Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Ewan McNay]

...were few, in my experience. There were a couple of instances where I hated the rule, but at least it was clear ; and my recall is sufficiently fuzzy right now that I don't recall which rule it was that I hated anyway!

The new book is good; there were a couple of instances of noticeably ighter language, and several of increased ease of use.

Actual question, only half of one: a unit is prompted to retire in bound N. Due to lack of prompt points, it receives the prompt in bound N+1, at which time it is now in an opponent's charge reach. This was ruled - and I think it's correct - to cause a waver, but I thought I would note it here.

Sleazy move department, two entries, both against Dennis' Swiss at a stage in the game where they clearly wound him up - sorry, Dennis .

1. Cavalry moving through a wood. Partial credit to Frank Gilson here. To move through rapidly: expand by two elements on one flank, closest to where you would like to emerge. Move forward 40 paces. Cavalry in a wood can only move forward in column, so you immediately collapse, but can do so on the newly-expanded end element. Net result is a move of roughly 160 paces. Repeat next turn. Glorious .

2. Another reason why LI are the perfect elephant support troop. Imagine a two-model elephant unit in line, with a LI unit some 60ish paces behind them. In a counter, you contract the elephant unit into column. This causes them to interpenetrate the LI, which is a unit directly to the elephants' rear and hence a legal interpenetration target; but the elephants must now 'be inserted directly beyond' which means they get to move backwards roughly 200 paces. Now that's a fast elephant retreat!

AAR to come in a moment or four.

[Frank Gilson]

both the difficult terrain cavalry thing and the 'back popping' interpenetration seem a little fishy...it will be interesting to get some commentary from Jon.

[Ambrose Coddington]

One would think that the cavalry thing would fall under not being able to expand and contract in the same turn.
I know that that rule was instated to stop silly antics with regulars. But it would seem to apply here as well.

[Ewan McNay]

Jon was actually asked about the cavalry move immediately after the game, and agreed that it was fishy-but-legal; he did invite rules language to prevent it..

..and I remembered (JON ALERT) another semi-question: the rules seem to me pretty explicit about charges only being able to be declared against enemies they could hit at the time of declaration; this came up against Chris, where his IrrD LMI might have had a flank charge opportunity (hence no need for prompting) but the flank was 'concealed' by the presence of some LI in skirmish between the LMI and the flank (of some LC, not that it matters). I think we were right in playing that Chris could not declare an unprompted charge even though the LI would have had to evade and expose the flank; correct? [In this case, again not that it matters, the flank was also 110 paces away, so that a down-roll in chasing the evading LI would have resulted in not contacting the flank that was being aimed at; I can see that one possible desired intent would be to allow such a charge if no possible outcome would not have contact being made with the flank?]

[Frank Gilson]

The rules text is actually such that a 'change in frontage' maneuver cannot be done both to expand and contract in the same phase. The contraction imposed upon the cavalry by the terrain is not a 'change in frontage' maneuver.

My untested simple modification would be to prohibit mounted from making a change in frontage maneuver if such maneuver would enter or extend across difficult terrain.

I'm not totally sure about 'backwards' interpenetration...I think it's fishy, but discussing it requires significant thought. The silly thing is that the elephant unit doesn't turn around and move into the interpenetration, just swings a model back into it.

Imagine extending the case to regular cavalry.
a) I have a four element regular cavalry unit with a small LI unit behind it.
b) I decide the cavalry unit shouldn't be where it is.
c) I swing back elements into column, interpenetrating the LI but still facing forward. The cavalry unit is sucked back through the LI unit.
d) So far, even an irregular unit could have done that, like the elephants, however regulars now still have a maneuver and/or some remaining movement!

[scott holder]

The "backwards elephant interpenetration" pegged the bogus meter, that's for sure. But, I pored thru the rules to find anything that would give me a glimmer to say "no" and couldn't find anything.

scott

[Steve]

I know it's a little late, and hopefully this has all been amicably resolved, but f.w.i.w. here is how I would resolve it.

The elephants don't just 'swing back' into column, they have performed a change in frontage (6.123 P38). This means that the front rank does not move in any way.

Being Irregular and having performed a maneuver they are now limited to 40p of movement.

A counter allows only units in/or entering skirmish to move to their rear (6.14 P40), otherwise tactical movement must be straight ahead (6.111 P36).

Therefore, the elephants must use their remaining movement to advance clear of the light infanty. If they cannot do this without contravening the 240p distance they must maintain from any known enemy while countering then the whole move is invalid.

This is my reasoning behind it; Certain aspects of Warrior go on beneath the surface and are not micro-managed. This includes the mechanics of maneuvering which don't compel the player to measure the distance moved for each and every element individually.

The area covered by an element is 'notional' in that it is not considered to be full of men or animals who have no room to move, particularly if you read the historical note on P2 which allows an elephant element to consist of as little as four real elephants.

Thus, the seeming 'overlap' of elephants and LI halfway through the move is irrelevant as long as it is resolved by the end of the elephants movement.

This hopefully is more in line with the paragraph on P36 concerning 'The impact of other bodies and terrain on a body's ability to wheel etc.' which ends with the proviso that 'a body must be clear of adjacent bodies when any move is completed.'

Apologies to all if my interpretation is totally wrong, but I have seen so many games ruined by rules being stretched to the limit that I thought I would throw in my opinion because the thought that elephants can somehow be sucked backwards through a LI 'wormhole' does indeed rattle the bogus meter.

Steve

[Steve]

removing multiple posting
Steve

[Steve]

Deleted Message

[Steve]

As above

Steve

[Steve]

Deleted

[Steve]

Deleted

[Edward Sturges]

Greetings

Aside from Steve's multiple posts I wonder how in reality elephants do change formation. I'm wracking my brains to recall how I've seen elephants manouevred in Sri Lanka.

I can see how elephants can expand from a column and how they can contract to a column where the lead elephants move forward (wheel left or right and then join the end of the column).

Forming a column where the front elephants remain stationary would seem to be signifincantly trickier. You have to turn each elephant to the rear, move back, wheel to the right or left to join the column. Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.

Regards

[Steve]

Hello Edward,

Farnham U.K. eh? Quite close to home (I was down in Godalming for a while but now in London or Suffolk).

I think your point about elephants serves to illustrate the 'below the grain level' I was referring to. How the elephants actually form a column 'to the rear' is micro-managed by our little lead mahouts (unless you also play DBM where I believe column can only be formed by forward movement of the body in question.)

That's beside the point though, turning the entire elephant body around 180 degrees and then moving them straight back through the LI constitutes the only valid definition of interpenetration to me.

To be absolutely honest, my reasons for answering such an old post were twofold. I absolutely hate what has become of WRG/DBM in a continuing attempt to nail the rules lawyers and, as my Sumerian battlecarts tend to get roughly handled by the Elamites how best to use them in a game.

Regards, Steve