Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

Sorry to plague at least one of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse,
but as you, Jon, seem to be re-writing the rules for flank marchers,
perhaps you (and any others out there) could consider this perspective
on COMPULSORY dicing for outflankers (whether or not a CinC has
deployed one, two or ZERO outflanking marches):

A CinC CANNOT know that a flank march is (or is not) launched against
him (This point can be argued if outscouted, but I ignore this
contention - read 14.45). So, dicing for (possibly) non-existant flank
marches stimulates ignorance and paranoia FOR BOTH CinCs equally.

DICING FOR ARRIVALS therefore confirms/denies/questions the CinC's
assumptions, much as dicing for fordability of a water feature does.

MY CRITICAL POINT IS THIS:
If both sides turn up for battle, KNOWING (as players) that they will
BOTH have to dice for outflankers on EACH flank regardless of whether
or not they (or their enemy) will send such a force (or two), then
surely this aspect alone adds to the fog of war AND negates the
"gamesman" attitude that you so rightly wish to banish from the game?

Whereas, the way you currently have it, a CinC dicing for a flank
march is TELLING his opponent that something is definitely happening
(although which flank it's happening on is temporarily a mystery.)

AND YET a CinC NOT dicing for outflankers is equally a give-away!
(I realise your rules for 1 side outflanking on BOTH flanks is yet
undistributed, so things may change, yet I feel this fog of war
principle holds.)


So, here are the modified GAME MECHANICS of it:

3.1 PREGAME SEQUENCE

Phase 10: Write Deployment Orders (4.21)
For each flank, the CinC MUST write what is outflanking on that flank.
It may be EITHER an entire command, OR a single unit, OR NOTHING AT
ALL.

Outflankers cannot include the CinC nor any bodies in his command.
(This keeps the CinC honest.) (Add the usual suspects as well.)


3.2 THE BOUND

2.0 THE EVENTS PHASE
a) Whether or not there is an outflanker, each turn each CinC dices
for arrivals for EACH unresolved flank he has.

A flank becomes RESOLVED for a CinC if:
i) The CinC throws a 5 or 6 for that flank, AND he has a body or
command outflanking on that flank. In this case, the existing
procedures are followed. Note that this will resolve that particular
flank for BOTH armies as per existing rules.
ii) The CinC throws a 5 or 6, AND he has no outflanking force on that
flank. In this instance, he declares "No Arrivals" and he is RESOLVED
FOR THAT FLANK, and so can no longer dice for that flank. However, an
UNRESOLVED opponent can keep dicing for that flank until he resolves
(with a 5 or 6) that flank, even if he has no outflankers on that
flank.

Because Point ii) deviates from current rules, it is written so as not
to make arrivals of REAL outflankers too easy.

(Jon: These rule mods were written to show I have thought about how
to implement these ideas, even though you may very well reject them. I
took to heart your comments about systematic points costing for
troops. As much as I think that pike get it way too easy...)


Just thought I would try to outflank one of the Four Horsemen!

Keep up the good work, guys!!!!

Terry

[Ewan McNay]

On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 quirk@... wrote:

<snip>
> MY CRITICAL POINT IS THIS:
> If both sides turn up for battle, KNOWING (as players) that they will
> BOTH have to dice for outflankers on EACH flank regardless of whether
> or not they (or their enemy) will send such a force (or two), then
> surely this aspect alone adds to the fog of war AND negates the
> "gamesman" attitude that you so rightly wish to banish from the game?

I agree (strongly, actually) with both Terry's thoughts and proposed
mechanisms here. The potential for flank marching is (I believe) too
quickly resolved. I send this, then, mostly to question one thing:

> Outflankers cannot include the CinC nor any bodies in his command.
> (This keeps the CinC honest.) (Add the usual suspects as well.)

The CinC himself - well, OK, if you wish, though I don't honestly see why.
[Care to enlighten me? It would at least ensure that he's not
unreliable!]

Bodies in his command, though - well, if the only suitable troops for
fighting in the wood on my opponent's baseline (or whatever) are inn my
command, why not send them there? I'm not sure what 'dishonesty' would
cause a problem.

[Ideally, both players would write their scouting on their list, and the
ump. would annouce to eaaach table the scouting situation - 'no
outscouting' or 'player X is outscouted' - which would also avoid the
current counting of scouting points.]

I know, I got into this too late in the process - so my apologies. But I
have a few spare brain cells for this stuff now .

Ewan
--
Dr. Ewan McNay - Behavioral Neuroscience, Yale University.

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in time of great
moral crisis, maintain their neutrality. - Dante Alighieri (1265-1321)

[scott holder]

A CinC CANNOT know that a flank march is (or is not) launched against
him (This point can be argued if outscouted, but I ignore this
contention - read 14.45). So, dicing for (possibly) non-existant flank
marches stimulates ignorance and paranoia FOR BOTH CinCs equally.

>Although the internal FH democratic dynamic could overule me in case of a
point of disagreement on a specific rules question, I'll tell ya right up
front that I won't support this, don't agree with it, yadda, yadda, yadda.
Flank marches must exist to be diced for. Period. Perhaps Jon will include
this little piece of gamesmanship as an "X rule". That's fine with me of
course.

Scott
List Ho