Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

I'm also struggling with legal interpenetrations. It may be due to
residue from TOG and/or breakthrough moves, but basically:

Can the interpenetration be at any angle?

Can it be flank-to-flank?


Thanks,

Terry





--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 7/15/2004 9:44:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Ewan
McNay <ewan.mcnay@y...> writes:
>
> >I'm obviously not going to take this as one of my choices now
but
> >agree that this passage is frequently contentious.  I have always
> >assumed - and played, including rulings by Scott - A - but ave
had
> >several opponents who thought B.>>
>
> It is indeed 'A', but obviously needs work.
>
> Thanks, this is exactly what I was looking for.
>
> J
>
>
> >
> >jjendon@c... wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>>Ok, now if this isn't pandora's box, I do not know what is...lol
> >>>
> >>>If you have a particular section of the Warrior rulebook the
wording of
> >>
> >> which just drives you mad, please nominate it here to me.  You
may, if you
> >> like, include alternate wording, but you don't need to.
> >>
> >> 6.52 Interpenetration.  Troops can voluntarily interpenetrate
another
> >> friendly body directly to their front or rear in any of the
following
> >> circumstances:
> >>
> >> OK.  There are two subjects in this sentence (I will call them
Body A - the
> >> interpenetrator, and Body B - the interpenetrated).  Which
subject does the
> >> word "their" modify?
> >>
> >> If it is Body A, then we must be talking about ANY forward
movement of Body
> >> A due to tactical moves, or rearward movement of Body A due to
combat
> >> results moves, charge responses etc.  This is easily clarified
with the
> >> following wording "Troops can voluntarily interpenetrate another
friendly
> >> body directly to the interpenetrating troops front or rear in
any of the
> >> following circumstances:"
> >>
> >> If it is Body B (as has been ruled against Patrick in a tourney
game by
> >> Scott), then we must investigate and clarify what the
word "directly" means.
> >> If Body A and B are parallel and facing the same way we have no
problem.
> >> What if B is at an angle to A. This would seem to not be
directly to front
> >> (or rear) and requires some clarification.  Try this "Troops can
voluntarily
> >> interpenetrate a target friendly body to the target body's front
or rear (if
> >> the interpenetrating body is not beyond the flank of the target
body or if
> >> it would not be beyond the flank when treating the target body's
rear face
> >> as a front face) in any of the following circumstances:"
> >>
> >> Now we have a more clear rule. Honestly we are not sure whether
6.52 if for
> >> the first example or the second, but we play it as the second.
> >>
> >> Don
> >>

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 8/8/2004 01:51:05 Central Daylight Time,
quirkmonster@... writes:

Can the interpenetration be at any angle?>>
If I understand your question, generally yes, although breakthroughs are
more restricted.



Can it be flank-to-flank?>>
Again, yes, if I understand your meaning. Breakthroughs would be an
exception.

J






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

Sorry, Jon, my questions were a little unclear. It had to do with
legal interpenetrations (6.52) only. Also, I do understand that
break-through moves are more restrictive, so they are not part of my
questions.

They arose in a battle between Scots-Irish and Ancient Britons, where
the british LC got squeezed between the two opposing armies and ran
out of room for evades/break-offs/routs. Rout moves were most
important, since mounted can interpenetrate loose foot, if either in
rout. But the general concepts are important for me to understand
correctly.

I had a residual notion (possibly from TOG) that legal
interpenetrations had to be from the front of the interpenetrated
body through to its rear, or vice-versa. "Directly" meant the bodies
were parallel. In the post I was replying to, that was Reading B. (It
is also a very difficult situation to maintain on the battlefield.)



Whereas what it means is that the body to be interpenetrated must be
LOCATED directly to the front or rear of the interpenetrating body.
True?

The interpenetration can be at any angle. True?

It can even commence through the flank of the body to be
interpenetrated. True?


I also note that an angled interpenetration may bring the
interpenetrating body into a second body. With the clarifications of
June 23, this would only be allowed to a body making an involuntary
move (unless the geometry was truly fortuitous). So far so good.


LC taking 1 CPF and more h2h than they inflict "must break off". This
would be an involuntary move. True?

In contrast, LC taking 2 CPF from prep shooting choose to recall OR
take a waver test. This recall is voluntary, so a multiple-body
interpenetration would only be legal if the interpenetrated bodies
were "met" simultaneously.


Taking this LC further, if the interpenetrations weren't
simultaneous, does this stop the LC recall move at the point where
the first body is met?

Or does it prevent the recall move from
commencing, causing the LC to take the waver test after all?

I see that an evade move (6.166, pg 45, top paragraph) can end sooner
due to "cannot be voluntarily interpenetrated or impassable terrain",
but I see no similar situation for Recall Moves (6.36). Therefore,
Recall moves don't end sooner. True?

Because, if the LC who take 2 CPF from prep shooting choose to
Recall, they evade if charged first. Is this evade an involuntary
move? If so, multiple body non-simultaneous interpenetrations (MBNSI)
are allowed, and off it scoots far far away.

If the evade is classed as voluntary (after all, it does stem from
the 2 CPF choice, and the word "must" is not used), then the MBNSI
is not allowed, causing the evade to end where the first body is met.



Phew! That actually got more complicated than I thought, Jon. I
guess I either skimp on the details or get into the nitty gritty.

But its the great support you offer to us that gets misconceptions
and/or complications cleared up.

Thanks,

Terry


PS Would Orders cause some moves to be treated as involuntary?
(I couldn't resist asking... it was involuntary!)



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 8/8/2004 01:51:05 Central Daylight Time,
> quirkmonster@y... writes:
>
> Can the interpenetration be at any angle?>>
> If I understand your question, generally yes, although
breakthroughs are
> more restricted.
>
>
>
> Can it be flank-to-flank?>>
> Again, yes, if I understand your meaning. Breakthroughs would be
an
> exception.
>
> J
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[joncleaves]

Whereas what it means is that the body to be interpenetrated must be
LOCATED directly to the front or rear of the interpenetrating body.
True?>>

True. You can’t, for example, expand into an interpenetration.

The interpenetration can be at any angle. True?>>

You mean you can enter the interpenetrated body through any of its edges or
faces? True, for most interpenetrations.

It can even commence through the flank of the body to be
interpenetrated. True?>>

True. One exception would be breakthroughs.


LC taking 1 CPF and more h2h than they inflict "must break off". This
would be an involuntary move. True?>>

True.

In contrast, LC taking 2 CPF from prep shooting choose to recall OR
take a waver test. This recall is voluntary, so a multiple-body
interpenetration would only be legal if the interpenetrated bodies
were "met" simultaneously.>>

True.


Taking this LC further, if the interpenetrations weren't
simultaneous, does this stop the LC recall move at the point where
the first body is met?>>

Well, that depends on whether the LC can get through the first without
interpenetrating the second. This question really needs a non-ascii diagram.

Or does it prevent the recall move from
commencing, causing the LC to take the waver test after all?>>

No.

I see that an evade move (6.166, pg 45, top paragraph) can end sooner
due to "cannot be voluntarily interpenetrated or impassable terrain",
but I see no similar situation for Recall Moves (6.36). Therefore,
Recall moves don't end sooner. True?>>

I don’t know what you mean by ‘end sooner’. If you mean can recall moves
go less distance than the tac move plus die roll – sure they can.

Because, if the LC who take 2 CPF from prep shooting choose to
Recall, they evade if charged first. Is this evade an involuntary
move? If so, multiple body non-simultaneous interpenetrations (MBNSI)
are allowed, and off it scoots far far away.>>

Sure. But given how little LC can interpen, this isn’t really an issue. It
is only an issue with LI and LI getting sent far away from the battle line after
the initial clash is plenty realistic.


PS Would Orders cause some moves to be treated as involuntary?
(I couldn't resist asking... it was involuntary!)>>

Yes – some.

J

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 8/10/2004 18:06:38 Central Daylight Time,
hrisikos@... writes:

Unfortunately, i lost at least one game at historicon trying to argue this
to no avail. I was told that evaders can only interpenetrate bodies
directly to their rear AND "squared up" or parallel, not at an angle, even
if the interpenetrated body is positioned directly behind the evader. I'm,
not grousing, just wanting to know if FHE has decided this once and for
all.


Greek



Umpires are human. But the above is incorrect.

Jon


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

[Bill Chriss]

>
> You mean you can enter the interpenetrated body through any of its edges
> or faces? True, for most interpenetrations.
>
> It can even commence through the flank of the body to be
> interpenetrated. True?>>
>
> True. One exception would be breakthroughs.
>
>

Unfortunately, i lost at least one game at historicon trying to argue this
to no avail. I was told that evaders can only interpenetrate bodies
directly to their rear AND "squared up" or parallel, not at an angle, even
if the interpenetrated body is positioned directly behind the evader. I'm,
not grousing, just wanting to know if FHE has decided this once and for
all.


Greek

Jon,

thank you for the clear answers to my many questions.

I didn't even consider interpenetration by expanding frontage, but
I'm glad it can't be done.

I have responded to some of your questions prompted by my
insufficient information. There is also one scenario re-visited, as
I'm not sure what the "sure" refers to:


Q: LC unit takes 2 CPF from prep shooting, chooses to Recall (i.e. it
is not forced to Recall) rather than test wavering. This Recall is a
voluntary move, true?

Q:The same LC then has a charge declared against it. By its chosen
response above, it evades if charged first. Is this evade an
involuntary move?


The relevance is that clarification to 6.52, pg 54 for
interpenetrating multiple bodies, which is only allowed if the
interpenetration is simultaneous or involuntary.

The british LC had angled paths to blocks of contiguous friendly
bodies, so those bodies were not being met simultaneously. Hence the
importance of the move being involuntary (or not), as the voluntary
Recall move sees them stuck infront of friends and needing to rally
(good for the opponent!), an involuntary evade sees them scooting out
of harm's way but disordering friends in the process.




> The interpenetration can be at any angle. True?>>
>
> You mean you can enter the interpenetrated body through any of its
edges or faces?

**** Yes That is what I meant

True, for most interpenetrations.
>


>
> In contrast, LC taking 2 CPF from prep shooting choose to recall OR
> take a waver test. This recall is voluntary, so a multiple-body
> interpenetration would only be legal if the interpenetrated bodies
> were "met" simultaneously.>>
>
> True.
>
>
> Taking this LC further, if the interpenetrations weren't
> simultaneous, does this stop the LC recall move at the point where
> the first body is met?>>
>
> Well, that depends on whether the LC can get through the first
without interpenetrating the second. This question really needs a
non-ascii diagram.


**** The two interpenetrated units were in column, side-by-side,
looking like one big unit. The LC entered through the front face of
one at an angle. This path meant it encountered the flank of the
second column "later" in its move, and it had no avaialble space to
come to rest in between those two columns. In which case, a voluntary
move ends at the first body encountered.

**** But its good to know that if there were space to accomadate the
interpenetrating LC, it would pass through the first unit but not the
second (in a voluntary move).



>
> I see that an evade move (6.166, pg 45, top paragraph) can end
sooner
> due to "cannot be voluntarily interpenetrated or impassable
terrain",
> but I see no similar situation for Recall Moves (6.36). Therefore,
> Recall moves don't end sooner. True?>>
>
> I don’t know what you mean by ‘end sooner’.
If you mean can
recall moves go less distance than the tac move plus die roll
â€"
sure they can.


*** That is indeed what I meant, and a most illuminating answer it is.



>
> Because, if the LC who take 2 CPF from prep shooting choose to
> Recall, they evade if charged first. Is this evade an involuntary
> move? If so, multiple body non-simultaneous interpenetrations
(MBNSI)
> are allowed, and off it scoots far far away.>>
>
> Sure. But given how little LC can interpen, this isn’t
really
an issue. It is only an issue with LI and LI getting sent far away
from the battle line after the initial clash is plenty realistic.



*** "Any mounted troops through any light troops"

The Britons have LCh, LI and LC. Then they have LMI:

"Any mounted troops through loose formation infantry, if either in
rout".

So, in the odd case of the britons, the LC can pretty well go through
everything else in the army.

Having said that, if the big scoot away "after the initial clash is
plenty realistic" for you, I'm fine with it as well.



thanks a-plenty!

Terry

Terry,

I was losing track of who wrote what. It sounds like you got your
answers. Can you tell me what your takeaways were?

Thanks,

Mike

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 8/21/2004 02:06:58 Central Daylight Time,
quirkmonster@... writes:

Q: LC unit takes 2 CPF from prep shooting, chooses to Recall (i.e. it
is not forced to Recall) rather than test wavering. This Recall is a
voluntary move, true?>>
[
[
Yes.



Q:The same LC then has a charge declared against it. By its chosen
response above, it evades if charged first. Is this evade an
involuntary move?>>
[
[
No.

Jon


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

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "mailtomikek" <mailtomikek@y...>
wrote:
> Terry,
>
> I was losing track of who wrote what. It sounds like you got your
> answers. Can you tell me what your takeaways were?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mike



Hi there Mike,

First, the clearest post for who wrote what would be #14609.

The bits I wrote end with ">>" and usually end with a
question such as:
"True?>>"

Jon's replies usually commence with a straight True/Yes/No,
sometimes followed by further text.



Secondly, my takeaways (which Jon would need to True/False) are:


We are talking legal interpenetrations.

Break-through moves have extra restrictions.


The unit to be interpenetrated must be LOCATED to the front or rear
of the interpenetrating unit. You cannot expand into an
interpenetration.

(I take this to mean you cannot interpenetrate in the process of
expansion. However, an expansion of frontage could then be followed
by normal (forwards) movement into an interpenetration. Of course,
all but steady regulars would only have 40 paces movement after
expansion.)

The path of the interpenetrating unit can intersect the
interpenetrated unit at any angle and through any facing.

Multiple bodies can be interpenetrated only if met simultaneously or
involuntarily. For this reason, it can be important to know whether
the move was voluntary or not.

A voluntary move that interpenetrates 1 body then encounters a second
body will stop at the second body if there is room to accommodate the
interpenetrating unit. If there isn't room, then no interpenetration
of the first body is allowed either.



Post 14802 was a clarification about light troops taking 2CPF from
prep shooting who choose to Recall (evade if charged first) rather
than waver test. Both the Recall and the Evade are voluntary moves.



Bursting-through vs legal interpenetrations by routers:

Although this wasn't explicitly referenced, note that routers who
can legally interpenetrate friends in their path and do so (i.e. when
unable to divert through a gap) are not bursting through, and so do
not sweep away shaken and irregular bodies. This is why this whole
issue is so important to Scots-Irish/Ancient Britons! (There are
still waver tests to contend with, however…)


Terry