Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[scott holder]

Actually, there is none in terms of wording. But I promised to elaborate on it
so here goes.

"4) Experimental phalanx fights first two full ranks of P at all times; a third
rank of B shoots at full effect and a fourth rank of B shoots at half effect; a
third rank of JLS adds +1 to the first two ranks of P, and a fourth rank of JLS
adds +1 to the first rank of P only, in each case when charging,
counter-charging or pursuing. "

We envisioned these guys fighting, with two ranks of P upfront and some mix of
shooters/fighters in the last 2 ranks. We don't require that the unit be drawn
up this way, but the special abilities are only allowed to the Exp Phalanx *if*
it's drawn up that way. You need to read "fights two full ranks of P at all
times" as the lead in to the sentence, thus read it as a whole.

scott

[Doug]

I'm VERY confused by the wording:
"to the first two ranks of P" and
"to the first rank of P only"

How are these two +1's different from any other +1 in the game? You
just add the numbers up.

I'm not sure what you are trying to imply.

Can you run the Exp Phalanx three deep, with only the first rank
being Pike and 1 or 2 "other" ranks or must always have the first two
ranks be Pike and 1 or 2 "other ranks? Or either way?

Can a 4 element Exp Phalanx expand to have two ranks of Pike on one
side and two ranks of Bow/JLS on the other side?

Can a 4 element Exp Phalanx of Pike, Pike, Other, Other expand to
have one rank of Pike in front and a second rank of Bow/JLS?

Can a 3 element Exp Phalanx of Pike, Other, Other expand to one rank
deep and 3 elements wide?

& whatever combinations I haven't thought of...

>Actually, there is none in terms of wording. But I promised to
>elaborate on it so here goes.
>
>"4) Experimental phalanx fights first two full ranks of P at all
>times; a third rank of B shoots at full effect and a fourth rank of
>B shoots at half effect; a third rank of JLS adds +1 to the first
>two ranks of P, and a fourth rank of JLS adds +1 to the first rank
>of P only, in each case when charging, counter-charging or pursuing.
>"
>
>We envisioned these guys fighting, with two ranks of P upfront and
>some mix of shooters/fighters in the last 2 ranks. We don't require
>that the unit be drawn up this way, but the special abilities are
>only allowed to the Exp Phalanx *if* it's drawn up that way. You
>need to read "fights two full ranks of P at all times" as the lead
>in to the sentence, thus read it as a whole.
>
>scott

[joncleaves]

You can 'run' it any way you want, as long as it is purchased legally by the
list. You only get the benefits of the list rule if, at the moment it matters,
the first two ranks are P. If they aren't, the list rule is not in effect.

J

-----Original Message-----
From: Doug <rockd@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 11:45:08 -0400
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Exp Phalanx Update


I'm VERY confused by the wording:
"to the first two ranks of P" and
"to the first rank of P only"

How are these two +1's different from any other +1 in the game? You
just add the numbers up.

I'm not sure what you are trying to imply.

Can you run the Exp Phalanx three deep, with only the first rank
being Pike and 1 or 2 "other" ranks or must always have the first two
ranks be Pike and 1 or 2 "other ranks? Or either way?

Can a 4 element Exp Phalanx expand to have two ranks of Pike on one
side and two ranks of Bow/JLS on the other side?

Can a 4 element Exp Phalanx of Pike, Pike, Other, Other expand to
have one rank of Pike in front and a second rank of Bow/JLS?

Can a 3 element Exp Phalanx of Pike, Other, Other expand to one rank
deep and 3 elements wide?

& whatever combinations I haven't thought of...

>Actually, there is none in terms of wording. But I promised to
>elaborate on it so here goes.
>
>"4) Experimental phalanx fights first two full ranks of P at all
>times; a third rank of B shoots at full effect and a fourth rank of
>B shoots at half effect; a third rank of JLS adds +1 to the first
>two ranks of P, and a fourth rank of JLS adds +1 to the first rank
>of P only, in each case when charging, counter-charging or pursuing.
>"
>
>We envisioned these guys fighting, with two ranks of P upfront and
>some mix of shooters/fighters in the last 2 ranks. We don't require
>that the unit be drawn up this way, but the special abilities are
>only allowed to the Exp Phalanx *if* it's drawn up that way. You
>need to read "fights two full ranks of P at all times" as the lead
>in to the sentence, thus read it as a whole.
>
>scott




Yahoo! Groups Links






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

[Doug]

Ok, but it still doesn't help me understand the need for the odd way
that the +1 for the JLS other ranks is phrased.

Unless you mean that the 3rd rank gives +1 for EACH of the two ranks
of Pike in front of it, for a total of +2, and that a 4th rank would
add a furher +1 for a grand total of +3?


>You can 'run' it any way you want, as long as it is purchased
>legally by the list. You only get the benefits of the list rule if,
>at the moment it matters, the first two ranks are P. If they
>aren't, the list rule is not in effect.
>
>J
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Doug <rockd@...>
>To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
>Sent: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 11:45:08 -0400
>Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Exp Phalanx Update
>
>
>I'm VERY confused by the wording:
>"to the first two ranks of P" and
>"to the first rank of P only"
>
>How are these two +1's different from any other +1 in the game? You
>just add the numbers up.
>
>I'm not sure what you are trying to imply.
>
>Can you run the Exp Phalanx three deep, with only the first rank
>being Pike and 1 or 2 "other" ranks or must always have the first two
>ranks be Pike and 1 or 2 "other ranks? Or either way?
>
>Can a 4 element Exp Phalanx expand to have two ranks of Pike on one
>side and two ranks of Bow/JLS on the other side?
>
>Can a 4 element Exp Phalanx of Pike, Pike, Other, Other expand to
>have one rank of Pike in front and a second rank of Bow/JLS?
>
>Can a 3 element Exp Phalanx of Pike, Other, Other expand to one rank
>deep and 3 elements wide?
>
>& whatever combinations I haven't thought of...
>
>>Actually, there is none in terms of wording. But I promised to
>>elaborate on it so here goes.
>>
>>"4) Experimental phalanx fights first two full ranks of P at all
>>times; a third rank of B shoots at full effect and a fourth rank of
>>B shoots at half effect; a third rank of JLS adds +1 to the first
>>two ranks of P, and a fourth rank of JLS adds +1 to the first rank
>>of P only, in each case when charging, counter-charging or pursuing.
>>"
>>
>>We envisioned these guys fighting, with two ranks of P upfront and
>>some mix of shooters/fighters in the last 2 ranks. We don't require
>>that the unit be drawn up this way, but the special abilities are
>>only allowed to the Exp Phalanx *if* it's drawn up that way. You
>>need to read "fights two full ranks of P at all times" as the lead
>>in to the sentence, thus read it as a whole.
>>
>>scott
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

[Bill Chriss]

> Ok, but it still doesn't help me understand the need for the odd way
> that the +1 for the JLS other ranks is phrased.
>
> Unless you mean that the 3rd rank gives +1 for EACH of the two ranks
> of Pike in front of it, for a total of +2, and that a 4th rank would
> add a furher +1 for a grand total of +3?
>


At the risk of adding further confusion here, I understand Scott and Jon
to be saying that sometimes factors are figured separately for the first
and second rank figures. Thus, it is possible for the first rank figures
to get a plus one (say against MI they'd start at 3 and go to 4), while
the 2nd rank does not and would be calculated at the usual 3. Thus a
charging column of such pike with 3rd and 4th rank JLS would, in HTH,
fight 8 at 3+1 for JLS+1 charging (=5) for a total of 32 casualties, while
in the other instance with less JLS, only the front rank gets the extra
plus one and thus would fight 4 (front rank)at 5 and 4 (2nd rank) at 4 for
a total of only 28 casualties. Does this help any?

-Greek

[Frank Gilson]

The below is actually incorrect.

Let's look at 4 stands of an experimental phalanx, P,Sh/P,Sh/JLS/JLS.

It is charging, so the JLS bonus applies (or countercharging or
pursuing) from the experimental rule.

3rd rank with JLS gives +1 to both the ranks of pike (as they are
the front two ranks.) 4th rank with JLS gives +1 to the front rank,
P,Sh, only.

Attacking a MI target, that would be 4 @ 3 +1-JLS +1-JLS +1-charge
or 4 @6, and 4 @ 3 +1-JLS +1-charge or 4 @ 5. 36 casualties without
a die roll.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, hrisikos@D... wrote:
> > Ok, but it still doesn't help me understand the need for the
odd way
> > that the +1 for the JLS other ranks is phrased.
> >
> > Unless you mean that the 3rd rank gives +1 for EACH of the two
ranks
> > of Pike in front of it, for a total of +2, and that a 4th rank
would
> > add a furher +1 for a grand total of +3?
> >
>
>
> At the risk of adding further confusion here, I understand Scott
and Jon
> to be saying that sometimes factors are figured separately for the
first
> and second rank figures. Thus, it is possible for the first rank
figures
> to get a plus one (say against MI they'd start at 3 and go to 4),
while
> the 2nd rank does not and would be calculated at the usual 3. Thus
a
> charging column of such pike with 3rd and 4th rank JLS would, in
HTH,
> fight 8 at 3+1 for JLS+1 charging (=5) for a total of 32
casualties, while
> in the other instance with less JLS, only the front rank gets the
extra
> plus one and thus would fight 4 (front rank)at 5 and 4 (2nd rank)
at 4 for
> a total of only 28 casualties. Does this help any?
>
> -Greek

[joncleaves]

We have an answer to all this, but Scott is out and Bill and I want him to look
at it first before we post, so please be patient. Do not take anything in this
mail below as a final answer from us.

Thanks
Jon


-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Gilson <franktrevorgilson@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 19:00:41 -0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Exp Phalanx Update


The below is actually incorrect.

Let's look at 4 stands of an experimental phalanx, P,Sh/P,Sh/JLS/JLS.

It is charging, so the JLS bonus applies (or countercharging or
pursuing) from the experimental rule.

3rd rank with JLS gives +1 to both the ranks of pike (as they are
the front two ranks.) 4th rank with JLS gives +1 to the front rank,
P,Sh, only.

Attacking a MI target, that would be 4 @ 3 +1-JLS +1-JLS +1-charge
or 4 @6, and 4 @ 3 +1-JLS +1-charge or 4 @ 5. 36 casualties without
a die roll.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, hrisikos@D... wrote:
> > Ok, but it still doesn't help me understand the need for the
odd way
> > that the +1 for the JLS other ranks is phrased.
> >
> > Unless you mean that the 3rd rank gives +1 for EACH of the two
ranks
> > of Pike in front of it, for a total of +2, and that a 4th rank
would
> > add a furher +1 for a grand total of +3?
> >
>
>
> At the risk of adding further confusion here, I understand Scott
and Jon
> to be saying that sometimes factors are figured separately for the
first
> and second rank figures. Thus, it is possible for the first rank
figures
> to get a plus one (say against MI they'd start at 3 and go to 4),
while
> the 2nd rank does not and would be calculated at the usual 3. Thus
a
> charging column of such pike with 3rd and 4th rank JLS would, in
HTH,
> fight 8 at 3+1 for JLS+1 charging (=5) for a total of 32
casualties, while
> in the other instance with less JLS, only the front rank gets the
extra
> plus one and thus would fight 4 (front rank)at 5 and 4 (2nd rank)
at 4 for
> a total of only 28 casualties. Does this help any?
>
> -Greek






Yahoo! Groups Links






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

[Bill Chriss]

> We have an answer to all this, but Scott is out and Bill and I want
> him to look at it first before we post, so please be patient. Do not
> take anything in this mail below as a final answer from us.
>
> Thanks
> Jon
>


I knew it was a mistake for me to get into this. Sorry.


-Greek