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 Previous  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
joncleaves
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Posts: 16447

PostPosted: Fri Jun 16, 2006 11:50 am    Post subject:

I don't believe so.

What I want everyone to understand is that all the causes of disorder from the combat results of one combat situation are simultaneous. This is true no matter what order the combat results *moves* occur.

J

_________________
Roll Up and Win!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Frank Gilson
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: Orange County California

PostPosted: Fri Jun 16, 2006 11:29 pm    Post subject: Charges, pivot, line up, 'fit', case 2 flank, etc.

Ok...I'm quibbling little details in the following, and I 'think' I know the intent, but I post this here to gain clarification.

The 'fit' section of the charge legality rule seems strange, because 'fit' doesn't seem to matter much, as 'pivot' and 'line up' have disclaimers at the end of their sections where you don't actually have to 'pivot' or 'line up' if such moves are not possible. Jon, how does not being able to 'fit' cancel a charge given I don't actually have to 'pivot' or 'line up'?

Next, for the Case II flank charge, one not starting behind the flank, it states that I must be able to 'pivot' and 'line up' or this type of charge is not a flank charge.

So, being a quibbly rules lawyer, I would:
a) Declare my Case II flank charge.
b) Move part of the unit into contact with the flank (leaving a stand, or something, to mark original position.)
c) I now enter the 'pivot' rules section, which ends with my not having to pivot to satisfy it if I can't pivot. I have 'satisfied pivot'.
d) I now move to the 'line up' rules section, which ends with my not having to line up to satisfy it if I can't line up. I have 'satisfied line up'.
e) legal Case II flank charge, regardless
...which seems clearly not Jon's intent...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
joncleaves
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Posts: 16447

PostPosted: Sat Jun 17, 2006 12:41 am    Post subject:

The first bullet under Case II Flank Charge makes clear that you MUST pivot and line up for a case II to be legal. The paras under pivot and line up (labeled '2') that allow for NOT pivoting and lining up due to other bodies or terrain are not available in a case II flank charge, since you MUST pivot and line up for it to be legal.

Jon

_________________
Roll Up and Win!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Mark Stone
Moderator
Moderator


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

PostPosted: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:26 pm    Post subject:

joncleaves wrote:
The first bullet under Case II Flank Charge makes clear that you MUST pivot and line up for a case II to be legal. The paras under pivot and line up (labeled '2') that allow for NOT pivoting and lining up due to other bodies or terrain are not available in a case II flank charge, since you MUST pivot and line up for it to be legal.

Jon


I think Frank's point is that within the definition of what counts as pivoting and within the definition of what counts as lining up are provisions that say, in effect, "do the best you can". The bullet point you refer to, Jon, says you must apply those definitions; it doesn't obviously say that the "do the best you can" language doesn't apply.

I'd recommend a small, simple change (when you get around to errata; I think we now understand what the intent is):

for the first bullet point on p. 47, perhaps insert the word "fully" before "pivot" and "line up".


-Mark Stone
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: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:40 pm    Post subject:

I was a little surprised to find that a body that, for example, pursues off table and subsequentlyl makes a successful roll to return is eligible to march without prompting. I don't think this is a problem, but it was an interesting discovery. It goes like this:

6.821 describes the process of "arriving". Much clearer, by the way, and as someone caught in the fog of this rules section last year at Historicon, I really appreciate the new clarity.

6.822 says that flank marching troops abide by all the rules that apply to arriving. No surprise there.

6.823 also says that a returning unit is treated as an arrival.

Now we flip back to the section of the rules on march moves. On p. 52 it says that march moves have to be prompted, but there are certain exceptions that allow unprompted marches. Bullet point 4 says "that body arrived this turn".

Since all returning troops count as arrivals, such troops can therefore march unprompted. QED.

Overall I think I like this, but it has one odd consequence that came up in my last game. My opponent had a flank marching unit of light cav that showed up in my rear zone. I had a unit of LMI dutifully waiting for their arrival that then charged the LC off the table, never to return. This left my LMI unit in that annoying position we've all experienced, of needing prompt points to retire and get turned around, and then further prompt points next bound to get marching again. I had carefully set the charge up so I wouldn't pursue off table. In light of the new rule book's language on arrivals and marching, however, it would have been more convenient for me to pursue off table, take my chances with the dice on being able to return, and then use my unprompted marches to get back into the battle.


-Mark Stone
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: Sat Jun 24, 2006 8:36 pm    Post subject:

I've been struggling a bit with the "shooting combined with h-t-h" stuff, and I'm sure it's just me being dense. After reading it all over several times, I think I get it, but I want to make sure.

(1) There is a prohibition on support shooting at elements in hand to hand combat from a previous bound that are in edge contact with enemy elements (exception: elephants). As far as I can tell, this prohibition applies equally to the enemy unit such elements are in contact with, and other enemy bodies.

In other words, for example:
A 2 stand unit of SHK charges and recoils a 4 stand unit of LMI B,Sh in a 2x2 formation. In follow up, the SHK expand so that one SHK element is in frontal contact with each frontal element of the LMI B,Sh unit. In this situation, no third body can shoot at the SHK, and indeed the LMI B,Sh unit cannot shoot at at the SHK either.

Do I have this right?

If so, this contrasts with the situation in which the SHK follow and expand "off set", with one element in contact and one element overlapping. The overlapping element could then be support shot by one rear rank element (but not both) of the LMI B,Sh unit.

(2) The exception is elephants. So if a 2 model elephant unit in a 2 wide, 1 deep formation replaces the SHK in the above example, on the second bound the entire rear rank of LMI B,Sh could support shoot at the elephants, as could any third unit within range and visibility with an eligible weapon.

Do I have this right?

(3) JLS-armed troops that are open or loose order can support shoot not in the first bound of combat, but in subsequent bounds, if they are in range and visibility, and are not the unit in combat.

Do I have this right?


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


Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Posts: 16447

PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:14 am    Post subject:

Mark, you have those three correct.

Jon

_________________
Roll Up and Win!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Mark Stone
Moderator
Moderator


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

PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 3:38 pm    Post subject:

Chariot horses get to fight in a subsequent bound if following up. A literalist might argue that if the opponent against which the chariots are following up is replaced in combat, that the chariot is no longer following up, since it no longer gets the +1 for following up, and hence the horses do not fight.

Jon, I believe you have said a couple of times on this forum that in such a situation the horses still fight. It would be nice if this were more clearly worded.


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


Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Posts: 16447

PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 8:14 pm    Post subject:

A literalist would be the first person to know the difference between following up and getting a modifier for it.....

Jon

_________________
Roll Up and Win!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Mark Stone
Moderator
Moderator


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

PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 3:04 pm    Post subject:

With respect to bullet #2 on p. 92 in section 11.1 "Results of Preparatory Shooting":

If I'm understanding this correctly, it would work as follows: my HC unit takes 2 CPF in prep and elects to charge unprompted. In charge resolution, its charge gets cancelled due to being charged in the flank. At that moment, I take a waver test because I no longer qualify for the "charge unprompted" reaction to prep shooting. Yes?


-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 26, 2006 6:33 pm    Post subject:

Yes.

Jon

_________________
Roll Up and Win!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Mark Stone
Moderator
Moderator


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

PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 11:48 pm    Post subject:

In 11.213, on p. 93, "Additional Causes of Disorder from Combat", being broken through is not listed as a cause. I wasn't sure if that was intentional or not. Is being broken though supposed to be a combat cause of disorder?


-Mark Stone
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: Tue Jun 27, 2006 12:18 am    Post subject:

This one is something of a pet peeve of mine: On p. 94, 11.222, Who May (or Must) Pursue, it says, and I quote:
"Foot troops standing to receive a mounted charge may not pursue."

I have no idea whether this means stood to receive a mounted charge this bound, or stood to receive a mounted charge this combat (which could have started some bounds ago). Jon, can you clarify?


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


Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Posts: 16447

PostPosted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 8:34 pm    Post subject:

That is a combat disorder. Page 33.

11.222 This combat, not just this bound.

J

_________________
Roll Up and Win!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Mark Stone
Moderator
Moderator


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

PostPosted: Tue Jul 04, 2006 10:06 pm    Post subject:

I have a series of questions regarding when one body "joins" another, and I think these are the final pre-Historicon questions I'm trying to clear up in the new rule book (though there are a couple of important previous questions still unanswered).

I'll start with this one: it appears to me that when a detachment joins a parent body, or a parent body joins a detachment, or a staff element joins another body, that joining is not a maneuver, and hence is done "for free". In other words, "joining" is not one of the items listed on p. 37 under 6.12.

I think that's how we've always played it, though honestly I don't have enough experience with the requisite situations to say for sure. But if I'm reading this correctly, then:

A detachment of irregular foot that is its full tactical move behind a parent body could, assuming the parent body does not move, move forward full and join the parent body;

A staff element of irregular knights that is 160p behind another mounted unit could, assuming the mounted unit does not move, move forward full and join that mounted body.

Is this correct?


-Mark Stone
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   MSN Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules Forum Index -> Rules All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 3 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