Warrior Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules
A Four Horsemen Enterprises Rules Set
 
  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups AlbumAlbum   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

New rules book questions
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules Forum Index -> Rules
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Mark Stone
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 2102
Location: Buckley, WA

PostPosted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 6:29 pm    Post subject: New rules book questions

Every reading of the rule book teaches me something new, or reminds me of something long forgotten. I'm sure it has always been the case that while D is a missile weapon, D-armed troops are not classified as missile troops (matters for prompting charges under "Attack" orders). But I "rediscovered" this little nugget while reading yesterday.

That's not my question.

My question -- and this ties in loosely to the question that came up about Swiss-Roman interaction -- has to do with replacing in combat and first contact. On page 3, under "First Contact", the last sentence says that "an element charged by replacers does not count as in first contact".

Now, maybe this has always been the case, or always intended to be the case, but this was new information to me, and I just wanted to make sure I understand. So here's the situation:

My English longbowmen (Reg B LHI 2HCW,LB) charge a unit of French LI crossbowmen, who evade and are caught and routed. The longbowmen pursue the routers, maintaining contact. Next bound a unit of French sergeants (Irr C HC L,Sh) charges through the LI, replacing them in contact, and slamming Impetuously into the longbowmen, who pass their waver for being charged by mounted.

Previously, this is not a situation that would have worried me much. I'm 4@5 (2HCW vs. HC) +1 (pursuing) = 4@6. I'd have figured the cav as 5@4 (lance vs. LHI) +1 (charging) +2 (impetuous) -1 (disordered for interpenetrating the LI) = 5@6. Not a big difference, and odds are I'll roll better than the French.

In light of this sentence on Page 3, however, it appears I've calculated the situation wrong, the longbowmen do not count as at first contact, and hence count shieldless, giving the HC an additional +2 and pretty much dooming the longbowmen.

So my question: in the situation described above, is the intent of "First Contact" on page 3 that the longbowmen indeed count as shieldless?


-Mark Stone
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   MSN Messenger
joncleaves
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Posts: 16447

PostPosted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 6:31 pm    Post subject:

Yes.

Jon

_________________
Roll Up and Win!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Peter Celella
Recruit
Recruit


Joined: 18 Apr 2006
Posts: 25
Location: West Hartford, CT

PostPosted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 6:56 pm    Post subject:

Mark - I'm liking the possibilities with my Polybians the more I think about this interpretation of this rule.

For instance, let's say I stand with a 2E unit of Velites who are being charged by whatever. If they rout or breakoff, and if they are pursued and caught, then the next bound, my Hastati can charge through (not being disordered by virtue of the list rule) and possibly hit a shieldless unit. Or if the unit is mounted lance, I would hit them, I assume, with their combat capabilities now degraded to other cavalry. Right? The way the Swiss halberds work still has me somewhat confused, but they are the only army I think with that rule.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message [ Hidden ]
joncleaves
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Posts: 16447

PostPosted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 7:06 pm    Post subject:

Stop giving away my Velite secrets!! I am not done painting yet!!

Smile

Jon

_________________
Roll Up and Win!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Peter Celella
Recruit
Recruit


Joined: 18 Apr 2006
Posts: 25
Location: West Hartford, CT

PostPosted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 8:36 pm    Post subject:

Oops!!!

I guess that means I have it right.

Sorry
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message [ Hidden ]
joncleaves
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Posts: 16447

PostPosted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 10:59 pm    Post subject:

You do indeed....

Jon

_________________
Roll Up and Win!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Bill Chriss
Centurion
Centurion


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1000
Location: Texas

PostPosted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 11:59 pm    Post subject:

This illustrates one respect in which regular close formation foot armed with P or LTS are not so bad a thing. They won't be likely to ever face this situation, since they will neither chase nor catch routing opponents that the enemy may wish to charge through.
_________________
-Greek
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Mark Stone
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 2102
Location: Buckley, WA

PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 4:16 pm    Post subject:

I'm sure this will be the first of many such discoveries, but I've found a nice change of wording that I believe clears up a nagging source of uncertainty, at least out here amongst California players.

Often a disordered unit wins its combat while suffering further disorder from the combat itself. This has created something of a chicken and egg problem for folks out here: do you waver for second cause of disorder, but then revert from shaken to disorder for recoiling/breaking/breaking off all hand to hand opponents, or is it the other way around? This matters, as it determines whether or not the unit ends up shaken.

So I'm pleased to see the wording on page 32, the last sentence of 5.51: "shaken or disordered troops that receive a combat cause of disorder DO NOT waver test if all that body's hand-to-hand opponents recoil, break-off, or break."

As I read it, this clears up the problem. No waver is taken, and if you win your combat you shouldn't end up shaken as a result of that combat.


-Mark Stone
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   MSN Messenger
joncleaves
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Posts: 16447

PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 4:20 pm    Post subject:

Mark, I hate to do this to you - but you do know that is exactly the same way in the white rulebook...

Jon

_________________
Roll Up and Win!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Bill Chriss
Centurion
Centurion


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1000
Location: Texas

PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 4:45 pm    Post subject:

A follow-up Question on the business of not counting as at first contact if one is charged by "replacers":

1. A unit of LMI LTS/JLS/Sh peltasts is fighting some LI in the open and for some wierd reason, does not break them and gets into a "lock" situation. Lancers charge through to "replace" the LI unit. The Lancers count as first contact and charging and thus use lance factors. The peltasts do NOT count first contact and therefore get no JLS bonus. Right??

1A. Now, the lancers DO take the -2 for facing LTS (assuming the peltasts are steady) because the way the rules are worded THEY, the lancers, are at first contact, and the minus is based on THEY facing LTS at THEIR first contact, even though it is not first contact for the LTS, Is this right?

1B. The peltasts do NOT test waver because they have no legal response (are not "responding") to a charge by mounted. Is this correct? Or is the logic here different from a coverted charge situation?

1C. If the peltasts were pursuiing a broken LI unit and maintained contact, and all else remained the same, the only difference is that the peltasts WOULD have to test waver for being charged by mounted because in this case they are theoretically able to respond to a charge??

Or am I caught in a TOG time warp here??

_________________
-Greek
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Mark Stone
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 2102
Location: Buckley, WA

PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 5:53 pm    Post subject:

joncleaves wrote:
Mark, I hate to do this to you - but you do know that is exactly the same way in the white rulebook...

Jon


White rulebook? What white rulebook? I have no white rulebook.... -Mark
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   MSN Messenger
Mark Stone
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 2102
Location: Buckley, WA

PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 6:04 pm    Post subject:

A couple of other points that now seem clearer (whether they were in some white rulebook or not...):

I greatly prefer the wording in 6.163 on page 42 that says "a charge declaration includes the charging body, any wheel made by the charging body, the target(s) of the charge..." to the old language of "the target defines any necessary wheel". The current wording is very clean.

I note that retirements are explicitly after counters by both players. I've always played it that way, but now I know where to look to explain this to others.

And finally a question. I think it's pretty clear, but just want to make sure. In 6.163 "Approaches" on p. 39, it says "During the opposing player's foot approaches, the non-approaching player may pre-empt to approach with a mounted unit that has no enemy mounted units within 240p of it at the time it begins the approach."

Point of clarification: you should probably say "any mounted unit", not "a mounted unit", otherwise the rules lawyer will argue that you get at most one mounted unit that can make a pre-empting move.

Now the question: I've often seen people use pre-emption as a way of moving their own mounted before their own foot, because the mounted unit is in the way of where a foot unit wants to go. Given the phrase "during the opponent's approaches" it sounds like that's illegal. You must do all you foot, wait for your opponent's foot approach phase to begin, and only then do any pre-empting moves you want to do.

Correct?


-Mark Stone
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   MSN Messenger
joncleaves
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Posts: 16447

PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 6:09 pm    Post subject:

That last is correct, Mark, unless the opponent approaches first.

J

_________________
Roll Up and Win!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Bill Chriss
Centurion
Centurion


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1000
Location: Texas

PostPosted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:55 am    Post subject:

Jon,

There are a few dumb rules questions in my post three posts up... No rush, just thought they might get lost in the shuffle.

_________________
-Greek
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
joncleaves
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Posts: 16447

PostPosted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 1:39 am    Post subject:

Sorry, greek. Missed them since they were in someone else's thread.

<<1. A unit of LMI LTS/JLS/Sh peltasts is fighting some LI in the open and for some wierd reason, does not break them and gets into a "lock" situation. Lancers charge through to "replace" the LI unit. The Lancers count as first contact and charging and thus use lance factors. The peltasts do NOT count first contact and therefore get no JLS bonus. Right?? >>

Right.

<<1A. Now, the lancers DO take the -2 for facing LTS (assuming the peltasts are steady) because the way the rules are worded THEY, the lancers, are at first contact, and the minus is based on THEY facing LTS at THEIR first contact, even though it is not first contact for the LTS, Is this right? >>

Right.

<<1B. The peltasts do NOT test waver because they have no legal response (are not "responding") to a charge by mounted. Is this correct? Or is the logic here different from a coverted charge situation? >>

The peltasts would indeed take a waver. It is not a converted charge.

<<1C. If the peltasts were pursuiing a broken LI unit and maintained contact, and all else remained the same, the only difference is that the peltasts WOULD have to test waver for being charged by mounted because in this case they are theoretically able to respond to a charge??>>

This is also a waver test. The response available to the peltast in both 1B and 1C is to stand and receive the charge.

Jon

_________________
Roll Up and Win!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules Forum Index -> Rules All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 1 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group