Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[John Murphy]

Mark Stone with another timely question. I was just getting ready to
ask a bit about this very topic (except without the palisades).

Using HYWE as an example...

-------------------------------------------------------------

> 6.711: "Vehicles and mounted troops can cross field fortifications
only where they have been destroyed."

If I take the HYWE ditch TF's (no palisade, just a TF obstacle) no
mounted can march or approach across them even if I have not made it
to defend the other side yet?

And foot do so at reduced rates?

Where do I find how the ditches become "destroyed"?

> > 1. In 9.5 it seems to say that a unit defending behind a ditched
palisade counts
> > as in cover (palisade), defending an obstacle (ditched palisade),
and higher
> > (defending a ditch).>>

If I do manage to make it up to the ditch and defend it, and get
attacked, I count as defending an obstacle and higher, but no cover?

My LMI longbowmen do not have to take a waver for being charged by
mounted across the ditch since, like stakes, these are obstacles and
remove the waver requirement for loose or open foot being charged by
mounted.

My opponent hits me disordered for crossing the ditch to get to me?

---------------------------------------------------------------

Next concerns HYWE longbowmen unemplaced stakes (well, after being
emplaced). These are portable obstacles but not TF's.

So they count as defending an obstacle but _not_ as higher?

And an opponent is not disordered by crossing them until _after_
combat?

----------------------------------------------------------------

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/26/2004 17:23:38 Central Daylight Time,
jjmurphy@... writes:
> 6.711: "Vehicles and mounted troops can cross field fortifications
only where they have been destroyed."

If I take the HYWE ditch TF's (no palisade, just a TF obstacle) no
mounted can march or approach across them even if I have not made it
to defend the other side yet?>>

That's correct. They would have to dismount to cross.


And foot do so at reduced rates?>>
Yes.


Where do I find how the ditches become "destroyed"?>>

Not until Siege Warrior.



If I do manage to make it up to the ditch and defend it, and get
attacked, I count as defending an obstacle and higher, but no cover?>>

yes.


My LMI longbowmen do not have to take a waver for being charged by
mounted across the ditch since, like stakes, these are obstacles and
remove the waver requirement for loose or open foot being charged by
mounted.>>

Yes.


My opponent hits me disordered for crossing the ditch to get to me?>>

Depends on who he is.


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

[Larry Essick]

> > If I take the HYWE ditch TF's (no palisade, just a TF obstacle) no
> > mounted can march or approach across them even if I have not made
it
> > to defend the other side yet?>>
>
> That's correct. They would have to dismount to cross.
>
> > My opponent hits me disordered for crossing the ditch to get to
me?>>
>
> Depends on who he is.

Jon,

Mounted cannot cross the ditch unless dismounted (your answer to the
cross the ditch question), so that means that they effectively cannot
charge or follow-up or pursue across a ditch -- is that correct? Does
this mean elephants can never cross a ditch?

So, your answer to the disorder question applies only to foot? Loose
and open would not be disordered but close would be -- is that
correct?

Larry

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/27/2004 11:10:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
larryessick@... writes:

> Mounted cannot cross the ditch unless dismounted (your answer to the
> cross the ditch question), so that means that they effectively cannot
> charge or follow-up or pursue across a ditch -- is that correct? >>

True, mounted cannot cross and undestroyed TF.

<< Does
> this mean elephants can never cross a ditch?>>

True, mounted cannot cross and undestroyed TF. Note two additional things - 1.
you'd be disrodered close fighting against a defended obstacle, so this isn't
exactly a good idea evenb if you could cross it and 2. 7th is this way...lol

>
> So, your answer to the disorder question applies only to foot? Loose
> and open would not be disordered but close would be -- is
> that
> correct?>>

Losse and open order foot are not disordered by obstacles, correct.