Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Bill Chriss]

Many thanks for clearing this up, Jon. I can see the reasoning based on the literal language of the rules (which I did check). It would appear that literally the ONLY time loose foot do not waver test for being charged by mounted in the open is in the converted charge situation. I saw no other exceptions.

The corollary to this is quite an eye-opener...that even loose foot that is winning or locked against an HTH opponent in the open can be always be MADE to test waver by any mounted charge, whether that charge is through the pinning unit, at an element "hanging out" past that unit, or in the flank or rear.

[Mark Stone]

Here's a principle I would have expected Warrior to follow:

If two bodies are composed of the same troop types, then those two bodies can charge together at a single target.

Turns out, this is not the case. On p. 44, under K, "Cancelled Charges", here's a cause for cancelling the charge of a body: "it contains elephants or non-impetuous foot and a separate impetuous or mounted body not of elephants declares a charge against the same enemy body."
A consequence of this wording is that two identical chariot units, each of which have regular LI on the base, cannot charge the same target.

Maybe that's intended, or at least unavoidable given the other "work" this rule needs to do, but it does seem odd. Jon, would you care to comment?


-Mark Stone

[Mark Stone]

One of the regular sources of confusion I see (and experience) is in determining when you are allowed to wheel to charge a body that is already in your charge reach. This situation typically arises when a mounted body is charging a body of foot shooters, and wishes to contact the foot body on an end element rather than a middle element to minimize support shooting.

The rules now clarify this situation with the following wording, from A on p. 45: "A charge may include a wheel of up to 45 degrees, but this wheel must be made at the start of the move and must pivot on the corner of the body closest to the target."

I'm familiar with this language, and how well the "corner closest" restriction works for determining when a wheel can or cannot achieve a flank charge. I'm concerned that this language doesn't work so well for frontal charges.

I've uploaded an illustration, called "charge_wheel.jpg" to show what I mean. In the upper example, Red is wheeling from the corner closest to Blue. Red is also making a fairly extreme wheel (pretty much 45 degrees) to contact the end Red element first, and it feels almost like a change in direction.

In the lower example, Red is wheeling from the far corner. However, Red is making what is at most a minor course correction, continuing along almost the same initial trajectory.

It seems odd, then, that the upper example is a legal wheel to charge and the lower example is not.

I will, of course, accept and play by it either way, but I'm looking for some clarification and perhaps a bit of explanation.


-Mark Stone

[Bill Chriss]

You know Mark, i understand and appreciate the point made by your diagrams, but this rule mechanic does not disturb me, for whatever that might be worth. While there is some "illogic," in this rule, as you point out, I suspect that is inherent in any rule or set of rules, and, on balance, I think this rule simply and, for the most part effectively, polices what could be a much larger problem with disputed wheels.

[joncleaves]

Two Mark Stone questions..

1. Chariots with LI on the base are not a foot troop type (exc: approach precedence) and so could charge a target together.

2. You are correct that the bottom wheel in the diagram is illegal. Yes, the rules is the way I want it. I don't know about an 'explanation' except to say that the wheel in a charge is to put the target in the path. That wheel is not in the rules to min. spt shooting or for any other reason. If it works out that way sometimes, fine, but I am not writing more rules to make that the reason for the wheel.

J

[Mark Stone]

[Mark Stone]

I'm sure this one has always been this way and I'm only just now noticing, but it was amusing nonetheless:

Camels are treated in almost all respects by Warrior as being slower than horses. The entertaining exception: SHCm actually have a speed advantage over SHC, getting 4 march move segments instead of just 3 (p. 52).

Not a big deal, as there is exactly one list that this affects, and I think it's been more than a decade since I've seen Parthians played in a tournament.


-Mark Stone

[Mark Stone]

Here on the West Coast (and I believe this applies to games I've observed in Lancaster as well), we've always treated a disordering combat result and a break through as a single cause of disorder. In other words, consider the following situation:

A 2 stand unit of SHK in column charges impetuously into a 6 stand unit of foot in a 3 wide, 2 deep formation. In hand to hand, the SHK do 1 CPF to the foot, and do 3 times as many casualties as the foot. The SHK elect to break through. The foot are subject to a "recoil disordered" combat result and also subject to a "broken through" combat result. We've always played it that this does not cause a "disordered while disordered" waver test because the disorder causes have a single cause, namely receiving a CPF and three times as many.

However, on p. 57, under 6.35 "Break-through moves", in paragraph two it says that "Recoils and follow-ups, if required, occur before break-through moves." This clearly makes the recoil (one cause of disorder) and the break-through (another cause of disorder) separate events, and thus implies that in the situation I described above the foot would have to waver test. I see nothing in 11.21 to suggest otherwise.

If I'm understanding this correctly, there are several implications:

Bodies intending to break through must let their opponents recoil first, which means that in many cases the body intending to break through won't have the move to break through. This will happen if foot more than two ranks deep roll short on break through distance, or if mounted more than one rank deep with a 120p tactical move roll short on break through distance.

Mounted breaking through foot to whom they do 1 CPF will cause those foot to take a waver test for receiving two non-simultaneous causes of disorder.

Have I got this right?


-Mark Stone

[joncleaves]

Guessing that your 'implications' are rules questions...

Implication 1: Correct.

Implication 2: Not correct. Recoils and breakthroughs cannot be performed physically by one human with his figures simultaneously, true. But combat results are simultaneous mechanically.

Jon

[Mark Stone]

[joncleaves]

You are right about what you said during the course of a tourney. The players have clearly spoken that my intent is to have nothing to do with Scott's rulings, even if he rules counter to my intent and I have to issue a clarification after the event that will be 180 out from that ruling. I have had that beat into me and I understand and will comply.

However, out of a tourney, my intent does indeed matter...lol

In any case, the box at the end of page 33 and 9.1 cover this adequately.

Also note that my answers on this forum are 'official'.

Thanks
Jon

[Terry Dix]

Greetings Jon,
Since your responses here are official could we get a sticky thread with those responses, to make it easier on all to find them and print them

Thanks
TD

[Mark Stone]

[joncleaves]

I can't help how you are reading 9.1. But all of those wavers are on the same bullet and I don't see a need to make a larger rule.

I am not concerned about how Scott will rule this as I know he reads that bullet the same way i do and the same way I intend.

No disagreement, by the way, that due to the physical nature of moving things that the recoil itself and the breakthrough move are not done at precisely the same instant on the table. But all of the disorder causes from combat results are simultaneous, no matter what order the moves are performed in.

Jon

[Mark Stone]