Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

Warriors

I have just posted the most recent rules clarifications to the files
section. They will also be available on the FHE website.

Some things of note:

1. Read the 4.52 clarification. After long consideration, we feel
we have a better situation there.

2. The rulebook and this document constitute the Warrior rules. If
you don't have one, you have an incomplete rules set.

3. This is the set of clarifications that will take us through and
past Historicon.

4. I have seen many examples of players asking rules questions of an
umpire who do not have and have not read these clarifications.
Including players who are members of this group. PLEASE make sure
you get the word out to those around you that they need to have and
know this document. Bring a copy to cons with you.

Enjoy!

Jon

[Doug]

>
>I have just posted the most recent rules clarifications to the files
>section. They will also be available on the FHE website.

Can you put a text file on the website? When I copy & paste the web
page text to my simple editor the line length is too wide to fit on a
8.5 x 11 page & the formatting gets munged.
--
Doug
The price of freedom is infernal vigilantes

The judiciary of the United States is so constructed and extended as
to absorb and destroy the judiciaries of the several states; thereby
rendering laws as tedious, intricate, and expensive, and justice as
unattainable, by a great part of the community, as in England; and
enabling the rich to oppress and ruin the poor.

OBJECTIONS OF THE HON. GEORGE MASON, ONE OF THE DELEGATES FROM
VIRGINIA IN THE LATE CONTINENTAL CONVENTION, TO THE PROPOSED FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION; ASSIGNED AS HIS REASONS FOR NOT SIGNING THE SAME.
[EXTRACTS.] The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the
Adoption of the Federal Constitution (Elliot's Debates)
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgibin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(ed001221))

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 6/2/2003 19:23:57 Central Daylight Time,
rockd@... writes:

> Can you put a text file on the website?

sure.


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

[Greg Preston]

Dear Jon,

Thanks for the update. The timing is great for us here in OZ as we
have a FW comp on near Sydney this weekend.

(Any Australian lurkers who haven't made contact with the "rest of us"
drop me an Email and I'll fill you in with the details)

Two questions:
Re clarification of 1.26 (Facing). The way the clarification currently
reads, an element which is in contact only with the rear or flank of an
enemy element is FACING the weapons that element has. Eg a knight
block charging the rear of a pike block could still be facing steady
Pike.
Is this what was intended ?
I have been playing it as if there was the word "opposed" in this
sentence. ie An element...... in _opposed_ contact with an enemy
element are said to be facing..... (I use to use "frontal" but that
gave problems with elephants etc which can fight to the side)
Am I missing something here ?

Re clarification 9.43. The only Morale or general modifier that I can
see that improves a net plus is the one for Irregular A's. Are you
talking about the ones like "CinC in combat", "A class troops" etc
which improve a net minus .....or have I not understood what this
clarification is about?

Cheers and thanks again for the timely update,

Greg Preston

[Greg Preston]

Dear Jon,

Wow. Now that's what I call a fast reply!! Thanks.
I wouldn't worry about a "re-release" it is only a few strokes of the
pen.

Hmmm .......maybe the pen is mightier than the sword :)

Thanks,

Greg P

On Wednesday, June 4, 2003, at 01:36 PM, JonCleaves@... wrote:

> In a message dated 6/3/2003 22:27:42 Central Daylight Time,
> edgdp@... writes:
>
> > Two questions:
> > Re clarification of 1.26 (Facing).  The way the clarification
> currently
> > reads, an element which is in contact only with the rear or flank of
> an
> > enemy element is FACING the weapons that element has.  Eg a knight
> > block charging the rear of a pike block could still be facing steady
> > Pike.
> > Is this what was intended ?
> >
>
> Nope.  Should say 'frontal contact'.  Damnit.
>
> >
> > Re clarification 9.43. The only Morale or general modifier that I can
> > see  that improves a net plus is the one for Irregular A's.  Are you
> > talking about the ones like "CinC in combat", "A class troops" etc
> > which improve a net minus  .....or  have I not understood what this
> > clarification is about?
> >
> >
>
> Should say net minus.  Damnit.
>
> Just goes to show that not only can you not be your own copy editor,
> neither
> can your business partners...lol
>
> What would you guys prefer?  To have me put out a new corrected update
> or to
> just make these changes on your own and leave the 30 May they way it
> is?  I
> think, since they are such obvious goofs, that I'd leave 30 May in
> place, but
> will do what the customer base wants.
>
> J
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
<image.tiff>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 6/3/2003 22:27:42 Central Daylight Time,
edgdp@... writes:

> Two questions:
> Re clarification of 1.26 (Facing). The way the clarification currently
> reads, an element which is in contact only with the rear or flank of an
> enemy element is FACING the weapons that element has. Eg a knight
> block charging the rear of a pike block could still be facing steady
> Pike.
> Is this what was intended ?
>

Nope. Should say 'frontal contact'. Damnit.

>
> Re clarification 9.43. The only Morale or general modifier that I can
> see that improves a net plus is the one for Irregular A's. Are you
> talking about the ones like "CinC in combat", "A class troops" etc
> which improve a net minus .....or have I not understood what this
> clarification is about?
>
>

Should say net minus. Damnit.

Just goes to show that not only can you not be your own copy editor, neither
can your business partners...lol

What would you guys prefer? To have me put out a new corrected update or to
just make these changes on your own and leave the 30 May they way it is? I
think, since they are such obvious goofs, that I'd leave 30 May in place, but
will do what the customer base wants.

J



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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 6/3/2003 22:51:11 Central Daylight Time,
edgdp@... writes:

> Wow. Now that's what I call a fast reply!! Thanks.
>

Easy when you don't sleep. lol

You are most welcome. See? This job isn't thankless....

J


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