Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

Does a flank march have to exist to be diced for? That is, can I roll
for a non-existant flank march, thus duping my opponent into keeping
troops back in the rear? There is nothing in the Feb rules that would
prevent this from happening.

[scott holder]

>>> loki_in_oz@... 3/22/01 6:33:00 PM >>>
Does a flank march have to exist to be diced for? That is, can I roll
for a non-existant flank march, thus duping my opponent into keeping
troops back in the rear? There is nothing in the Feb rules that would
prevent this from happening.

>There will be now. Thank god I don't live down there:):)

>That little "gamesmanship ploy" was literally beat out of players almost a
decade ago here in the States. At least it was beat out of them at the
tournaments I umpired. If anyone hasn't picked up on this by now, I *despise*
crap like this. I love nifty moves and unit jiggling that adroitly uses the
rules better than anyone. I love "innovative" ways of concocting armies. But
man oh man, the old "fake flank march" tactic is right up there with LIR
players who USED TO not want to tell their opponents whether or not their
legionaires were armed with darts, the story being "the rules state that the
figures provide the visual clues and the darts would be hidden behind the
shields". My borderline going ballistic a couple of times (I'm such a nice
guy, ask anyone on this list who endures my umpiring>grin<) on that particular
"gamesmanship ploy" stopped that from happening AND everyone will note that
Warrior now has a section saying you must define your troops weapon and armor
before play (I think, if not, that should be in there as well).

Scott
List Ho

[joncleaves]

You do not roll for a non-existant flank march, and I will fix.

[Greg Regets]

Thats right up there with the Peltast that left his LTS in the camp, so now
he fights with his JLS while in the woods, :-)

G

-----Original Message-----
From: Holder, Scott <FHWA> [mailto:Scott.Holder@...]
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 1:43 AM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Flank marches and gamesmanship




>>> loki_in_oz@... 3/22/01 6:33:00 PM >>>
Does a flank march have to exist to be diced for? That is, can I roll
for a non-existant flank march, thus duping my opponent into keeping
troops back in the rear? There is nothing in the Feb rules that would
prevent this from happening.

>There will be now. Thank god I don't live down there:):)

>That little "gamesmanship ploy" was literally beat out of players almost a
decade ago here in the States. At least it was beat out of them at the
tournaments I umpired. If anyone hasn't picked up on this by now, I
*despise*
crap like this. I love nifty moves and unit jiggling that adroitly uses the
rules better than anyone. I love "innovative" ways of concocting armies.
But
man oh man, the old "fake flank march" tactic is right up there with LIR
players who USED TO not want to tell their opponents whether or not their
legionaires were armed with darts, the story being "the rules state that the
figures provide the visual clues and the darts would be hidden behind the
shields". My borderline going ballistic a couple of times (I'm such a nice
guy, ask anyone on this list who endures my umpiring>grin<) on that
particular
"gamesmanship ploy" stopped that from happening AND everyone will note that
Warrior now has a section saying you must define your troops weapon and
armor
before play (I think, if not, that should be in there as well).

Scott
List Ho





























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/

[Mike Turner]

Not to mention that Wargames Foundry has some great LIR figures with darts
in their hands!

-----Original Message-----
From: Holder, Scott <FHWA> [mailto:Scott.Holder@...]
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 1:43 AM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Flank marches and gamesmanship



>>> loki_in_oz@... 3/22/01 6:33:00 PM >>>
Does a flank march have to exist to be diced for? That is, can I roll
for a non-existant flank march, thus duping my opponent into keeping
troops back in the rear? There is nothing in the Feb rules that would
prevent this from happening.

>There will be now. Thank god I don't live down there:):)

>That little "gamesmanship ploy" was literally beat out of players almost a
decade ago here in the States. At least it was beat out of them at the
tournaments I umpired. If anyone hasn't picked up on this by now, I
*despise*
crap like this. I love nifty moves and unit jiggling that adroitly uses the
rules better than anyone. I love "innovative" ways of concocting armies.
But
man oh man, the old "fake flank march" tactic is right up there with LIR
players who USED TO not want to tell their opponents whether or not their
legionaires were armed with darts, the story being "the rules state that the
figures provide the visual clues and the darts would be hidden behind the
shields". My borderline going ballistic a couple of times (I'm such a nice
guy, ask anyone on this list who endures my umpiring>grin<) on that
particular
"gamesmanship ploy" stopped that from happening AND everyone will note that
Warrior now has a section saying you must define your troops weapon and
armor
before play (I think, if not, that should be in there as well).

Scott
List Ho





























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/

[Chris Bump]

Scott,

On the same note, do those carrying darts have to declare that they are also
toting caltrops? If not what is the difference? If so than I bow humbly
before you.

Chris

[joncleaves]

The Warrior rules will state that all weapons carried are known to your
opponent. So will troop type, but not morale class.

There will be no rolling dice for nonexistant flank marches.

I truly wish that anyone who would try something solely because a rules set
does not expressly forbid it would play something besides Warrior. Folks
like them are a plague to the hobby.

Scott, your turn.

Scott,

If the Dart is compulsory, then I inform my opponent of the fact. Why
hide what is in the list???? However, if the Dart is optional, I do
declare Dart if the carrier is shieldless (I'll gunna hide it WHERE??)
but, if my troops are shielded, I inform my opponent that I have the
OPTION to carry dart. After that, I figure the rest is up to him.
And who declares the naptha bombs on the elephants until it comes as a
rude surprise?

And it is the same as upgrading troops. Do you tell your opponent
that you have upgraded your Kushite to Irr A? Of course not. He
might guess you have (lack of 'Gippos is a good indication) but you
at least want to give him something to think about.

If you insist that troops carrying dart be "outed" even though they
could be "hidden by the shield", why is the incendary camel NOT shown
on the table? A dart is easier to hide that a whacking great camel!

The "non-existant" flank march HAS been ruled out down here but I was
just looking at the Warrior rules as they stood. There is always the
"sharp practice" player who will point out that, since the rules does
not forbid it, they are allowed to do it.

Cheers

--- In WarriorRules@y..., "Holder, Scott <FHWA>" <Scott.Holder@f...>
wrote:
>
>
> >>> loki_in_oz@y... 3/22/01 6:33:00 PM >>>
> Does a flank march have to exist to be diced for? That is, can I
roll
> for a non-existant flank march, thus duping my opponent into keeping
> troops back in the rear? There is nothing in the Feb rules that
would
> prevent this from happening.
>
> >There will be now. Thank god I don't live down there:)
>
> >That little "gamesmanship ploy" was literally beat out of players
almost a
> decade ago here in the States. At least it was beat out of them at
the
> tournaments I umpired. If anyone hasn't picked up on this by now, I
*despise*
> crap like this. I love nifty moves and unit jiggling that adroitly
uses the
> rules better than anyone. I love "innovative" ways of concocting
armies. But
> man oh man, the old "fake flank march" tactic is right up there with
LIR
> players who USED TO not want to tell their opponents whether or not
their
> legionaires were armed with darts, the story being "the rules state
that the
> figures provide the visual clues and the darts would be hidden
behind the
> shields". My borderline going ballistic a couple of times (I'm such
a nice
> guy, ask anyone on this list who endures my umpiring>grin<) on that
particular
> "gamesmanship ploy" stopped that from happening AND everyone will
note that
> Warrior now has a section saying you must define your troops weapon
and armor
> before play (I think, if not, that should be in there as well).
>
> Scott
> List Ho

I put it in purely for just that reason. Since I started playing 7th
I've seen and been on the end of;

EHK "evading" from charging Ashigaru and HC.

Peltasts forming skirmish, with no-one in JLS range so he can evade an
upcoming charge.

Down costing Samurai HC 'cause the 2HCW can't be used on horseback.

Aztec "accidently" contacting elephants in a charge due to the "gate
swing" charge movement.

and other questionable moves and "stratigums". Fortunatly, all
the players here who were practitioners of such sharp practice seem to
have gone to DBM. Another reason NOT to play it.

Cheers

--- In WarriorRules@y..., JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> The Warrior rules will state that all weapons carried are known to
your
> opponent. So will troop type, but not morale class.
>
> There will be no rolling dice for nonexistant flank marches.
>
> I truly wish that anyone who would try something solely because a
rules set
> does not expressly forbid it would play something besides Warrior.
Folks
> like them are a plague to the hobby.
>
> Scott, your turn.

[Chris Bump]

Jon,

I think that all are in agreement reference rolling for non-existent flank
marches. The question that seems to be raising its head is that of
disclosing hidden/ concealed weapons. We are presumably all gaming for the
fun of it, and equally presumably are all honest in our gamesmanship. IF all
weapons are to disclosed, then how do we simulate little surprises for our
foe ala Braveheart and the Scots raising long spears at the last minute. I
know that the mechanics are such that example is not possible, but If my
opponent is thinking that I have some lowly LIR legionairres ( and they can
be lowly contrary to many prevalent thoughts out there) waiting to be ridden
down by lance armed troops, why can't I entice him to come in close enough to
where his orders mandate that he charge me, and with a counter throw out
caltrops, that he was not expecting. IF he knew that my troops were carrying
than the 30,000 foot General kicks in and he just screens me.

Your point about certain types leaving the hobby is a good one, but I truly
believe that the whole interpretation about declaring all weapons should
either be ALL or should leave some room for snickering gamesmanship. If we
are truly trying to create simulation, there should be room for little
suprises. The mechanics of honesty can be worked into the rules, but we
should try very hard to avoid the sterility of chess.

Chris

[joncleaves]

All WEAPONS must be declared. Portable hazards and incendiary expendables are
not weapons.

I am not trying to discourage debate, but I am telling everyone what our rule
book will say.

Proposing a list rule or an x-rule would seem to be more useful than continued
discussion of basic rules changes. Once again, we are editing/developing, not
designing the basic rulebook.

Jon

[Ed Forbes]

On Mon, 26 Mar 2001 06:51:45 -0000 "Steve Honeyman"
<loki_in_oz@...> writes:
> I put it in purely for just that reason. Since I started playing 7th
>
> I've seen and been on the end of;
>

snip

>> Down costing Samurai HC 'cause the 2HCW can't be used on horseback.
>

snip

> and other questionable moves and "stratigums". Fortunatly, all
> the players here who were practitioners of such sharp practice seem
> to
> have gone to DBM. Another reason NOT to play it.
>
> Cheers
>

Hi Steve

I do not think I would place down costing the 2HCW as above in your other
statements. As the rules change from the context that the army lists
were written on a regular basis, modifications to the army lists should
be made.

For example:
One of my WRG army lists allow the upgrading of the Samurai HC to 2HCT at
0 pt because the 2HCW can not be used mounted.

HC to HK in many book 3 knight armies. The class did not yet exist and
upgrade should be allowed for some of these armies.

Darts required of some Byzantine cav were withdrawn after the rules no
longer allowed their use mounted. The argument that they could still be
used dismounted was not thought sufficient to force extra cost on their
main use mounted.

If the army lists were written allowing use of a weapon under the then
existing rules and later rules disallow their use from what the then
existing rules allowed, I see no reason for not allowing the down costing
of the weapon.


Thanks,
Ed F

[Greg Regets]

Thanks Father Flannigan :-)

Greg



-----Original Message-----
From: JonCleaves@... [mailto:JonCleaves@...]
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2001 12:33 AM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: Flank marches and gamesmanship


The Warrior rules will state that all weapons carried are known to your
opponent. So will troop type, but not morale class.

There will be no rolling dice for nonexistant flank marches.

I truly wish that anyone who would try something solely because a rules set
does not expressly forbid it would play something besides Warrior. Folks
like them are a plague to the hobby.

Scott, your turn.


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/

> On Mon, 26 Mar 2001 06:51:45 -0000 "Steve Honeyman"
> <loki_in_oz@y...> writes:
> > I put it in purely for just that reason. Since I started playing
7th
> >
> > I've seen and been on the end of;
> >
>
> snip
>
> >> Down costing Samurai HC 'cause the 2HCW can't be used on
horseback.
> >
>
> snip
>
> > and other questionable moves and "stratigums". Fortunatly, all
> > the players here who were practitioners of such sharp practice
seem
> > to
> > have gone to DBM. Another reason NOT to play it.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
Lots of snips
>
> Hi Steve
>
> Thanks,
> Ed F
Actually Ed, the DBM rules and lists are now so clean that there's
almost no scope for this type of player. DBM 3.0 makes for a faster
game and better feel that earlier versions. Of course the language
is still WRGese but you can't have everything !

cheers