Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mark Stone]

-- On August 25 I said: ---

> Second, we all know that it is gimmicky and unrealistic to use the table
> edge as a terrain feature. The rules do little to discourage this kind of
> behavior right now. I'm always going to play to the limit of what the rules
> allow me to do, so if I can gain an advantage by lining up against the table
> edge I'll continue to do so, but I don't like it. This problem can't
> completely be eliminated, but we can do more to mitigate it.
>
> My recommendation: add the following paragraph to Section 14.43, "Army
> deployment", at the end of that section just above the Example:
>
> "Troops deployed in the rear zone or as force marchers not in ambush must
> deploy at least 240p from the table edge."

OK, replying to my own post is probably a bit obsessive, but Jon, I'd REALLY,
REALLY like to hear your response to this idea. The table-edge-as-terrain
phenonemon is one of those perennially aggravating features of our system, and
frankly one area where the whole DBx system beats the pants off us in terms of
deployment rules. And the fix -- so far as it goes -- is so simple.

What say you (and others)?


-Mark Stone

[joncleaves]

"Troops deployed in the rear zone or as force marchers not in ambush must
> deploy at least 240p from the table edge."

OK, replying to my own post is probably a bit obsessive, but Jon, I'd REALLY,
REALLY like to hear your response to this idea. The table-edge-as-terrain
phenonemon is one of those perennially aggravating features of our system, and
frankly one area where the whole DBx system beats the pants off us in terms of
deployment rules. And the fix -- so far as it goes -- is so simple.

What say you (and others)?>>
[
[

I am not convinced this is the best way to go for standard deployment.
1. The most important factor in standard deployment is the desires of our
tourney-playing player base. What the warrior players who regularly play
competition games want is the answer - and it is majority rules for the most
part.
2. Your suggestion is dependent on other variables - point value, table size.
At 1600 on the szie tables we play with the terrain choosing system, there's
often not enough room as it is - this would make that substantially worse.
3. We've looked into it already - and we have found that guys have angled
LC/HC/LI to go out and march into that space anyway, so we have added a 'get out
into that space phase' for ...what? lol

But, I am totally willing to listen to this discussion and see whare it leads
and see what the players feel about it. Now is the time after all..

Jon

[Tim Grimmett]

Jon--

Since you are inviting opinions, I would suggest a long look at 480p rear zone
(or make it a terrain choice for a player that he must roll for). Since we play
it often here at the Capital region I can make the following observations:

Helps speed play in most circumstances;

Helps make close order troops more viable;

Helps maintain the tactical viability of the flank march that arrives on a "6",
which currently has only 240p to utilize vs the 720p available to one who rolls
a "5".

May--I say again may--make a static army more viable if the player has more room
for a defensive style of play in a deeper rear zone. One could turn this
observation on itself as a reason against deeper rear zones.

FWIW,

Tim





JonCleaves@... wrote:
But, I am totally willing to listen to this discussion and see whare it leads
and see what the players feel about it. Now is the time after all..

Jon



Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.

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

Hi, I can't find how far in from the left or right edge of the table
you deploy- can you deploy right to the edge of the table? The rules
say you deploy in the rear zone (unless flank marching or force
marching) but I keep expecting to see something DBM-like that says you
must deploy six inches from the edge. Also, can you force-
march/ambush to/from your opponent's forward zone? (the rules just
say "forward zone" without saying which)

Chris

[joncleaves]

Chris

There is no left or right limit to deployment.

You're right, 14.43 should say 'their side's forward zone'.

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Webber <sitalkes@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 22:15:30 -0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Deployment


Hi, I can't find how far in from the left or right edge of the table
you deploy- can you deploy right to the edge of the table? The rules
say you deploy in the rear zone (unless flank marching or force
marching) but I keep expecting to see something DBM-like that says you
must deploy six inches from the edge. Also, can you force-
march/ambush to/from your opponent's forward zone? (the rules just
say "forward zone" without saying which)

Chris







Yahoo! Groups Links






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