Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Phil Gardocki]

Scott,
      You asked me to send this one from Cold Wars.  FHE needs to discuss and come to a consensus on rule 14.45, Flank Marches, limit one vice limit 2.

Phil

[joncleaves]

Crap, thought I sent you a note to go with two for now, Scott. On me.
We WILL resolve this.
Jon

<< Scott,
You asked me to send this one from Cold Wars. FHE needs to discuss
and come to a consensus on rule 14.45, Flank Marches, limit one vice limit 2.

Phil >>

[scott holder]

Aha! I deliberately went with two flank marches at Cold Wars despite what was
in the playtest version of the rules. I simply chalked that up to one of the
myriad details you hadn't gotten around to including.......yet.

Good lord people, I go away for 3 days to umpire another "1.5 ranks for
L-armed cav works fine" Warrior tournament(s) and I have a bazillion emails
from the Warrior list awaiting me when I return *grinning*. This couldn't
have waited until I got back?:)

I'm working with my Byzantine specialist on the merits of the discussion.

Scott

>>> JonCleaves@... 3/11/01 5:11:00 PM >>>
Crap, thought I sent you a note to go with two for now, Scott. On me.
We WILL resolve this.
Jon

<< Scott,
You asked me to send this one from Cold Wars. FHE needs to discuss
and come to a consensus on rule 14.45, Flank Marches, limit one vice limit 2.

Phil >>


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



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[joncleaves]

Answer on flank marches will therefore be 2. So let it be written....

[Ewan McNay]

On 12 Mar 2001, Holder, Scott <FHWA> wrote:
> Good lord people, I go away for 3 days to umpire another "1.5 ranks for
> L-armed cav works fine" Warrior tournament(s) and I have a bazillion emails

So, how different do people think that it is from 7.6? What's the
learning curve like? [I *almost* made it to CW - to partner Todd's
neophyte - but work intruded once again. Let's hope for H'con..]

E
--
Dr. Ewan McNay - Behavioral Neuroscience, Yale University.
Buying books would be a good thing if one could also buy the time to read
them in: but as a rule the purchase of books is mistaken for appropriation
of their contents. - Arthur Schopenhauer, philosopher (1788-1860)

DAMN IT....I missed the question ;o)

--- JonCleaves@... wrote:
> Answer on flank marches will therefore be 2. So let
> it be written....
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices.
http://auctions.yahoo.com/

[Ed Forbes]

flank marches: 14.45
I belive that the ruling was made that 2 flank marches, one to both
flank, was allowed.

I would assume that a separate roll is made for each flank, removing the
uncertainty of the fact that one is in fact outflanking on both flanks.
Yes?

Thanks,

Ed

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/21/2001 18:29:43 Central Daylight Time,
eforbes100@... writes:

<< flank marches: 14.45
I belive that the ruling was made that 2 flank marches, one to both
flank, was allowed.

I would assume that a separate roll is made for each flank, removing the
uncertainty of the fact that one is in fact outflanking on both flanks.
Yes?
>>

Yes. That is correct as far as the basic rules will go. We will either have
an optional rules section for all 'fog-of-war' stuff or have a set of x-rules
for 'fog-of-war' where this might not be how it worked.

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 4/22/2004 19:14:18 Central Daylight Time,
mdevans@... writes:
Could you confirm the procedure on flank marches - if i have 2 flank
marches, do I
* need to nominate which one I am rolling for as I roll; >>

this one.


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

Jon

Could you confirm the procedure on flank marches - if i have 2 flank
marches, do I
* need to nominate which one I am rolling for as I roll; or
* choose which of the 2 is successful when it happens, based on which
one would be most advantageous to arrive.

our comp this weekend is likely to have lots of flank marches.

regards

Muz

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 2/27/2006 20:27:52 Central Standard Time, ncioran@...
writes:

Am I right in reading that you're of the opinion that the flank march
is a less than sportsmanlike maneuver?>>
[
Nope. But neither is putting a TF in your rear zone to protect against one.




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

Jon Cleaves wrote:
> Now this is funny. The flank marcher calling the defender
> gamey...lol

Am I right in reading that you're of the opinion that the flank march
is a less than sportsmanlike maneuver?

Thanks
Cole

[Chris Bump]

Except that by placing a TF to your flank to preclude your opponent
from flank marching appears to assume a flat world philosophy. Sans
a Hadrians wall or Great Wall (neither obviously a TF) the flank
marcher could simply follow the TF until the opportunity to pass
around it occurred, and since the TF is by defenition temporary and
purchased in defined lengths how could it extend on ad infinitum?
And if you take the approach that there is some unpassable terrain
off of the board that the TF anchors on, it completely suspeneds
reality to assume that said flank marchers could not move back
towards the center until the TF ended and then pass around it.
This is really how you want to represent a simulation?
Chris

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 2/27/2006 20:27:52 Central Standard Time,
ncioran@...
> writes:
>
> Am I right in reading that you're of the opinion that the flank
march
> is a less than sportsmanlike maneuver?>>
> [
> Nope. But neither is putting a TF in your rear zone to protect
against one.
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[joncleaves]

I didn't say any of that.

The table is an artificial construct that every miniatures game lives with. You
simulate around that restriction.

For every argument that can be made that a shallow tactical flank march could
not be opposed by a TF there is a counter argument - including the two main ones
that a) such were damned rare and b) that a significant number of A+M
battlefields had anchored flanks.

Who is to say the TF does not extend off table or run into an impassable or very
rough feature just off table? How do you flank march Alesia?

If the guy *just* puts a TF there, dismount, walk over it and remount. If he
puts stuff there, you have drawn forces away from the main fight (the point of a
flank march) and you can dismount and charge him. or, you can know the guy has
TFs in his list (declared before deployment orders) and plan your flank march
accordingly (as well as taking flaming arrows...lol).

Not an issue.

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: cncbump <cncbump@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 15:57:53 -0000
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Flank Marches


Except that by placing a TF to your flank to preclude your opponent
from flank marching appears to assume a flat world philosophy. Sans
a Hadrians wall or Great Wall (neither obviously a TF) the flank
marcher could simply follow the TF until the opportunity to pass
around it occurred, and since the TF is by defenition temporary and
purchased in defined lengths how could it extend on ad infinitum?
And if you take the approach that there is some unpassable terrain
off of the board that the TF anchors on, it completely suspeneds
reality to assume that said flank marchers could not move back
towards the center until the TF ended and then pass around it.
This is really how you want to represent a simulation?
Chris

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 2/27/2006 20:27:52 Central Standard Time,
ncioran@...
> writes:
>
> Am I right in reading that you're of the opinion that the flank
march
> is a less than sportsmanlike maneuver?>>
> [
> Nope. But neither is putting a TF in your rear zone to protect
against one.
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>







Yahoo! Groups Links






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

[Chris Bump]

Okay. I was not aware that TF's that could not be crossed by mounted
cav could be crossed by those same horses sans riders. Given that
you are proclaiming that legal, it seems the most rapid approach to
the solution.

Ironic that you bring up Alesia for two reasons, first there is no
way horses could pass over those defenses mounted or not and second
because the question you ask leads to where I was going with my
point. As you know but likely forgot in your haste to answer so many
querries, Alesia was essentially outflanked by the attackers who
essentially followed the fence line until there was no more fence and
attacked there on the third day (obviously very simplistically put).
Chris



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@... wrote:
>
> I didn't say any of that.
>
> The table is an artificial construct that every miniatures game
lives with. You simulate around that restriction.
>
> For every argument that can be made that a shallow tactical flank
march could not be opposed by a TF there is a counter argument -
including the two main ones that a) such were damned rare and b)
that a significant number of A+M battlefields had anchored flanks.
>
> Who is to say the TF does not extend off table or run into an
impassable or very rough feature just off table? How do you flank
march Alesia?
>
> If the guy *just* puts a TF there, dismount, walk over it and
remount. If he puts stuff there, you have drawn forces away from the
main fight (the point of a flank march) and you can dismount and
charge him. or, you can know the guy has TFs in his list (declared
before deployment orders) and plan your flank march accordingly (as
well as taking flaming arrows...lol).
>
> Not an issue.
>
> Jon
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cncbump <cncbump@...>
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 15:57:53 -0000
> Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Flank Marches
>
>
> Except that by placing a TF to your flank to preclude your opponent
> from flank marching appears to assume a flat world philosophy.
Sans
> a Hadrians wall or Great Wall (neither obviously a TF) the flank
> marcher could simply follow the TF until the opportunity to pass
> around it occurred, and since the TF is by defenition temporary and
> purchased in defined lengths how could it extend on ad infinitum?
> And if you take the approach that there is some unpassable terrain
> off of the board that the TF anchors on, it completely suspeneds
> reality to assume that said flank marchers could not move back
> towards the center until the TF ended and then pass around it.
> This is really how you want to represent a simulation?
> Chris
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@ wrote:
> >
> > In a message dated 2/27/2006 20:27:52 Central Standard Time,
> ncioran@
> > writes:
> >
> > Am I right in reading that you're of the opinion that the flank
> march
> > is a less than sportsmanlike maneuver?>>
> > [
> > Nope. But neither is putting a TF in your rear zone to protect
> against one.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>