not be declared.

Was this right as my opponent is none too happy?

Thanks in advance
mark mallard




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

[joncleaves]

> A unit of LI (irr 10 elements 4 wide) attempted to charge through a gap
> about
> 3.5 elements wide.
>
> The gap was between two friendly units of EHC & Elephants. It could drop
> back an elements width on the side of the EHC to enable passing through the
>
> gap.
>
> On contacting the enemy, the LI were lined up and now the 3rd rank of LI
> are
> interpenetrating the Elephants.
>
> According to the INTERPENETRATION & FIT rules 6.163 page 38 this means the
> charge may not be declared.
>
> Was this right as my opponent is none too happy?
>

Well, I can't see the whole situation. But if the LI could line up due to
the prox of friendlies, then the charge target could have been instead -
unless there is something else going on I don't know about.


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

[Doug]

>>>
>But if the LI could line up due to
the prox of friendlies, then the charge target could have been instead -
>>>

This is not a sentence; could you restate?

Also, a related question:
When reducing frontage by one element width, the use of whole
elements requires that either the left or right side be reduced.
This changes the geometric location of the center of the frontage.
It can be a relatively large change, when the original line is only 3
wide.

Is it allowable to shift the new line sideways half an element in
order to keep the _center_ of the line in the same spot? When
passing a gap, this would seem to give a more realistic result, since
in real life troops would probably be dropped back from both sides of
the line, not just one side.

**********

> > A unit of LI (irr 10 elements 4 wide) attempted to charge through a gap
>> about
>> 3.5 elements wide.
>>
>> The gap was between two friendly units of EHC & Elephants. It could drop
>> back an elements width on the side of the EHC to enable passing through the
>>
>> gap.
>>
>> On contacting the enemy, the LI were lined up and now the 3rd rank of LI
>> are
>> interpenetrating the Elephants.
>>
>> According to the INTERPENETRATION & FIT rules 6.163 page 38 this means the
>> charge may not be declared.
>>
>> Was this right as my opponent is none too happy?
>>
>
>Well, I can't see the whole situation. But if the LI could line up due to
>the prox of friendlies, then the charge target could have been instead -
>unless there is something else going on I don't know about.

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 9/3/2002 01:07:12 Central Daylight Time,
rockd@... writes:


> >But if the LI could line up due to
> the prox of friendlies, then the charge target could have been instead -
> >>>
>
> This is not a sentence; could you restate?

It is actually, but I should not have begun it with a conjunction. The
charge target could have been LINED UP instead.
>
> Is it allowable to shift the new line sideways half an element in
> order to keep the _center_ of the line in the same spot? When
> passing a gap, this would seem to give a more realistic result, since
> in real life troops would probably be dropped back from both sides of
> the line, not just one side.
>
>

That is not legal in Warrior. Now, as an x-rule....


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