Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

Howdy!

I've been lurking on this list for a bit now -- since I purchased
the Warrior rules about two months ago, actually. I've played DBA
for awhile now, with lots of DBAOL play and a bit of in-person play
to boot, and while I've enjoyed the game, I was definitely in the
market for a) more detail, and b) less randomness ("Umm, precisely
how did your psiloi kill my cav in the middle of the open field, in
1 bound??"). I heard that Warrior definitely has both of those
attributes, and from my reading of the rules thus far, it's obvious
that I had heard correctly.

In other words, as far as I can tell, great game!

That said, I haven't yet played it, not having the benefit of
someone around who actually knows the rules ... so I'm having to
learn the rules cold from the rulebook, and I'm finding some
confusing bits.

So, here they come ... Newbie Rules Questions(tm) ... and yes, I've
read the FAQ. Apologies if gameplay would have made some of these
clear, but hey, chicken-and-egg and all that ...

Questions:
----------

* 4.11 Interception: I don't quite get how interceptions work when
the general is joined to a unit. Does this mean that the entire unit
of which the general is a part becomes a potential interceptor, or
do I actually have to contact the to-be-intercepted unit with the
general's element within the overall unit?

* 4.53 Signals: how complicated can the order or condition be? For
instance, a body laying in wait in the woods on a flank ... could it
have "WAIT until at least two enemies within 240p of you are
disordered, then ATTACK the flank of the front line if there are no
reserves within 240p of the frontline, otherwise Delay the
reserves." And I assume you can only define one signal for the
whole army, but that the signal doesn't have to apply to all bodies,
right?

* 5.0 Troop Sate: okay, this is confusing, though gameplay will
help make sense of it (or at least get me used to it . The thing
I find most confusing is that the three kinds of state -- morale,
cohesion, and fatigue -- are so interlinked, AND that there is not
a "smooth" progression between the various states within a given
category -- e.g. morale. I know this is meant to mirror reality, but
it's not a straightforward mechanic.

Anyway ... the question is: is it true that a body that has a
cohesion state of broken ALSO automatically is morale state of
shaken? It mentions this in 5.14, but then doesn't in 5.23.

* 2.52 Units & 5.23 Broken: both rules seem to imply that
individual elements within a routing body no longer need to
touch ... what does that really mean? Is that just a visual aid to
denote routing, and it has no game effect (they are considered to be
in a block), or ...?

* 5.41 Mandatory Rally: What does "... before they can move freely
again" really mean? From 5.44, it looks like it *might* mean that a
unit that must rally can't make any moves except for charge
responses, until they rally. Is that correct?

* 5.42 Rally Requirements: I assume that "respond to an enemy
charge" includes taking the charge at a halt, right?

* 6.111 "Whipping about": This rule explicitly says that columns
will not "whip about." However, the FAQ includes an answer that says
columns cannot end their moves in a wonky state in which only some
of the elements have wheeled. To me, that implies that to resolve
that wonky state, the tail of the column must "whip about." And in
fact, that same FAQ said that the body must revert to BLOCK at the
end of the movement ... huh? Help?

* 6.111 Measuring: Last paragraph of 6.111 is confusing -- what
does "the impact of other bodies and terrain on a body's ability to
wheel ..." mean? what does the rest of it mean? If this is alluding
to how measurement should be done, then even Phil Barker goes into
more detail than this ... (I know, low blow ;-)

* 6.112 Variable Moves: This isn't called out explicitly, only
inferred from the example, so I have to double-check -- am I correct
that a score of 1-2 means a MANDATORY 40p deduction, and that 5-6
means a WHOLLY OPTIONAL 80p addition or deduction? And can less than
80p be added/deducted in the case of a 5-6 score?

* 6.121 90-Degree Turns: This is a hard rule to write, and you guys
have done an admirable job. I think I generally know how it works,
but I want to clarify for myself: if my body is 1-4 elements deep,
it's going to turn into 1 column; if 5-8 elements deep, 2 columns;
and 9-12 elements deepy, 3 coumns, yes? However, I don't really
understand what is being emphatically stated by sentence "... they
do not expand to [columns], they just END UP that way." The
emphasis makes me think I really should get this, but I'm not sure I
do ... does it mean that you can't turn into columns in such a way
that you get more distance out of the turn? Or ...?

Oh, and if it's forming into 2-3 columns, should the result be a
legal block?

* 6.123 Changes in Frontage: Again, I understand the gist, but
there are a few caveats: it sounds like I could do a massive
reshuffle of all my elements in a frontage change, as long as the
front elements remain the same. Is that true?

*6.13 Approaches: What are the mechanics around pre-empting? Does
it literally mean that if my opponent has his foot element in air
and is moving it across the table, I say "stop right there, I want
to move my cav!" Can I even choose to move ALL my cav before he
moves a single foot element?

* 6.14 Counters: for the "turn to face enemy in contact with flank"
counter, how does that work, exactly? I assume "face" means you turn
but remain in contact/combat. Right? Do you retain the exact same
formation? I assume yes ... but how do you choose how to line up
that formation with the was-flanking enemy? And what if there isn't
room to turn like that, who makes room? Or does the lack of room
prevent the turn from taking place?

* 6.163 Declaring Charges: The requirement that the bodies must be
prompted "in turn" ... does this mean in my written list of charge
declarations, I should have an order specified for the charges (or
at least those that require prompts)? Or can I declare the order of
my prompts after I know what the enemy is going to do ... but then,
in what order do the two players decide on that order?

* 6.2 Marches: When "both players" move in the same segment, who
moves first?

That's all for now ... but only because I haven't finished my
detailed pass through the rulebook. ;-)

Any help appreciated!

Thanks,
Jeff

[joncleaves]

First off: everyone please let me be the one to answer Jeff's questions. I want
him to get these from the source.

Second: Kurt - please track my answers for the FAQ. These are the type of
questions we want there. If Jeff uncovers something that needs a clarification,
I will so note in my answer and you can skip such items for the FAQ.

Jeff: Welcome. You represent Warrior's most precious resource and our most
significant challenge - the new player starting cold with a rulebook. I will
post your answers in a separate mail and sometime tonight or tomorrow so I can
have the time to answer in depth where necessary. Glad you're with us.

Jon

[joncleaves]

<<> Questions:
> ----------
>
> * 4.11 Interception: I don't quite get how interceptions work when
> the general is joined to a unit. Does this mean that the entire unit
> of which the general is a part becomes a potential interceptor, or
> do I actually have to contact the to-be-intercepted unit with the
> general's element within the overall unit?>>

It is sufficient to make contact between the general's unit and the body to be
intercepted. The general's element in a multi-element body need not be in
contact.

<<> * 4.53 Signals: how complicated can the order or condition be?>>

As complicated as you like.

<< For instance, a body laying in wait in the woods on a flank ... could it
> have "WAIT until at least two enemies within 240p of you are
> disordered, then ATTACK the flank of the front line if there are no
> reserves within 240p of the frontline, otherwise Delay the
> reserves.">>

Bodies don't get orders, entire commands do. Attack in Warrior isn't a verb, it
is a type of order commands get. A command is on Wait until one of its bodies
charges (which can only happen under certain cicumstances while on Wait orders)
OR its GENERAL sees a signal. That can be a complex signal, but the GENERAL has
to see it. Also note that the Attack order takes effect in the Orders Phase
(without having to make any communications) of the NEXT bound after the signal
is seen or the body charges.

<< And I assume you can only define one signal for the
> whole army, but that the signal doesn't have to apply to all bodies,
> right?>>

You define it for the command, and the GENERAL has to see it.

<<> * 5.0 Troop Sate: okay, this is confusing, though gameplay will
> help make sense of it (or at least get me used to it . The thing
> I find most confusing is that the three kinds of state -- morale,
> cohesion, and fatigue -- are so interlinked, AND that there is not
> a "smooth" progression between the various states within a given
> category -- e.g. morale. I know this is meant to mirror reality, but
> it's not a straightforward mechanic.>>

Guilty. My recruit crew here has made the same observation. I will say two
things about this:
1. It is one of the things Warrior players LIKE about Warrior.
2. I am making a play aid that is a troop state matrix so you can see the
combinations at a glance.

<< Anyway ... the question is: is it true that a body that has a
> cohesion state of broken ALSO automatically is morale state of
> shaken?>>

Yes.

<< It mentions this in 5.14, but then doesn't in 5.23.>>

Good catch. Will fix in clarification update.

<< * 2.52 Units & 5.23 Broken: both rules seem to imply that
> individual elements within a routing body no longer need to
> touch ... what does that really mean? Is that just a visual aid to
> denote routing, and it has no game effect (they are considered to be
> in a block), or ...?>>

Just a visual aid for those who don't like using markers to mark troop state.
Has NO game effect.

<<> * 5.41 Mandatory Rally: What does "... before they can move freely
> again" really mean? From 5.44, it looks like it *might* mean that a
> unit that must rally can't make any moves except for charge
> responses, until they rally. Is that correct?>>

Yes. But note that steady troops in a mandatory rally are done rallying at the
end of approaches and can therefore counter, charge, etc. If you are unsteady
(disordered, shaken, etc.) and in a must rally situation, then you cannot move
until after rallying in the End Phase. Unsteady troops in a must rally are the
most vulnerable in the game. For a really good reason...

<<> * 5.42 Rally Requirements: I assume that "respond to an enemy
> charge" includes taking the charge at a halt, right?>>

Yes. Getting into hand to hand stops you from completing a rally.

<<> * 6.111 "Whipping about": This rule explicitly says that columns
> will not "whip about." However, the FAQ includes an answer that says
> columns cannot end their moves in a wonky state in which only some
> of the elements have wheeled. To me, that implies that to resolve
> that wonky state, the tail of the column must "whip about." And in
> fact, that same FAQ said that the body must revert to BLOCK at the
> end of the movement ... huh? Help?>>

Long columns that wheel DO 'whip about' and no amount of my willpower can change
it. <sigh> We have to fix that para. It was MEANT to support the idea that
columns that wheel, in real life, do not whip through bodies to their left or
right and so it is where it ends that matters as far as can it fit in a tight
space and not how the figures 'appear' to move through nearby units during some
theoretical intermediate state before the move is completed.

<<> * 6.111 Measuring: Last paragraph of 6.111 is confusing -- what
> does "the impact of other bodies and terrain on a body's ability to
> wheel ..." mean? what does the rest of it mean?>>

Measured in that sentence means 'evaluated' not measured like with a ruler. I'd
need a diagram to really do this answer justice but it has to do with things
like three bodies in line and the middle body wheels as part of a move forward.
If it makes a legal move and is clear of the other two when it is done, it does
not matter if little snapshots of the mover's position as it makes the move have
it theoretically 'inside' another body's position.

<<> * 6.112 Variable Moves: This isn't called out explicitly, only
> inferred from the example, so I have to double-check -- am I correct
> that a score of 1-2 means a MANDATORY 40p deduction,>>

Yes.

<< and that 5-6
> means a WHOLLY OPTIONAL 80p addition or deduction?>>

Some orders and being impetuous can limit the option.

<< And can less than 80p be added/deducted in the case of a 5-6 score?>>

No. But you can not take the option at all in most cases.

<<> * 6.121 90-Degree Turns: This is a hard rule to write, and you guys
> have done an admirable job. I think I generally know how it works,
> but I want to clarify for myself: if my body is 1-4 elements deep,
> it's going to turn into 1 column;>>

Yes.

<< if 5-8 elements deep, 2 columns; >>

A body cannot be in '2 columns'. If more than four elements deep it may end the
90 degree turn in a block either one or two elements wide.

<<> and 9-12 elements deepy, 3 coumns, yes?>>

No. See above. There is no difference in what happens when you turn between
5-8 deep and 9-12 deep. You end up either 2 or 3 wide, at the player's option,
in any of those cases.

<< However, I don't really understand what is being emphatically stated by
sentence "... they do not expand to [columns], they just END UP that way." >>

An alteration in the number of elements wide a block is when it turns 90 does
not count as a maneuver. You can turn and still make an expansion or
contraction if you are regular and steady.

<<> * 6.123 Changes in Frontage: Again, I understand the gist, but
> there are a few caveats: it sounds like I could do a massive
> reshuffle of all my elements in a frontage change, as long as the
> front elements remain the same. Is that true?>>

Yes. There is a very good reason for this. Ask the Byzantines or the
Chinese...

<< *6.13 Approaches: What are the mechanics around pre-empting? Does
> it literally mean that if my opponent has his foot element in air
> and is moving it across the table, I say "stop right there, I want
> to move my cav!" Can I even choose to move ALL my cav before he
> moves a single foot element?>>

Neither. The player without initiative may approach with a cav body (that does
not have mounted within 240p) before any enemy foot move.

<<> * 6.14 Counters: for the "turn to face enemy in contact with flank"
> counter, how does that work, exactly? I assume "face" means you turn
> but remain in contact/combat. Right?>>

Yes.

<< Do you retain the exact same formation? I assume yes>>

No. You make a legal 90 degree or 180 degree turn.

<< And what if there isn't room to turn like that, who makes room? Or does the
lack of room prevent the turn from taking place?>>

No room - can't do it.

<<> * 6.163 Declaring Charges: The requirement that the bodies must be
> prompted "in turn" ... does this mean in my written list of charge
> declarations, I should have an order specified for the charges (or
> at least those that require prompts)?>>

Technically yes. Never seen that necessary.

<< Or can I declare the order of
> my prompts after I know what the enemy is going to do ... but then,
> in what order do the two players decide on that order?>>

That is why I said technically. If you are in a heated competition game, you
should write charge decs, impetuous declarations and prompt order down.
Otherwise, just do it.

<<> * 6.2 Marches: When "both players" move in the same segment, who
> moves first?>>

Initiative order. Never needed it until we started moving mages in Fantasy
Warrior.... :)

<<> That's all for now ... but only because I haven't finished my
> detailed pass through the rulebook. >>

Don't hurry on my account...lol

Jon

[joncleaves]

> > <<> Questions:
> << <<> * 4.53 Signals:
>
>
> *** Just to clarify: doesn't have to be an Attack order, correct?>>

Yes, it does. Wait only turns into attack.

> <<*** But can you have each command be Wait'ing on a separate signal,
> with separate conditions and/or actions?>>

Yes.

> <<In DBA, they have the "no
> more than one corner can cross through another element" rule -- you
> seem to be saying that Warrior doesn't even have that
> restriction ... but then when does interpenetration have to be
> allowed to enable the move? >>

You can't end inside a unit. If you would end up that way and cannot do a
legal interpenetration, the move cannot be made.

> <<> <<> * 6.121 90-Degree Turns:
> > No. See above. There is no difference in what happens when you
> turn between 5-8 deep and 9-12 deep. You end up either 2 or 3 wide,
> at the player's option, in any of those cases.
>
> *** Does the body need to be in a legal block formation if deeper
> than 4 elements, at the end of the 90 degree turn?>>

Yes.

>
> > << *6.13 Approaches:
> > Neither. The player without initiative may approach with a cav
> body (that does not have mounted within 240p) before any enemy foot
> move.
>
> *** This didn't quite answer my question. There are two parts: 1)
> can the player who is allowed to pre-empt litterally pre-empt the
> moving player in the MIDDLE of a given move? and 2) can the pre-
> empting player do ALL pre-emptive moves before the pre-empted player
> gets to do a single thing? Or is it a 1 body-then-1 body pre-
> empted/pre-emptor alternation?

Oh yes I did. I said neither. You cannot preempt in the middle of a move.
You could theoretically do all preemptive moves before he can move a single
body, but that is a lot of mounted with no enemy mounted within 240p. Can
the Mongols premept the Aztecs? Yup.

> <<Are these truly the kinds of questions you need, or am I just being
> dense or a rules lawyer? I hope neither. >>

I don't NEED questions...lol. Just ask me the ones you need answers to.



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

Just gotta say -- wonderful tone: you are obviously looking for
feedback, and to answer questions.

-Jeff

--- In WarriorRules@y..., JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> First off: everyone please let me be the one to answer Jeff's
questions. I want him to get these from the source.
>
> Second: Kurt - please track my answers for the FAQ. These are the
type of questions we want there. If Jeff uncovers something that
needs a clarification, I will so note in my answer and you can skip
such items for the FAQ.
>
> Jeff: Welcome. You represent Warrior's most precious resource and
our most significant challenge - the new player starting cold with a
rulebook. I will post your answers in a separate mail and sometime
tonight or tomorrow so I can have the time to answer in depth where
necessary. Glad you're with us.
>
> Jon

Okay ... a few follow-up questions/comments ... prepended with ***
for visibility.


--- In WarriorRules@y..., JonCleaves@a... wrote:

> <<> Questions:
> <<> * 4.53 Signals:
> Bodies don't get orders, entire commands do. Attack in Warrior
isn't a verb, it is a type of order commands get. A command is on
Wait until one of its bodies charges (which can only happen under
certain cicumstances while on Wait orders) OR its GENERAL sees a
signal. That can be a complex signal, but the GENERAL has to see
it. Also note that the Attack order takes effect in the Orders
Phase (without having to make any communications) of the NEXT bound
after the signal is seen or the body charges.

*** Just to clarify: doesn't have to be an Attack order, correct?

> You define it for the command, and the GENERAL has to see it.

*** But can you have each command be Wait'ing on a separate signal,
with separate conditions and/or actions?

> Guilty. My recruit crew here has made the same observation. I
will say two things about this:
> 1. It is one of the things Warrior players LIKE about Warrior.
> 2. I am making a play aid that is a troop state matrix so you can
see the combinations at a glance.

*** I see how the state system adds richness -- it's just a barrier
to entry. I drew a diagram myself just to understand it.

> <<> * 6.111 Measuring:
> Measured in that sentence means 'evaluated' not measured like with
a ruler. I'd need a diagram to really do this answer justice but it
has to do with things like three bodies in line and the middle body
wheels as part of a move forward. If it makes a legal move and is
clear of the other two when it is done, it does not matter if little
snapshots of the mover's position as it makes the move have it
theoretically 'inside' another body's position.

*** A diagram would definitely be handy. In DBA, they have the "no
more than one corner can cross through another element" rule -- you
seem to be saying that Warrior doesn't even have that
restriction ... but then when does interpenetration have to be
allowed to enable the move?

> <<> * 6.121 90-Degree Turns:
> No. See above. There is no difference in what happens when you
turn between 5-8 deep and 9-12 deep. You end up either 2 or 3 wide,
at the player's option, in any of those cases.

*** Does the body need to be in a legal block formation if deeper
than 4 elements, at the end of the 90 degree turn?

> << *6.13 Approaches:
> Neither. The player without initiative may approach with a cav
body (that does not have mounted within 240p) before any enemy foot
move.

*** This didn't quite answer my question. There are two parts: 1)
can the player who is allowed to pre-empt litterally pre-empt the
moving player in the MIDDLE of a given move? and 2) can the pre-
empting player do ALL pre-emptive moves before the pre-empted player
gets to do a single thing? Or is it a 1 body-then-1 body pre-
empted/pre-emptor alternation?

> <<> * 6.163 Declaring Charges:
> That is why I said technically. If you are in a heated
competition game, you should write charge decs, impetuous
declarations and prompt order down. Otherwise, just do it.

*** To be clear: I just want to know the rules, I'm not advocating
anality. ;-)

> <<> * 6.2 Marches:
> Initiative order. Never needed it until we started moving mages
in Fantasy Warrior.... :)

*** This surprises me ... both sides have a LC cloud on the same
flank, and they are dueling for position. This doesn't result in
folks wanting the other side to move first in each segment?

> <<> That's all for now ... but only because I haven't finished my
> > detailed pass through the rulebook. >>
> Don't hurry on my account...lol

I won't hurry ... but I already have a good-sized list from just the
rest of the movement section, plus some combat.

Are these truly the kinds of questions you need, or am I just being
dense or a rules lawyer? I hope neither.

-Jeff

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 8/25/2002 02:23:39 Central Daylight Time,
rockd@... writes:


> Do you mean that if the signal is seen in Bound 1, the order takes
> effect in Bound two.
>

Yes


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

[Doug]

>>>
Also note that the Attack order takes effect in the Orders Phase
(without having to make any communications) of the NEXT bound after
the signal is seen or the body charges.
>>>

This seems to me to be the same answer I got; and your phrase "next
bound after" still confuses me.

Do you mean that if the signal is seen in Bound 1, the order takes
effect in Bound two. In which case "next" is redundant, thus bad
grammar.

Or

If the signal is seen in Bound 1, then Bound 2 is (obviously) the
bound after, so the order takes effect in Bound 3, the "_next_ bound
after." In which case your sentence has a confusing style.

**********

Must be late at night for you. This sente-graph is a blatent Barkerism :0
>>>
It was MEANT to support the idea that columns that wheel, in real
life, do not whip through bodies to their left or right and so it is
where it ends that matters as far as can it fit in a tight space and
not how the figures 'appear' to move through nearby units during some
theoretical intermediate state before the move is completed.
>>>

**********

In other words, bodies on the table appear deeper than they are in
real life. That's the price of using pretty painted figures that are
big enough to be worth painting in the first place :)

>>>
Measured in that sentence means 'evaluated' not measured like with a
ruler. I'd need a diagram to really do this answer justice but it
has to do with things like three bodies in line and the middle body
wheels as part of a move forward. If it makes a legal move and is
clear of the other two when it is done, it does not matter if little
snapshots of the mover's position as it makes the move have it
theoretically 'inside' another body's position.
>>>

**********

--

Doug
The price of freedom is infernal vigilantes

"The tyranny of the legislatures is the most formidable dread at
present, and will be for long years. That of the executive will come
in it's turn, but it will be at a remote period." James Madison, 15
March 1798 (_Papers of J.M._ vol 12, p.14; LC call no. JK.111.M24)

[joncleaves]

You can't "just" move all your cav before all of his foot. If he has a
mounted body within 240p of one of your mounted bodies, that mounted body has
to wait its turn. It is theoretically possible, especially if he has an
all-foot army, to move all your cav before his foot, but that is not the
'rule'. The rule is each mounted body wishing to preempt cannot have a
mounted body within 240p.

[joncleaves]

It can be a declared visible signal.

Oops -- one more signal question: does it have to be some actual
visible game event (e.g. an enemy advancing to such-and-such a
location), or can it be a "declared" visible signal -- for
instance, "when my general waves his personal standard back and
forth" or "when Russel Crowe tells an archer to fire a flaming arrow
into the air ..." ?

One last follow-up for this question round, before posting the
next ... ;-)

Again, additional question prepended with ****.


--- In WarriorRules@y..., JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> > > << *6.13 Approaches:
> > *** This didn't quite answer my question. <snip>
> Oh yes I did. I said neither. You cannot preempt in the middle
of a move.
> You could theoretically do all preemptive moves before he can move
a single
> body, but that is a lot of mounted with no enemy mounted within
240p. Can
> the Mongols premept the Aztecs? Yup.

**** Um, "this didn't answer my question" means I don't yet have an
answer that makes me understand the issue. Yes, you
said "neither" ... but then you go on to say that you CAN move all
cav preemptively before any opposing infantry move. Hence, my
confusion persists. Strike "neither" and I get it.