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 

Replacing in combat
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules Forum Index -> Rules
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Frank Gilson
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: Orange County California

PostPosted: Sun Nov 29, 2015 7:05 am    Post subject: Romans

As for the Romans, yes, it does permit a 2E unit, behind a larger unit, to charge (and not be disordered, Roman special rules), allowing the initial larger unit that was losing to be fully replaced.

Exactly what this means will vary based on what the opponent is attacking you with, where, and the local superiority of troops at hand.

Remember that the replaced unit will be out of commission that bound, and the next...(if it was disordered, but if it wasn't, why are you replacing it?)

Frank
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
lilroblis
Legionary
Legionary


Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 567
Location: Cleveland Ohio

PostPosted: Sun Nov 29, 2015 2:59 pm    Post subject: Replacing in combat

But LI charging through Lc would work , and of course the replacing in combat troops are very hard to beat - except that they cover small frontage - but 16 backed by 8's would work very well - but just don't like the ruling
Oh well - just another wrinkle
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Frank Gilson
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: Orange County California

PostPosted: Sun Nov 29, 2015 10:38 pm    Post subject:

It is actually fairly clear in the rules, which mention replacing bodies, and moving replaced out of the way, and nothing about elements (which may be a hold out from earlier rules, I have no copies).

There is also one rules answer from Jon several years ago that implies bodies, not elements.

LI charging through LC to replace only works if the target is LI, LC or disordered...and your LC are not impetuous...and your LI will probably lose the fight.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
lilroblis
Legionary
Legionary


Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 567
Location: Cleveland Ohio

PostPosted: Mon Nov 30, 2015 12:20 am    Post subject: replacing

What worries me more is I can now easily defeat troops who routed my troops - if not lC who are not impetuous - as they only get to fight the troops charging through - not across the rest of the rout - very different to how we have ever played it - but its just another strategem - now I may want my LI to lose to LC - because I can rout the LC and everyone cares as an example
again I dont care as long as it is clear - and quite frankly what was said by someone who no longer plays teh game is of little interest to me - as sometimes what he said is directly contrary to what he wrote - the baton has passed long ago
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Frank Gilson
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: Orange County California

PostPosted: Mon Nov 30, 2015 12:56 am    Post subject:

What Jon said in this instance appears consistent with what is written in the back book, that bodies replaced in combat are replaced as bodies (not elements), although it is a rather vague link. It was also said years ago when he was still involved.

"I can easily defeat troops who routed my troops"
Well, no, not generally. Your replacers must be able to:
- Declare a legal charge
- Make a legal interpenetration
- Will be disordered (usually, unless a list rule)
- And then defeat the pursuing enemy

You could have done all of this at any time with a sufficiently wide replacing unit that meets all of the above according to how we were using replacement (which happens very infrequently in any event).

You should think about concrete, specific situations where the above is a material change that you will encounter on the battlefield.

All else, including my words, are Theory...not Practice.

Frank
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Terry D
Recruit
Recruit


Joined: 18 Jul 2008
Posts: 77

PostPosted: Mon Nov 30, 2015 10:04 pm    Post subject:

The LI unit still has to be able to charge to replace, right? So unless you have a disordered body it can't replace to reset the combaa
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Historian
Recruit
Recruit


Joined: 27 Feb 2011
Posts: 239
Location: Pennsylvannia

PostPosted: Tue Dec 01, 2015 6:14 pm    Post subject: replacment

This had to be exchange by whole body, not element by element. Otherwise there would be units split up with elements on the front line while others way back. While this would make sense on a battlefield, it breaks the game logic. You would have a unit charge and replace, and at the same time received flanking elements also participating in the combat as their unit was fighting in a previous bound. Ugly...
_________________
Phil
Japanese telephones work pretty much like ours, except the person on the other end can't understand you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message [ Hidden ] Visit poster's website
scott holder
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6032
Location: Bonnots Mill, MO

PostPosted: Mon Dec 07, 2015 6:13 pm    Post subject:

Fred Stratton confirms that in a previous Cold Wars, I ruled entire body, not element by element.

scott

_________________
These Rules Suck, Let's Paint!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   Visit poster's website
Frank Gilson
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: Orange County California

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2015 1:36 am    Post subject:

The sky is indeed not falling then. Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
lilroblis
Legionary
Legionary


Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 567
Location: Cleveland Ohio

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2015 2:30 pm    Post subject: Replacing

Never end of the world - just clarity - I love it for routing LI - now I can kill other folks cavalry easily when they rout my 24 man LI blocks- because they don't get overlap
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Todd Kaeser
Centurion
Centurion


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1211
Location: Foxborough, Massachusetts

PostPosted: Thu Dec 10, 2015 2:58 pm    Post subject:

Wow - huge change IMO. We've been replacing elements forever.

How does this effect Meso-American?

each letter of a unit is an element


B
B

AA
AA
XXX
XXX

Unit B - HC unit
Unit A - LI
Unit X - enemy LC

enemy LC unit X pushes back unit A

Unit B (HC) charges through A to get to LC

is this how it would line up now?

AA
AA
B
B
XXX
XXX

does the LC unit get the overlap or is this considered a new enemy contacted?

Todd

_________________
Nolite te Bastardes Carborundorum
"Don't let the Bastards Grind You Down"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message [ Hidden ]
Frank Gilson
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: Orange County California

PostPosted: Thu Dec 10, 2015 4:38 pm    Post subject:

I don't believe they get the overlap (the LC).

I admit it is a touch unclear (9.2 and 6.523).

Were I a referee ruling on this in a game I would say that the LC do not count the overlap.

Frank
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
scott holder
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6032
Location: Bonnots Mill, MO

PostPosted: Fri Dec 11, 2015 12:29 pm    Post subject:

See, this is why I posted what I posted in the first place. My replacement comments have been focused solely on the Roman rules (and by extension other troops that get some form of circulation capability), not in a broader context.

That being said, 6.523 is really clear about any body/by-element issue: it's clearly by body. Okay, no problem there in terms of clarity. But when looking at the overlap issue in the example, as Frank points out, it's not as clear as I'd like only because of this part:

"When replacing in combat, the charger is considered at first contact, but the target is not." That's directed at weapon availability, for example, lance. This is reinforced on page 3 of the rules under the definition of First Contact:

"...an element charged by replacers does not count as in first contact."

Then I read 9.2 and TO ME (repeat TO ME, I don't care if you read it differently, ie., incorrectly) is suggests, again it's not as clear as I'd like, that the LC in the example *would* fight overlap since they're defined as "not in first contact". I agree that the wording in 9.2:

"Figures of elements prolonging a body's front...do not fight in the initial bound of a HTH combat, but do fight in subsequent bounds..." doesn't tie in sematically with everything else I've mentioned but I'm taking 6.523 and Page 3 of the rules to mean that "not count as in first contact" to be, IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE a "subsequent bound" of HTH.

So, replace in combat but expect the target to still get the overlap.

I reserve the right to change my mind at any moment.

scott

_________________
These Rules Suck, Let's Paint!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   Visit poster's website
Frank Gilson
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: Orange County California

PostPosted: Fri Dec 11, 2015 4:26 pm    Post subject:

I can live with that Wink...let me know if you change your mind!

There's also support shooting here...as the LC are in a 'subsequent bound', they can shoot only with bow, and only from a rank not eligible to fight (8.83).

They would not (unless pursuing) count a JLS + as are not at first contact.

Howeer, in the HtH the LC will, if the LI were routers, get to count +2 for mounted pursuing (but not the +1 for pursuing against a target).

But wait, if the LC are pursuing and are of a type like Mongol who get 1.5 ranks when pursuing, they get 1.5 ranks (but then cannot support shoot, as the 2nd rank is eligible to fight)...they will get a JLS plus as they are pursuing, should they have that weapon.

LC (or other) Lancer pursuers would fight 1.5, but with 'other cavalry', not lance.

Did I miss anything?

Frank
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
scott holder
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6032
Location: Bonnots Mill, MO

PostPosted: Fri Dec 11, 2015 8:24 pm    Post subject:

There's also support shooting here...as the LC are in a 'subsequent bound', they can shoot only with bow, and only from a rank not eligible to fight (8.83).

Correct.

They would not (unless pursuing) count a JLS + as are not at first contact.

Correct but you left out the other bullets in section 93. Nonetheless, I think everybody gets your point.

However, in the HtH the LC will, if the LI were routers, get to count +2 for mounted pursuing (but not the +1 for pursuing against a target).

Correct.

But wait, if the LC are pursuing and are of a type like Mongol who get 1.5 ranks when pursuing, they get 1.5 ranks (but then cannot support shoot, as the 2nd rank is eligible to fight)...they will get a JLS plus as they are pursuing, should they have that weapon.

Correct.

LC (or other) Lancer pursuers would fight 1.5, but with 'other cavalry', not lance.

Correct.

_________________
These Rules Suck, Let's Paint!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules Forum Index -> Rules All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
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