Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Frank Gilson]

1) 2.53, page 15, "detachment's elements must remain in side edge and corner-to-corner contact with each other" followed by the parenthetical "(that is the elements of the detachment may not become 'intermingled' with elements of the parent body)".

These two parts of this rule are somewhat contradictory. The first part, the declarative sentence, is quite clear. It however permits me to have a unit with front rank parent element, 2nd and 3rd ranks detachment elements, and 4th rank parent element. The parenthetical, intended to clarify the sentence, has a reading that would seem to prohibit this. Of course I can read that parenthetical as NOT prohibiting as the detachment elements are not 'intermingled', they are 'continuous'. So, which is it? There are units where I want to have the mentioned formation in column.

2) Same rules section, page, Imagine I have a long column detachment and the parent body near the middle of it (either side, doesn't matter.) What is important is that the detachment is projecting significantly ahead of the parent.

If the detachment makes a move (a wheel or expansion or whatever) that contacts the parent, and then joins the parent, the rules seem somewhat clear...the detachment forms the rear ranks of the combined unit with the formation of the non-moving body (parent.) Since the parent is non-moving, then, the detachment elements are 'sucked up' and placed behind the parent? If so, then this is likely a move that cannot be done during the Approach phase as elements of the detachment (the Approaching body) are getting farther away from the enemy.

If instead the parent makes a move that contacts the detachment, that detachment now the non-moving body, and attaches...what happens? Does the parent body shoot up to be the front of the column, at the head of the detachment? This is a legitimate reading of the rule.

Note also that Column is a sub-type of block...what if, in the 2nd case, the parent is a block (2 wide or more) and the detachment is the noted column? Is Column a notable, separate type of formation that would be forced upon the parent body by the non-moving body (the detachment)?

...phew...

3) This is fairly complicated...and requires a little bit more work on Jon's part. Jon, take a 2E body that is a detachment of a unit of 4E of loose order troops. Assume that the detachment elements are forming the front rank, 2 wide, and that the parent loose order elements are in the 2nd and 3rd ranks. Assume also that the combined unit wins a combat and follows up.

The rules permit this unit to expand the loose order elements up. How can they do so? Imagine the following cases:
a) All loose order troops expand to either the right hand side of the detachment, or the left hand side, two E frontage wide.
...this would appear to be permitted by the rules on both detachments and expansion during follow up...

b) All loose order troops expand to either the right hand side of the detachment, or the left hand side, ONE E frontage wide.
...this may not be permitted by the rules on uneven ranks during expansion...note that there's a difference depending on whether the unit is entirely regular, or partly regular and partly irregular, from page 54, 6.31, 2nd column, "Regular bodies may be in uneven ranks after a follow-up". That permits an ENTIRELY regular body to be in any number of uneven ranks after a follow up expansion (think a Swiss column with 4E pike and 2E 2HCT swinging up just the 2E 2HCT.)

c) Only 2E of loose order troops expand out, to one side or the other.
...this 'appears' to be permitted or not permitted, depending on your answer to (1) at the top of this, whether, if the detachment elements remain in side-to-side/edge-to-edge contact the parent elements can shoot about as they wish.

d) I may have forgotten some way of expanding during follow up that should be questioned here...working it out on table with actual elements can demonstrate cases that require clarification and either contradict the rules on detachments (maybe) or the rules on expansion during follow up.

Frank Gilson

[joncleaves]

Frank, I have this email from you and I have been working on it.

But I appreciate you putting it here and I will answer here so everyone can have the answers.

[Frank Gilson]

Thanks, Jon.

It's a lengthy one with a bunch of issues. I wanted to make sure everybody was thinking about it AND would get your response.

I may have other questions in this thread based on your response, also, and so having a stream of it all here will be valuable.

Frank

[joncleaves]

Answers

1) There is nothing preventing the formation you describe. However, it is impossible (as far as I can tell) for the detachment to leave the combined body while in that formation. That is, there is no way for the detachment to leave the combined body without leaving the parent in an illegal formation - the parent's elements do not "snap back" for free.

2) In the second case, the parent unit would indeed go to the front of the combined formation - which would have to be as wide as the non-mover, whther in column or not.

Note also:

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.

3) c. but note the body will then have the same issues as noted in 1) above.

[Frank Gilson]

First off, thanks very much for the timely responses...I have a desire for a bit more clarification below.

[Frank Gilson]

Oh, and in addition...

page 15, 2.53, "The only phases in which a detachment may join or separate from a combined unit are Approach, Counter/Retirement and March."

I gather this applies to both detachments moving to join non-moving parent bodies AND parent bodies moving to join non-moving detachment bodies?

An example would be moving a unit containing a general during Staff Moves...seems clear that if the general is in a detachment he cannot join his parent during that phase (End Phase), but if the general is a parent can he join his detachment?

[Frank Gilson]

Also, I'm not 100% sure what place the parent at the front means...

Parent moves to non-moving detachment and joins it...parent is 'placed at the front'...

Either
i) The Parent is picked up and stuck out front of the detachment entirely. No detachment element moves at all.

ii) The Parent is picked up and replaces the front of the detachment, the detachment elements are moved backwards.

Frank

[joncleaves]

[[FrankG : In your answer to #2 here, does the parent need to be as wide as the non-mover before the attaching? OR, does the parent BECOME as wide as the non-mover AFTER the attaching?]]

It becomes as wide.


[[FrankG : Are (a) and (b) also ok? or not ok ways to expand out from the described unit? ]]

If they can do so without breaking other rules, yes. Any change in frontage must adhere to the rules for how that is performed for any body. If in doing so, the rule for not intermingling detachment elements, or “detachment's elements must remain in side edge and corner-to-corner contact” is violated or some other rule like even ranks for regulars is violated, then it can’t be done.
Because of what I just said, both A+B are illegal as the detachment would become intermingled with the parent.

[[Finally, I'm still a little confused about 6.41, 6.31, and irregular versus regular bodies.

Normally, 6.41 is clear. Regular bodies in block formation must have even ranks all the way back, while Irregular bodies may have one (the last) uneven.

6.31 states that "Regular bodies may be in uneven ranks after a follow-up..." which seems to permit MULTIPLE uneven rankS to a regular body after a follow-up, but NOT an irregular body (which can only have one such rank, the last.) ]]

Do not interpret the s in that rule to permit multiple ranks with different element counts. Only one can ever have a different element count from the rest.

[[page 15, 2.53, "The only phases in which a detachment may join or separate from a combined unit are Approach, Counter/Retirement and March."

I gather this applies to both detachments moving to join non-moving parent bodies AND parent bodies moving to join non-moving detachment bodies? ]]

Yes.

[[An example would be moving a unit containing a general during Staff Moves...seems clear that if the general is in a detachment he cannot join his parent during that phase (End Phase), but if the general is a parent can he join his detachment?]]

Not in staff moves.

[[Parent moves to non-moving detachment and joins it...parent is 'placed at the front'...

Either
i) The Parent is picked up and stuck out front of the detachment entirely. No detachment element moves at all.

ii) The Parent is picked up and replaces the front of the detachment, the detachment elements are moved backwards.]]

ii). Although “moved backwards” isn’t technically correct. The parent is placed in the position of the det in the formation it is in and the det forms the rear rank(s) of the new combined unit.

[Frank Gilson]

First off, thank you very much for your detailed and complete attention to this matter. I haven't used detachments much, and I don't see them used generally...so your answers are illuminating. I just have one quibble that we may need to settle with actual figures on a table top at Cold Wars.

[joncleaves]

If the parent has elements only connected only at a corner, its illegal the det is intermingled with the parent. That is what is happening in A as far as I can tell from the non-graphically supported question.

[Mark Stone]

[joncleaves]

B and C are illegal.

Parent elements only in contact at a corner is one subset of intermingled. Another subset is parent elements split into groups where the groups are not in contact with each other.

If "intermingled" is unclear, I will take suggested errata language on what needs be added to make it clearer.

[Frank Gilson]

Errata language should be:
Page 15, 2.53 Detachments, paragraph 4
The first sentence CURRENTLY reads -
"If combined with the parent body, the detachment's elements must remain in side edge and corner-to-corner contact with each other, (that is the elements of the detachment may not become 'intermingled' with elements of the parent body.)"

This should be changed because the phrase and its parenthetical cover different ground, that is, the parenthetical is not a strict clarification of the sentence.

Change it to -
"If combined with the parent body, the detachment's elements must remain in side edge and corner-to-corner contact with each other. If combined with the detachment, the parent body's elements must remain in side edge and corner-to-corner contact with each other."

This removes the term 'intermingled' and the parenthetical and ensures your intent is properly described in the text.

Frank

Immediately following this, though, I have another picture and question.

[Frank Gilson]

The dark blue elements are LMI detachment of the green parent LMI. Is this a legal formation? All the elements are the same size, so unlike case B above, parent elements are not 'separated' by the distance imposed by the depth of the Elephant detachment elements.

These parent elements here in this new case appear to be in side edge and corner-to-corner contact.

Frank

[joncleaves]

The intent is that the combined body can never be such that if either parent or detachment left the other in that moment (whether that moment is an appropriate movement phase or not) one or both would be left in an illegal formation.

I am taking suggestions for errata language that accomplishes the above.