Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mark Stone]

By which I mean concerns about generals, rather than concerns of a non-specific
nature.

I've been having several independent off-line conversations on this topic, and
it's getting too hard to keep track of, so I'm raising the issue here. Here's
what I'm concerned about. Some army list books, such as, Imperial Warrior,
contain the following line under "General Concepts":

"Generals count towards fractional or numerical limits in a list only when
they are part of a unit."

Other books, like Holy Warrior, do not contain this line, leaving Holy Warrior
lists, for example, in a bit of limbo in terms of what generals can mix with
and what effect this has. I know that Jon and Scott are working on better
language to make things clear(er) prior to Historicon, but I'm beginning to
realize how complicated the issue actually is.

First, with respect to the rule above, what does it actually mean?

Minima are a "numerical limit". Maxima are also a "numerical limit". So
generals, if included in units with minima or maxima, presumably count towards
those, reducing the number of additional stands you are required to take to
meet the minimum, and also reducing the number of additional stands you are
allowed to take within the maximum. At least that's my guess.

It would be great if you could just apply that rule verbatim to Holy Warrior and
make everything work nicely. It seems, however, that you can't. There are
numerous examples of the problems that arise, but I'll focus on the most
blatant: the Catalan Company list (HW #2.

On this list, you get:
"Aragonese men-at-arms Irr B EHK L,Sh @45..... 0-1"
No list notes or errata permit these to be combined with another troop type.

Note that the above rule would turn this line into nonsense, since:
(1) If you take a Catalan general as a staff element, then you cannot take the
men-at-arms because you can get at most 1 and cannot make a unit out of 1
stand;
(2) If you take a Catalan general with the intent of putting him in a unit,
then that reduces the max allowed for that troop type by 1, in this case from 1
to 0, and hence once again you cannot take the men-at-arms.

Not sure what the solution is, but it sure is a mess.


-Mark Stone

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 5/10/2004 3:33:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
mark@... writes:

> By which I mean concerns about generals, rather than concerns of a
non-specific
> nature.
>
> I've been having several independent off-line conversations on this topic, and
> it's getting too hard to keep track of, so I'm raising the
> issue here.>>

I am rewriting the General Concepts section. As soon as I have a version FHE is
comfortable with, we will post it and it will apply to all list books.

The basics;
-generals who are taken as integral to a unit will count toward the minima of
the troop type of the unit.
-generals will not count toward any maxima but their own
-generals will be able to mix more freely than the current general concepts
allows

Please be patient.
Jon

[Mark Stone]

--- On May 10 Jon said: ---

> The basics;
> -generals who are taken as integral to a unit will count toward the minima of
> the troop type of the unit.
> -generals will not count toward any maxima but their own
> -generals will be able to mix more freely than the current general concepts
> allows
>
> Please be patient.

Aha! Not having generals count toward any maxima should fix the problem. I guess
I was getting panicky because that is _not_ implied by the current Imperial
Warrior wording.

Thanks, Jon!


-Mark