forum.wgcwar.com

The "Restrictions" column in Meshwesh isn't mentioned anywhere in the rules. Using the Polybians as an example, I assume I can take recently recruited legionaries, leves and/or Gallic tribesmen, OR Velites. Not both at the same time?

On fallback, I had a skirmisher stand that was hit in the flank and lost by. It turned to face the attacking knights (turning through some Velites), then fell back. This would have left it on top of the Velites, so I continued to move it completely through the Velites. At this point, the knights have to pursue, but the Velites are in the way. We just aligned them to the Velites, was that correct?

Dave wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 29, 2023 10:27 pm

The "Restrictions" column in Meshwesh isn't mentioned anywhere in the rules.

The army lists have a number of details that aren't in the rulebook, that's true. And shouldn't be surprising.

Lots of restrictions exist. They are based upon history.

Dave wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 29, 2023 10:27 pm

Using the Polybians as an example, I assume I can take recently recruited legionaries, leves and/or Gallic tribesmen, OR Velites. Not both at the same time?

Leves are restricted to 275 BC to 211 BC.
Velites are restricted to 210 BC to 105 BC.

Unless you can have an army list from two times at once (and no, time traveling is not permitted, so you may not) you cannot have both of those.

Recently Recruited legionaries are available 225 BC to 211 BC only in Italy. What gives you the idea you can't have recent recruits in an army from 220 BC in Italy that has Leves? Sure, if you have a 220 BC army in Spain, that could have Leves and could not have Recent Recruits -- because it wasn't in Italy.

Gallic Tribesmen same thing -- if you have an army in Italy from 220 BC, you could conceivably have Gallic Tribesmen, Recent Recruits, and Leves. You cannot have Velites, because they aren't available that early.

I'm not really sure where this confusion is coming from. Korean War period the USAF used the F86 Sabre. Iraqi War period the USAF used the F15. You didn't ever see them being used together by the USAF. What's the problem?

"Restrictions" represent limitations on when, where, or under what circumstances an army may use certain stands. Nothing more, nothing less.

Dave wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 29, 2023 10:27 pm

On fallback, I had a skirmisher stand that was hit in the flank and lost by. It turned to face the attacking knights (turning through some Velites), then fell back. This would have left it on top of the Velites, so I continued to move it completely through the Velites. At this point, the knights have to pursue, but the Velites are in the way. We just aligned them to the Velites, was that correct?

Probably not, I'd have to see a picture. Skirmishers that lose to Knights in the open are shattered, for one thing. Skirmishers that attempt to fall through friends that are misaligned are destroyed, and if I understand your example correctly, the skirmishers hit in the flank had to turn and the friendly Velites they were trying to pass-through were probably misaligned. So they would have died there as well. And I don't completely understand the "align to the Velites" part for the knights.

David Kuijt wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 30, 2023 2:11 am

I'm not really sure where this confusion is coming from. Korean War period the USAF used the F86 Sabre. Iraqi War period the USAF used the F15. You didn't ever see them being used together by the USAF. What's the problem?

The problem is just what I said: the rules make no reference to the term restriction and how to treat it. So I'm left to wonder if it's mandatory, or just something to note if you'd like to shoot for total accuracy to known sources. Sounds like it's mandatory, and the USAF used a couple of different planes in its time.

Probably not, I'd have to see a picture. Skirmishers that lose to Knights in the open are shattered, for one thing. Skirmishers that attempt to fall through friends that are misaligned are destroyed, and if I understand your example correctly, the skirmishers hit in the flank had to turn and the friendly Velites they were trying to pass-through were probably misaligned. So they would have died there as well. And I don't completely understand the "align to the Velites" part for the knights.

I should have snapped a pic, I could probably recreate it.

* I don't see the shattered exception for Skirmishers, I'm looking at the 1.1 QRS. Is that something new?
* I agree that the skirmishers would have been destroyed if they had to turn through the velites to face the knights, but they did not have to turn through them.
* So at this point we reach 81.1 and all four conditions are met, so the skirmishers pass through the Velites.

Re-playnig it in my mind now, my friend chose to pursue with the knights and we should have only moved the knights forward 30mm. They shouldn't have been able to contact the Velites (who still would have been 10mm away).

The army lists are just that - army lists to provide well researched recommendations for how to make historically accurate armies per Triumph!
The restrictions apply to you only if you want to use the army lists as provided.


I think the skirmisher shattered comment was a oops by DK, they are not shattered but at a +1 vs. knights in the open already have enough problems.

I would have to see a pic or diagram on the situation, but basically if the skirmisher has to fallback clean before the passthrough can happen. Fallback is a exactly that falling back due to a loss in combat to an enemy, this means I better have the room to do it or be in line (lined up) to make a smooth planned withdraw. Pass through is movement of troops not under pressure from a loss to an enemy.

From your description the skirmisher is dead, the knight charges forward 30mm (it's base depth) or until it hits another stand whichever happens first.

Rod wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 31, 2023 1:53 am

I think the skirmisher shattered comment was a oops by DK, they are not shattered but at a +1 vs. knights in the open already have enough problems.

Yup. My bad.