Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Chris Bump]

I apologize if these questions have already been addressed in the
clarifications. In preparation for the upcoming tournament I have been boning
up on my rules and found some "issues".

1. ON page 68 at the top of the page in an example of elephant combat, and what
appears to be the only definition of how elephant combat is conducted, it
describes how an Irr C elephant w/P, 1w/B and 1 UA driver fights as five figures
using the 1/5 elephant line of the combat table. One of the crewmen fight as a
single figure armed with P, the other as a single figure using 'other infantry'
line on the combat table.

Why 'other infantry' line and not the armed El or Ch crew? The starting numbers
are different across the entire line.

The other question is in what circumstance(s) does or may one COUNTER-charge
impetuously? I've always thought none, but have seen a couple of lines where it
talks about impetuous charges and countercharges.
Chris

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 1/27/2003 3:25:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, cncbump writes:

> Why 'other infantry' line and not the armed El or Ch crew? The starting
numbers are different across the entire line.
>

That is covered in the clarifications.

> The other question is in what circumstance(s) does or may one COUNTER-charge
impetuously? I've always thought none, but have seen a couple of lines where it
talks about impetuous
> charges and countercharges.>>

A charge can only be declared impetuous. Countercharges are not declared,
therefore cannot be impetuous.

[Chris Bump]

In a message dated 1/27/2003 3:32:34 PM Eastern Standard Time, JonCleaves
writes:

> That is covered in the clarifications.

Sorry for the redundancy.
>

> A charge can only be declared impetuous. Countercharges
> are not declared, therefore cannot be impetuous.

Thought as much. Again sorry for the stupid sillies.
Chris

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 1/27/2003 3:39:54 PM Eastern Standard Time, cncbump writes:

> Again sorry for the stupid sillies.>>

Not stupid and no need to apologize.

[Mark Stone]

In other words, questions about generals, as opposed to questions of a
non-specific nature.

1. Advancing army standards. Here's the situation: My CinC, with Army Standard,
charges an enemy body on bound 3, recoiling that body and following up against
it.

What I would expect is that, in bound 4, the Army Standard counts as advancing
until we reach follow-up moves for the CinC's unit in the sequence of play, in
which case if the CinC is able to continue following up or engage in pursuit
then the Army Standard is still advancing, and if the CinC is unable to follow
up or pursue then the Army Standard is considered to have ceased advancing at
that point in the sequence of play.

In fact what the rules seem to say is somewhat different. Under 5.11, a body is
eager if the Army Standard is within 240 of the enemy, with both standard and
enemy visible to the body in question, and the Army Standard is advancing. For
the definition of advance we are referenced to 4.52, where we are told that the
minimum move to qualify for an advance is an approach move of 40p. Since a
follow up move is not an approach move, it would appear that the Standard is not
advancing.

Given that following up against the enemy would seem to be the epitome of
advance-inspired eagerness, this strikes me as odd. Note that there are two
issues here: (1) does a follow-up count as an advance, and (2) given that
follow-ups occur after charge declarations and charge responses, IF a follow-up
were to count as an advance, would a Standard involved in a follow-up last bound
that has not yet had a chance to follow up this bound be considered advancing
during the critical charge response phase?

2. Combining generals with other bodies. I seem to recall Jon saying on this
list that if a staff element is incorporated into a unit when the army is
designed, that it can be combined with any unit (assuming you aren't mixing regs
with irregs, etc.).

I'm struggling to find where this is stated in the rules or in the army lists,
and I'm coming up empty. This is fairly important since the army lists state
that "Unless otherwise specified in a list, troops on different lines cannot be
organized into the same unit or body." Absent some further ruling that I am
unable to find, a literal reading of this would entail that staff elements
cannot be combined with anything, unless a list note specifically allows.
Obviously we aren't playing that way now, so there must be some rule somewhere
I'm overlooking.


-Mark

[joncleaves]

>
> 1. Advancing army standards. Here's the situation: My CinC, with Army
Standard,
> charges an enemy body on bound 3, recoiling that body and following up against
it.>>

Mark, please see the 5.11 portion of the clarifications. They are dated 15 June
2003 and are located in the files section of the egroup.

> >
> 2. Combining generals with other bodies. I seem to recall Jon saying on this
> list that if a staff element is incorporated into a unit when the army is
> designed, that it can be combined with any unit (assuming you aren't mixing
regs
> with irregs, etc.). >>

They can be combined with any troops of the same order (loose, close, open) and
type (SHK, HK, LMI, etc.). This can be superceded by additional possibilites in
the army list. If I said it could be combined with just anything, I misspoke.

What generals can be combined with is in the general concepts section of the
army list books. I plan to incorporate this section into the main rules with
the second printing so its all in one place with other army list writing rules.

Jon

[John Garlic]

Hi Jon,

You mentioned a second printing. When is that planned for? Have you
considered a loose-leaf edition, then clarification/modification pages could be
downloaded.

John Garlic

> What generals can be combined with is in the general concepts section of
> the army list books. I plan to incorporate this section into the main rules
> with the second printing so its all in one place with other army list writing
> rules.



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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 9/19/2003 20:01:25 Central Daylight Time, jmgarlic@...
writes:
When is that planned for?
No earlier than next year at this rate.
Have you
considered a loose-leaf edition, then clarification/modification pages could
be
downloaded.
Yes. Our research shows most people don't want it that way and we couldn't
afford two versions. Maybe if we make more money....


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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Interesting. I don't recall any such poll on this list which is the main
customer base. But your methodology for research may like many companys perhaps
includes a cross-section of gamers rather than that of the full member base. I
think Johnny's idea is a very cost effective measure for the customer and having
it available over the internet would save the most annoying erratta sheets if
one could merely change a page out. I know that is one of the WRGisms that I
would love to see go away. . .

Kelly Wilkinson
JonCleaves@... wrote:
In a message dated 9/19/2003 20:01:25 Central Daylight Time, jmgarlic@...
writes:
When is that planned for?
No earlier than next year at this rate.
Have you
considered a loose-leaf edition, then clarification/modification pages could
be
downloaded.
Yes. Our research shows most people don't want it that way and we couldn't
afford two versions. Maybe if we make more money....


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


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

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



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software

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

I agree.

One thing (one of the few things) that I really liked about the Empire
ancients rules system was the fact that the basic rules came in a three ring
binder and all supplemental material was sold as unbound on three hole
punched paper. It is certainly easier to carry around one binder with
everything (Rules, army lists, campaign Warrior, etc.) than five or more
booklets with the information scattered throughout. I, for one, would
happily pay more for this convenience - especially with the robust internet
/ e-mail support you guys provide us with. Having the errata available for
download so we could print it out and slip it in our binders would be great.

I can see the Warrior (Visa) commercial now:

Warrior second edition in a three ring binder - $45
Army lists printed on three hole paper - $15
Being able to download errata sheets and swap them out with the originals -
priceless

Scott A McCoppin, AIA
mccoppinarchitecture, pa
704.560.4154
architecture@...

-----Original Message-----
From: kelly wilkinson [mailto:jwilkinson62@...]
Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2003 2:38 AM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] general questions

Interesting. I don't recall any such poll on this list which is the main
customer base. But your methodology for research may like many companys
perhaps includes a cross-section of gamers rather than that of the full
member base. I think Johnny's idea is a very cost effective measure for the
customer and having it available over the internet would save the most
annoying erratta sheets if one could merely change a page out. I know that
is one of the WRGisms that I would love to see go away. . .

Kelly
Wilkinson
JonCleaves@... wrote:
In a message dated 9/19/2003 20:01:25 Central Daylight Time,
jmgarlic@...
writes:
When is that planned for?
No earlier than next year at this rate.
Have you
considered a loose-leaf edition, then clarification/modification pages could
be
downloaded.
Yes. Our research shows most people don't want it that way and we couldn't
afford two versions. Maybe if we make more money....


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


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

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



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software

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




Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
click here
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=194081.3897168.5135684.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=17050590
80:HM/A=1706996/R=0/SIG=11p5b9ris/*http://www.ediets.com/start.cfm?code=3050
9&media=atkins>


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



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .


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

[Mark Stone]

Quoting "WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com" <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>:

> From: JonCleaves@...
> Subject: Re: general questions
>
> >
> > 1. Advancing army standards. Here's the situation: My CinC, with Army
> Standard,
> > charges an enemy body on bound 3, recoiling that body and following up
> against it.>>
>
> Mark, please see the 5.11 portion of the clarifications. They are dated 15
> June 2003 and are located in the files section of the egroup.
>

Jon, sorry I missed that clarification; thought I had 'em all. Regardless, that
only answers part of my question. Here's what I'm uncomfortable with:

On Bound 3 my general with army standard recoils an enemy body and follows up.
On Bound 4 my general does the same to the same enemy body. Right next to my
general is a loose order foot unit being charged by mounted in the open on Bound
4. A literal reading of the rules (with 6/15 clarifications) says that my loose
order foot unit is _not_ eager because the army standard has yet to advance that
bound. I find that _really_ counter-intuitive. As far as I can tell, my general
is in continuous forward motion, and any interpretation to the contrary is an
artifact of sequence of play.

> > >
> > 2. Combining generals with other bodies. I seem to recall Jon saying on
> this
> > list that if a staff element is incorporated into a unit when the army is
> > designed, that it can be combined with any unit (assuming you aren't mixing
> regs
> > with irregs, etc.). >>
>
> They can be combined with any troops of the same order (loose, close, open)
> and type (SHK, HK, LMI, etc.). This can be superceded by additional
> possibilites in the army list. If I said it could be combined with just
> anything, I misspoke.
>
> What generals can be combined with is in the general concepts section of the
> army list books. I plan to incorporate this section into the main rules with
> the second printing so its all in one place with other army list writing
> rules.
>

Jon, I'm looking at the "General Concepts" section on Page 4 of Feudal Warrior
(for, like, the 10th time) and I see _nothing_ there that says what bodies
generals may be a part of. Sorry to be dense, but I just don't see it.


-Mark Stone

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Nice commercial!

kelly

Scott & Tracie McCoppin <sctrac@...> wrote:
I agree.

One thing (one of the few things) that I really liked about the Empire
ancients rules system was the fact that the basic rules came in a three ring
binder and all supplemental material was sold as unbound on three hole
punched paper. It is certainly easier to carry around one binder with
everything (Rules, army lists, campaign Warrior, etc.) than five or more
booklets with the information scattered throughout. I, for one, would
happily pay more for this convenience - especially with the robust internet
/ e-mail support you guys provide us with. Having the errata available for
download so we could print it out and slip it in our binders would be great.

I can see the Warrior (Visa) commercial now:

Warrior second edition in a three ring binder - $45
Army lists printed on three hole paper - $15
Being able to download errata sheets and swap them out with the originals -
priceless

Scott A McCoppin, AIA
mccoppinarchitecture, pa
704.560.4154
architecture@...

-----Original Message-----
From: kelly wilkinson [mailto:jwilkinson62@...]
Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2003 2:38 AM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] general questions

Interesting. I don't recall any such poll on this list which is the main
customer base. But your methodology for research may like many companys
perhaps includes a cross-section of gamers rather than that of the full
member base. I think Johnny's idea is a very cost effective measure for the
customer and having it available over the internet would save the most
annoying erratta sheets if one could merely change a page out. I know that
is one of the WRGisms that I would love to see go away. . .

Kelly
Wilkinson
JonCleaves@... wrote:
In a message dated 9/19/2003 20:01:25 Central Daylight Time,
jmgarlic@...
writes:
When is that planned for?
No earlier than next year at this rate.
Have you
considered a loose-leaf edition, then clarification/modification pages could
be
downloaded.
Yes. Our research shows most people don't want it that way and we couldn't
afford two versions. Maybe if we make more money....


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


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

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



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software

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




Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
click here
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=194081.3897168.5135684.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=17050590
80:HM/A=1706996/R=0/SIG=11p5b9ris/*http://www.ediets.com/start.cfm?code=3050
9&media=atkins>


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



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .


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


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

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



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software

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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 9/20/2003 14:59:30 Central Daylight Time,
mark@... writes:
Jon, sorry I missed that clarification; thought I had 'em all. Regardless,
that
only answers part of my question. Here's what I'm uncomfortable with:

On Bound 3 my general with army standard recoils an enemy body and follows up.
On Bound 4 my general does the same to the same enemy body. Right next to my
general is a loose order foot unit being charged by mounted in the open on
Bound
4. A literal reading of the rules (with 6/15 clarifications) says that my
loose
order foot unit is _not_ eager because the army standard has yet to advance
that
bound. I find that _really_ counter-intuitive. As far as I can tell, my
general
is in continuous forward motion, and any interpretation to the contrary is an
artifact of sequence of play.>>

Good point. I can see the wording problem. Until I can get the change into
the formal clarifications, use this as official:

"If the last move made by the element containing the army standard was a
forward combat results move, this also counts as advancing."


>
>
Jon, I'm looking at the "General Concepts" section on Page 4 of Feudal Warrior
(for, like, the 10th time) and I see _nothing_ there that says what bodies
generals may be a part of. Sorry to be dense, but I just don't see it.




You are right again. This is one of those areas (rules found in list books)
that we don't do so well yet. Scott thinks I handled it, I think he did, etc.

Take the following as official until we can get it formally clarified:

"General's elements may be staff elements or incorporated into a unit of the
following types:

-Any troops in the general's list labeled 'bodyguard'.
-Any troops in the general's list of the same training class, order and type
(not necessarily the same morale class).
-Any troops stated in the list as being able to mix with the general's troop
type.

Ally generals may only be incorporated into a unit of their own command,
unless otherwise noted in the list."

Jon


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