Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Raphael]

Hello All,

Firstly, I haven't yet played Warrior, so my only actual experience of it is reading the rules and studying this game. Hopefully that won't disqualify me from asking a couple of questions that arose from it.

They only concern the cavalry combat and I will try to make them as clear as possible, but I have also given my reasoning behind them so that if I have misunderstood something I can be pointed in the right direction. So;

1) When the German cavalry attempt to counter in bound 5, is turning 90 degrees to face enemy in contact with its flank the only valid option it has available?

[My Answer was Yes: Reason; Because Rule 6.126 specifically prevents them from changing into skirmish and moving away from the enemy.]

However the first sentence of this same rule which allows the attempt to turn to face doesn't actually exclude another valid counter (if any). So, as the enemy cavalry unit (admittedly now broken) is no longer within 240 paces, can they not 'simply' gallop forward and break contact?

I freely admit here that I have no real understanding of what the game is trying to convey with either h-t-h in general or flank contact between infantry and cavalry in particular.

Hopefully both this and the following the following question, will be seen in that context.

2) Having failed its counter could it break-off by turning 90 degrees to the left and chance ending up off table?

[My answer was initially Yes: Reason; Break-off is both permitted by its Combat Result 11.224 and not otherwise forbidden by its current Attack tactical order.]

However, on re-reading this rule it also says that a break-off move is made directly away from hand-to-hand opponents and mechanically made in the same way as an evade directly to the body's rear.

So, does this mean that the cavalry must first pass its counter to turn to face its opponent before break-off is valid;

As by turning 90 degrees it is not moving directly to its rear {evade}. And by turning 180 degrees it is not moving directly away from h-t-h {break-off}.

[Or perhaps I am making too much stand on the word mechanically here.]

The final question concerns the waver tests caused by the Roman C-in-C breaking in combat with a PA Standard.

When this occurred in bound four, the nearby units both took a test for seeing Loss of Standard.

3) Is this correct?

[I say No: Reason; P88 states that an army standard not also a personal standard is lost when the element containing it is broken in hand-to-hand combat.]

However, because under the Fast Warrior rules a broken body is also classed as lost does this modify the conditions under which the waver test is taken?

{Here a Novice General whose chosen army is more than 50% Irregular D anxiously awaits the answer.}

Thanking all at FHE for your continuing hard work in both supporting the rules and constantly seeking to make them the best Ancient Rules available.

Raphael

[joncleaves]

{{1) When the German cavalry attempt to counter in bound 5, is turning 90 degrees to face enemy in contact with its flank the only valid option it has available?

[My Answer was Yes: Reason; Because Rule 6.126 specifically prevents them from changing into skirmish and moving away from the enemy.] }}

Correct.

Note also the last sentence of 6.126 - barring a special list rule, the ONLY non combat results move that can be made by a body in contact is this sort of counter.

{{2) Having failed its counter could it break-off by turning 90 degrees to the left and chance ending up off table?

[My answer was initially Yes: Reason; Break-off is both permitted by its Combat Result 11.224 and not otherwise forbidden by its current Attack tactical order.]

However, on re-reading this rule it also says that a break-off move is made directly away from hand-to-hand opponents and mechanically made in the same way as an evade directly to the body's rear.

So, does this mean that the cavalry must first pass its counter to turn to face its opponent before break-off is valid; }}

Break off is a combat results move. Has nothing to do with counters and is done in a different part of the turn.

{{The final question concerns the waver tests caused by the Roman C-in-C breaking in combat with a PA Standard.

When this occurred in bound four, the nearby units both took a test for seeing Loss of Standard.

3) Is this correct? }}

Yes.

[I say No: Reason; P88 states that an army standard not also a personal standard is lost when the element containing it is broken in hand-to-hand combat.]

However, because under the Fast Warrior rules a broken body is also classed as lost does this modify the conditions under which the waver test is taken? }}

Nope. Lost for purposes of 18.5 does not change the fact that the body is broken.

Jon

[Raphael]

Hello Jon,

Have added some more points, hopefully they won't get lost.

[joncleaves]

You're right. If the army standard is also a personal standard and all that happens to the general's element is that it becomes broken, the standard is not lost per 10.4.

There are however waver tests caused by the general breaking:

"(LOSS OF LEADER). Seeing a general in line-ofcommand
(4.1) killed (destroyed or by 10.4), wounded
(10.4) or broken within 240 paces."

and I thought that was the answer you were looking for and the actual cause of the wavers. If Todd's sample battle specifically says it was due to loss of standard and not loss of leader and if the general's element was broken and not destroyed then only the loss of leader waver applies and I will ask him to change the text. Is that the case?

[Raphael]

Hello Jon,

Yes, that is the case. In Bound Four, Roman units 2 and 3 both take three waver tests, the first one being for seeing the army standard lost.

There are also a couple more minor errors if you want those as well.

also In Bound Four Combat:

1) The roman HC h-t-h score of Green 4 red 2 is called a -2.

2) Roman unit 4 (HI HTW) should not receive the +1 JLS factor.

3) Roman unit 5 (Reg C LHI) are mis-identified as B class, and so should not receive the +1 amendment to their h-t-h die score.

In Bound Five Combat:

Roman unit 5 (Reg C LHI) are called HI and then do not receive the +JLS they are entitled to.

[Raphael]

Sorry, meant to review and hit send instead before I'd done.

I don't want to appear at all nit-picking as the demo game more than serves its intended purpose, but when it's all the Warrior you've got to go on...

raphael

[Raphael]

Hello Jon,

Just for my absolute certainty concerning;

P40 6.14 final bullet: Turn a body to face enemy in contact with its flank or rear if it is not also in contact with enemy to its front.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your answer:

barring a special list rule, the ONLY non combat results move that can be made by a body in contact is this sort of counter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks, Raphael

[joncleaves]

Yep, those two statements cover it.

[Raphael]

Thanks Jon,

However, in my defence I still maintain that the wording on P40 that says In addition to being a normal tactical move (6.11, 6.12) a counter may (my emphasis) be used to ... Turn a body ... leaves some room for thinking it has other options.

I had by process of elimination ruled out 'evading' back in skirmish as a counter (or of breaking off after the h-t-h phase) if it failed to counter.

As I read it, even 6.126 didn't strictly prohibit a unit from simply moving forward as it is neither changing direction or formation. It doesn't even say that the turn is, apart from doing nothing, its only option.

I'M Sorry to labour the point, but I have seen players do some amazing things because the rules didn't say in black and white that they couldn't.

This matter is now nailed to my complete satisfaction.

Thanks, Raphael