Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Frank Gilson]

I wanted to, apart from specific questions, draw together what's been going on about detachments.

First off,

Here's language to clarify 'intermingled'...
"If parent and detachment are combined, no element of the parent body may be connected to another element of that parent body only through an element of its detachment. No element of the detachment may be connected to another element of that detachment only through an element of its parent body."

If you accept that, or something like it, you can throw out the entire line "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.)"

You also have stated a couple of things in another thread:
a) When a parent body joins a detachment, it becomes as wide as that detachment when it is placed in the front rank. What if the detachment is wider than the parent can become? Does the parent then get as wide as it can?

b) In a combined body, neither the parent nor the detachment may be in an illegal formation were they to be considered separate bodies.

All of this should properly answer the questions I raised and clarify detachments, parents, and their combinations.

Still, at Cold Wars I'd like to demonstrate to you, given the above, parent and detachment bodies that cannot join one another and such that cannot expand out in a follow-up. These may be acceptable sub-cases...though.

Frank

[Mark Stone]

Here's an illustration that may help demonstrate some of the complexities. 3 model elephant units are fairly common, as are armies that can get elephant escorts 1 stand per elephant model. Often these are a detachment of the elephant body.

So the configuration illustrated is not an unusual one: 3 elephants in a 2-1 formation, and a detachment in column that has marched up behind.

From the various constraints that Jon has laid out in these discussions, there is no legal way for a detachment in this formation to join a parent body in this formation.

(1) Jon, is this what you want?

(2) If so, does Frank's suggested language properly capture the various constraints?


-Mark Stone

[jamiepwhite]

Hi,

Derek and I among others like to play Khmer, for what it's worth here are some Khmer elephant units we have fielded in the past.

2 Khmer elephants as parent, 2 or 4 elements of light calvary as a detachment (old NASAMW list)
2 Khmer elephants as parent, 2 light infantry elements as a detachment
2 Khmer elephants as parent, 4 light infantry elements as a detachment
2 Burmese elephants as parent, 10 light infantry elements as a detachment
2 LMI elements as parent, 2 Khmer elephants as a detachment
3 LMI elements as parent, 3 Khmer elephants as a detachment
4 LMI elements as parent, 4 Khmer elephants as a detachment
5 LMI elements as parent, 5 Khmer elephants as a detachment
6 LMI elements as parent, 6 Khmer elephants as a detachment
4 LMI elements as parent, 2 Khmer elephants as a detachment
6 LMI elements as parent, 2 Khmer elephants as a detachment
6 LMI elements as parent, 3 Khmer elephants as a detachment
8 LMI elements as parent, 4 Khmer elephants as a detachment

I've been having trouble following the previous thread but the illustrations of legal and illegal formations have been a great help.

Thanks,

Jamie

[joncleaves]

There will be combinations of parent unit size/formations and detachement unit size/formations that prevent one from joining the other, that is true.

I'd be happy to talk it at Cold Wars. I'll be there helping Scott part of the day Saturday and you can catch me then.

Frank, I'll look at your language for inclusion in the next errata update.

[Frank Gilson]

See you at Cold Wars...safe travels.

Frank

[Frank Gilson]

I'm also still not absolutely clear on what two bodies joining counts as...I'm pretty sure that you can't both attach and detach in one phase, right? ...but that doesn't seem to be specifically prohibited by the rules.

The way 2.53 is worded you can tell that either a parent or a detachment can move to the other, which is non-moving, and join to form a combined unit.

However, I 'think' that for a parent and detachment to separate only the detachment can do this, right? (rt. hand column of page 15, paragraph beginning with "How a detachment...") If a parent is supposed to be able to initiate the separation...I think a clarification is needed for that section.

Frank

[John Murphy]

ya know, I just have to ask... "why, for goodness sake?"

why all the pain over this? just drop the entire restriction and let detachements mingle or split within the parent however the owner wishes.

the restriction makes absolutely no sense (to me) anyway I must admit and seems arbitrary given the wide range of troops for which detachments are permitted.

<rant>this is in danger of just becoming _yet_ another area of Warrior rules obscura-arcana manipulated to the point of swiss cheese by bunny-rules lawyers with the time to spend dwelling on such minutiae.

sorry, I simply can not keep up with Warrior bunny-rules anymore, "dull eight-year-olds" like me need to stick to checkers.</rant>

suggest simplifying the entire issue by just dropping the restriction altogether. do the more mentally challenged players like me a favor. the rules could use any kind of simplification in the vein of 'tactics' being more than just 'rule minutiae knowledge'.

<going back into hiding, I know this thread is about a rules clarification not a rules change, but just had to throw this one idea in amidst the headache-inspiring twists and turns>

[Mark Stone]

[AntiokosIII]

Altho I understand why detachments are there, and also understand that such a change is highly unlikely, I have never felt that detachments added anything necessary to the game and would be in favor of eliminating them altogether, with the proviso that units formerly allowed as detachments could now fight as mixed units.

If you want to call one unit a detachment from another because they were brigaded historically, be my guest.

<sigh> Yeah, I know, the rules ain't changing at this point. Look, Mark started it!!

[John Murphy]

yeah I would favor a change to eliminate detachments and allow instead for them to be in a mixed unit with their parent types. that would be a much simpler way of dealing with the whole subject, and I doubt much game play of real significance would be lost by it. elegant.

by way of comparison, really given the breadth of typical application the way the rules are normally played out on table and the way that lists are usually built that is much much less substantial of a _change_ in the rules than the change that allowed steady irregulars to rally at the end of approaches, or the list rules that allow several types of LC to fight 1.5 ranks (although okay the latter is a list rule not a change to core rules).

so not unconceivable, but just depends on how Jon and the Hos look at it.

but enough, I have hijacked Frank's entirely necessary (for now at least) rules clarification thread, sorry.

[joncleaves]

Please keep in mind that the "normal" status of detachments is to be separate. Warrior makes it "harder" to act in combined bodies because it was "harder" in real life. It happened in specific instances under specific conditions for specific tasks. Trying to do something outside of those very limited circumstances in Warrior is either difficult or impossible by design.

[Frank Gilson]

a) Can a parent body separate from a combined body of parent/detachment? There's language that states a detachment may separate from a parent body...but no language that clearly states a parent body may separate from a detachment.
(I think the answer is 'yes')

b) Can a parent body and a detachment join/separate any number of times in a phase in any order? There's no language that specifies that a body may either combine, or separate, but not both, at any given time.
(I think the answer is 'no')

[joncleaves]

a) yes

b) no

working on an errata update to make this all crystal clear

[Frank Gilson]

Thank you Jon for your continued kind attention to these matters.

Frank