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: Wed Jul 05, 2006 1:45 pm    Post subject:

Mark, that is correct.

I think I am caught up here. What question is it I missed?

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: Wed Jul 05, 2006 6:42 pm    Post subject:

joncleaves wrote:
Mark, that is correct.

I think I am caught up here. What question is it I missed?

Jon


Two questions. The first may be up to Scott; I'm not sure.

(1) Can 1HCW fight behind elephants, as is now possible with the rules as written and the Rajput list as written. Scott has said "no", but we still need a rule that says why the answer is no. Right now the rules say "yes". So either the Rajput list has to change, or the rules have to change, or both.

(2) If two units of front rank chariot and back rank LMI JLS (presumably a detachment; several lists can get this combo) declare a nonimpetuous charge on the same target, can they actually both charge? A literal reading of the rules would say that they cannot, but this seems to violate the intuition that two identical bodies should be able to charge the same target.


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


Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Posts: 16447

PostPosted: Wed Jul 05, 2006 7:03 pm    Post subject:

You're right, those are both Scott questions and I will make sure he gets an answer out.

Thanks.

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: Wed Jul 05, 2006 11:22 pm    Post subject:

OK, I got the expected answer to my first question about joining: it isn't a maneuver, and thus is done "for free". Now for a longer set of follow-up questions. I believe the relevant sections here are:
    2.53 Detachments, p. 15
    4.13 Generals Joining Units, p. 19

Here's an important common element in both of these: when one body joins another, one of them has to not move in the joining phase. So either the body sits in place and is joined by a staff element, or a parent body sits in place and is joined by a detachment, or a detachment sits in place and is joined by a parent body.

But here's a difference. For detachments, "the rejoining counts as the combined unit's move in that phase." No equivalent language applies to staff elements joining another body. So, whereas "a player cannot have a detachment join its parent in the approach phase and then counter or retire with the combined unit" it would appear that a staff element could join another body in approaches, which would have to remain unmoving in the approach phase, but that the resulting whole could then counter or retire.

So my question: Is this difference intended, or is this an oversight?

Here's another difference. When detachment/parent body join, "if creating a combined unit results in any element of a body moving further than its tactical move distance, it cannot declare a charge or conduct preparatory shooting." When a staff element joins another body, no such restriction applies.

So again my question: Is this difference intended, or is this an oversight?

Finally, the last line in 4.13 says "A general cannot join a body in contact with the enemy." I don't see an equivalent restriction for detachments and their parent bodies. So, for example, could a detachment voluntarily join a parent body in contact with the enemy?


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


Joined: 16 Jun 2006
Posts: 1
Location: UK

PostPosted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 11:43 am    Post subject: 10mm Ground Scale

The ground scale table on page 2 of the rules gives 1.25" for 10mm figures - surely that should be 0.75". Or am I missing something?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message [ Hidden ]
joncleaves
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Posts: 16447

PostPosted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 1:40 pm    Post subject:

Mark -

1. First, everything there is intended.

2. A staff element that approaches to join prevents the whole from countering or retiring. Bodies that approached can neither counter nor retire. The fact that we reminded the player of that detail in the detachment rule to help a player out does not change 6.14 or 6.15 in any way.

3. A staff element joining does not prevent charges or prep shooting.

4. Detachments can join bodies in hth. Sometimes that is good, sometimes that is bad....

PeterG - you are correct - that should be 0.8" not 1.25".

Jon

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


Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Posts: 16447

PostPosted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 2:05 pm    Post subject:

Mark, as an answer to your other questions:

1) 1HCW cannot fight behind elephants. This is an official erratum.

2) In the case of mixed units and canceled charges, what matters is what troop type is in the front rank of each unit in question. This is an official erratum.

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: Thu Jul 06, 2006 5:26 pm    Post subject:

joncleaves wrote:
Mark -

2. A staff element that approaches to join prevents the whole from countering or retiring. Bodies that approached can neither counter nor retire. The fact that we reminded the player of that detail in the detachment rule to help a player out does not change 6.14 or 6.15 in any way.


OK, last question on this topic. I've been saving this one on the assumption you would answer as you did:

So when a general joins an artillery unit in approaches to direct shooting, the artillery cannot shoot that bound since it is now considered to have made an approach (why else would it be ineligible to counter or retire?).

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: Thu Jul 06, 2006 6:52 pm    Post subject:

No, the artillery is not a body that approached in your example, just the staff element. The arty can shoot, if otherwise eligible.
Note that joining is not forming a combined unit.
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: Mon Jul 10, 2006 6:20 pm    Post subject:

joncleaves wrote:
No, the artillery is not a body that approached in your example, just the staff element. The arty can shoot, if otherwise eligible.
Note that joining is not forming a combined unit.
J


So when you say "joined" on p. 73, you don't really mean "joined".

Here's how I read it. Please tell me what I'm missing. On p. 73, under 8.3, I'm told that shooters can be directed to shoot at a target "specified by a general who has joined the shooting body."

OK. So now I look up how a general can join a body. This is covered in 4.13 "Generals Joining Units" on p. 19, This makes it pretty clear, and you've confirmed in this thread already, that joining produces a whole body composed of the two joined constituents.

I just don't see how else to read it. If you don't mean "joined" on p. 73, then don't say it. Say "in contact with". If there's some other relevant passage in the rules that I've overlooked, please let me know what it is.


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


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 2769
Location: Albany, NY, US

PostPosted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 7:56 pm    Post subject:

Really, it has to be that the shooting priority text is misworded, as you suggest. Otherwise a general might end up being forced to go to the front of an artillery body and block their fire, when 'joining' that body to direct fire.

Which would be excessively silly Smile.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
joncleaves
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Posts: 16447

PostPosted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 9:26 pm    Post subject:

My fault - I should either answer yes or no or answer the long way. I took a short cut and should not have. I said 'joining is not forming a combined unit' and meant 'joining does not remove the identities of the parts joined'

The staff and arty does form a combined body. The combined body did not approach, therefore it may shoot. The staff element did approach and therefore cannot counter, thus preventing the whole from countering.

The staff element is inserted in the front rank. It does not have to replace an element already there.

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 Jul 10, 2006 11:35 pm    Post subject:

joncleaves wrote:
My fault - I should either answer yes or no or answer the long way. I took a short cut and should not have. I said 'joining is not forming a combined unit' and meant 'joining does not remove the identities of the parts joined'

The staff and arty does form a combined body. The combined body did not approach, therefore it may shoot. The staff element did approach and therefore cannot counter, thus preventing the whole from countering.

The staff element is inserted in the front rank. It does not have to replace an element already there.

Jon


I understand what you want the text to say. And I now understand what you are saying here. I think I've given the actual text a fairly careful and fairly literal reading, and I don't think it's a stretch to say that the language on joining and staff elements needs to be clearer. When you get around to posting some official errata, I -- and I'm sure others -- would appreciate if you could put some clarifying language with all of this.

And with that, I believe my next rules question will be directed to Scott, face to face, in Lancaster. Looking forward to seeing you all there next week.


-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 Jul 11, 2006 7:07 pm    Post subject:

When enough errata has built to get to a page, I will indeed start keeping a sheet.

See you there
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: Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:32 am    Post subject:

joncleaves wrote:
When enough errata has built to get to a page, I will indeed start keeping a sheet.

See you there
Jon


Jon,

I appreciate your patience over the weeks since the new rule book release. I know it must be somewhat frustrating to see your words picked over like this, but I wanted to give the new rule book a thorough reading before Historicon, and get as many issues resolved before Historicon as possible.

While there have been some items that needed genuine errata, and some other places that could benefit from greater clarity as long as other errata are being done, overall this is a vastly improved product.

Thanks for your patience and responsiveness; you've made it a better Historicon for all us as a result.


-Mark
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 4 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