Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mark Stone]

Jon,

I have a couple of rules questions that came up in some games yesterday:

(1) Temporary Fortifications. A unit defending an obstacle may bend its frontage
to conform to the obstacle. In the case of TFs, this bend could be as much as 90
degrees. Even so, I would assume that the act of bending to conform cannot cause
a flank to become exposed in the middle of the bending frontage. Is that
correct?

(2) Skirmishers who have their charge cancelled. The rule (6.45) states: "A unit
in skirmish formation which has its charge cancelled becomes a disordered block
after it makes charge responses." My reading of this is that, since it does not
become a disordered block until after making a charge response, when making a
charge response it is still in skirmish and thus can evade. At the end of its
evade move it would then be a disordered block. Is this correct?


-Mark

[joncleaves]

On 1 - see my answer to Ed's question. It can't be 90 degrees.

On 2 - Yes.

J

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Stone <mark@...>
To: warrior <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 16:22:34 +0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] 2 rules questions


Jon,

I have a couple of rules questions that came up in some games yesterday:

(1) Temporary Fortifications. A unit defending an obstacle may bend its frontage
to conform to the obstacle. In the case of TFs, this bend could be as much as 90
degrees. Even so, I would assume that the act of bending to conform cannot cause
a flank to become exposed in the middle of the bending frontage. Is that
correct?

(2) Skirmishers who have their charge cancelled. The rule (6.45) states: "A unit
in skirmish formation which has its charge cancelled becomes a disordered block
after it makes charge responses." My reading of this is that, since it does not
become a disordered block until after making a charge response, when making a
charge response it is still in skirmish and thus can evade. At the end of its
evade move it would then be a disordered block. Is this correct?


-Mark




Yahoo! Groups Links






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Dear Jon et al,
A couple of rules questions brought to light by the last several
tournys in Toronto.
It's my understanding that under the new tenents of 12.0, mounted
troops cannot cross a TF. A player can place 240 paces of TFs along his
own flank and render an all mounted Flank March unable to enter.

What happens to mounted flank marches unable to enter the board due to
TFs? Limbo, and points loss? That is, are they "off board" for all
purposes?

Second question--Last tourny I ran, a player informed me that JLS armed
troops (ie, troops who fight 1.5 ranks due to possession of JLS) now
fight 1.5 ranks EVEN against opponents who do not provide the JLS
bonus. For instance, a unit of Saxon Fyrd armed JLS, sh would still get
1.5 ranks against SHK or SHI. I confess that the wording in the rules
supported his assertion. Do JLS armed troops fight 1.5 ranks even if
they don't get the JLS plus?

Thanks in advance,
Christian


>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 2/27/2006 17:34:35 Central Standard Time,
Dlauerman@... writes:

At the very
least there ought to be a rule requiring that anyone using this tactic
be pelted with rotten fruit by passersby.>>
Now this is funny. The flank marcher calling the defender gamey...lol

This rule has been in this game engine for 20 years. I have no evidence it
is in need of a change and certainly this use of TFs is not unknown...lol

Jon





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[joncleaves]

1) You must come in if you can. In this case, that may require dismounting.

2) You get 1.5 ranks of JLS when the rule says you do, even if the troops you
are fighting do not give you that weapon factor.

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Christian and Sarah <cgc.sjw@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 12:44:58 -0500
Subject: [WarriorRules] 2 Rules Questions


Dear Jon et al,
A couple of rules questions brought to light by the last several
tournys in Toronto.
It's my understanding that under the new tenents of 12.0, mounted
troops cannot cross a TF. A player can place 240 paces of TFs along his
own flank and render an all mounted Flank March unable to enter.

What happens to mounted flank marches unable to enter the board due to
TFs? Limbo, and points loss? That is, are they "off board" for all
purposes?

Second question--Last tourny I ran, a player informed me that JLS armed
troops (ie, troops who fight 1.5 ranks due to possession of JLS) now
fight 1.5 ranks EVEN against opponents who do not provide the JLS
bonus. For instance, a unit of Saxon Fyrd armed JLS, sh would still get
1.5 ranks against SHK or SHI. I confess that the wording in the rules
supported his assertion. Do JLS armed troops fight 1.5 ranks even if
they don't get the JLS plus?

Thanks in advance,
Christian


>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




Yahoo! Groups Links






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Dave Lauerman]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@... wrote:
>
> 1) You must come in if you can. In this case, that may require
dismounting.
>
Just idly curious, but what happens to poor fools (like me) that don't
have dismounts for their cavalry? Just out of luck?

I suggest it might make more sense to allow the FMers to arrive a
bound or two later in a spot w/in 240 paces from the original arrival
location. The ability to wall off the flank march with open-ended
fortifications that extend only to the (pre-determined by rules) spot
where FMs can arrive seems --well--gamey. Even for us. At the very
least there ought to be a rule requiring that anyone using this tactic
be pelted with rotten fruit by passersby.

dave lauerman

[joncleaves]

I am the author of Warrior, Mark. Both de facto and de jure.

Jon


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Mark Stone]

--- On February 27 Jon said: ---

> This rule has been in this game engine for 20 years. I have no evidence it
> is in need of a change and certainly this use of TFs is not unknown.

Jon,

You have asked us as a point of courtesy, and to prevent confusion, to avoid
making definitive statements about Warrior rules since FHE, and not the
players, are the authors of those rules. We've all done pretty well since then
at couching our remarks in appropriate "my opinion only" language.

I kindly request that you extend the same courtesy to rules that you did _not_
author.

It may be your opinion that mounted have, for 20 years, been forbidden from
crossing TFs. I don't think, on close inspection, you'll find that opinion
supported by the text of WRG6 or WRG7. But then, that's just my opinion.


-Mark Stone