Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

Ok, now if this isn't pandora's box, I do not know what is...lol

If you have a particular section of the Warrior rulebook the wording of which
just drives you mad, please nominate it here to me. You may, if you like,
include alternate wording, but you don't need to.

For those going to HCon, you may want to keep a record of issues that come up
duirng your games, if any, that are centered on poor wording - which I freely
admit is in there.

This is not, I say again NOT, a call for proposed rules changes. Any such, as
always, will be ignored without historical backing and playtest reports on its
use. It is also NOT a call for recommended changes to the points system. The
only thing being looked at there are temporary fortifications, and we already
have a plan.

I make no promise except that I will read and save all requests for review of
poor wording when I get to that section.

I am driving headlong into this project when I get back from HCon, so it would
be best if you had any recommendations concerning 6.0 to me by the end of the
month.

You may mention sections to me verbally at HCon, but I will smile and nod and
then promptly forget them. Please post here so I have a record.

Limit 1-2 areas per customer, except Don Coon who may have three.

let slip, etc...

Jon

[Don Coon]

> Ok, now if this isn't pandora's box, I do not know what is...lol
>
> If you have a particular section of the Warrior rulebook the wording of
which just drives you mad, please nominate it here to me. You may, if you
like, include alternate wording, but you don't need to.

6.52 Interpenetration. Troops can voluntarily interpenetrate another
friendly body directly to their front or rear in any of the following
circumstances:

OK. There are two subjects in this sentence (I will call them Body A - the
interpenetrator, and Body B - the interpenetrated). Which subject does the
word "their" modify?

If it is Body A, then we must be talking about ANY forward movement of Body
A due to tactical moves, or rearward movement of Body A due to combat
results moves, charge responses etc. This is easily clarified with the
following wording "Troops can voluntarily interpenetrate another friendly
body directly to the interpenetrating troops front or rear in any of the
following circumstances:"

If it is Body B (as has been ruled against Patrick in a tourney game by
Scott), then we must investigate and clarify what the word "directly" means.
If Body A and B are parallel and facing the same way we have no problem.
What if B is at an angle to A. This would seem to not be directly to front
(or rear) and requires some clarification. Try this "Troops can voluntarily
interpenetrate a target friendly body to the target body's front or rear (if
the interpenetrating body is not beyond the flank of the target body or if
it would not be beyond the flank when treating the target body's rear face
as a front face) in any of the following circumstances:"

Now we have a more clear rule. Honestly we are not sure whether 6.52 if for
the first example or the second, but we play it as the second.

Don

[Ewan McNay]

I'm obviously not going to take this as one of my choices now but
agree that this passage is frequently contentious. I have always
assumed - and played, including rulings by Scott - A - but ave had
several opponents who thought B.

jjendon@... wrote:

>
>>Ok, now if this isn't pandora's box, I do not know what is...lol
>>
>>If you have a particular section of the Warrior rulebook the wording of
>
> which just drives you mad, please nominate it here to me. You may, if you
> like, include alternate wording, but you don't need to.
>
> 6.52 Interpenetration. Troops can voluntarily interpenetrate another
> friendly body directly to their front or rear in any of the following
> circumstances:
>
> OK. There are two subjects in this sentence (I will call them Body A - the
> interpenetrator, and Body B - the interpenetrated). Which subject does the
> word "their" modify?
>
> If it is Body A, then we must be talking about ANY forward movement of Body
> A due to tactical moves, or rearward movement of Body A due to combat
> results moves, charge responses etc. This is easily clarified with the
> following wording "Troops can voluntarily interpenetrate another friendly
> body directly to the interpenetrating troops front or rear in any of the
> following circumstances:"
>
> If it is Body B (as has been ruled against Patrick in a tourney game by
> Scott), then we must investigate and clarify what the word "directly" means.
> If Body A and B are parallel and facing the same way we have no problem.
> What if B is at an angle to A. This would seem to not be directly to front
> (or rear) and requires some clarification. Try this "Troops can voluntarily
> interpenetrate a target friendly body to the target body's front or rear (if
> the interpenetrating body is not beyond the flank of the target body or if
> it would not be beyond the flank when treating the target body's rear face
> as a front face) in any of the following circumstances:"
>
> Now we have a more clear rule. Honestly we are not sure whether 6.52 if for
> the first example or the second, but we play it as the second.
>
> Don
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

[Todd Kaeser]

Jon,

Not a wording question per se, but (and this has happened in battle with me)

if a general with a PA standard has been routed off the board does the PA
standard count as if falling???? Otherwise no one tests for its loss, yet if
cannot return to the field.

Todd

JonCleaves@... wrote:
Ok, now if this isn't pandora's box, I do not know what is...lol

If you have a particular section of the Warrior rulebook the wording of which
just drives you mad, please nominate it here to me. You may, if you like,
include alternate wording, but you don't need to.

For those going to HCon, you may want to keep a record of issues that come up
duirng your games, if any, that are centered on poor wording - which I freely
admit is in there.

This is not, I say again NOT, a call for proposed rules changes. Any such, as
always, will be ignored without historical backing and playtest reports on its
use. It is also NOT a call for recommended changes to the points system. The
only thing being looked at there are temporary fortifications, and we already
have a plan.

I make no promise except that I will read and save all requests for review of
poor wording when I get to that section.

I am driving headlong into this project when I get back from HCon, so it would
be best if you had any recommendations concerning 6.0 to me by the end of the
month.

You may mention sections to me verbally at HCon, but I will smile and nod and
then promptly forget them. Please post here so I have a record.

Limit 1-2 areas per customer, except Don Coon who may have three.

let slip, etc...

Jon



Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

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

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



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!

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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 7/15/2004 9:44:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Ewan McNay
<ewan.mcnay@...> writes:

>I'm obviously not going to take this as one of my choices now but
>agree that this passage is frequently contentious.  I have always
>assumed - and played, including rulings by Scott - A - but ave had
>several opponents who thought B.>>

It is indeed 'A', but obviously needs work.

Thanks, this is exactly what I was looking for.

J


>
>jjendon@... wrote:
>
>>
>>>Ok, now if this isn't pandora's box, I do not know what is...lol
>>>
>>>If you have a particular section of the Warrior rulebook the wording of
>>
>> which just drives you mad, please nominate it here to me.  You may, if you
>> like, include alternate wording, but you don't need to.
>>
>> 6.52 Interpenetration.  Troops can voluntarily interpenetrate another
>> friendly body directly to their front or rear in any of the following
>> circumstances:
>>
>> OK.  There are two subjects in this sentence (I will call them Body A - the
>> interpenetrator, and Body B - the interpenetrated).  Which subject does the
>> word "their" modify?
>>
>> If it is Body A, then we must be talking about ANY forward movement of Body
>> A due to tactical moves, or rearward movement of Body A due to combat
>> results moves, charge responses etc.  This is easily clarified with the
>> following wording "Troops can voluntarily interpenetrate another friendly
>> body directly to the interpenetrating troops front or rear in any of the
>> following circumstances:"
>>
>> If it is Body B (as has been ruled against Patrick in a tourney game by
>> Scott), then we must investigate and clarify what the word "directly" means.
>> If Body A and B are parallel and facing the same way we have no problem.
>> What if B is at an angle to A. This would seem to not be directly to front
>> (or rear) and requires some clarification.  Try this "Troops can voluntarily
>> interpenetrate a target friendly body to the target body's front or rear (if
>> the interpenetrating body is not beyond the flank of the target body or if
>> it would not be beyond the flank when treating the target body's rear face
>> as a front face) in any of the following circumstances:"
>>
>> Now we have a more clear rule. Honestly we are not sure whether 6.52 if for
>> the first example or the second, but we play it as the second.
>>
>> Don
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

[John Murphy]

My A#1 -

Follow-up +1, who exactly gets it, ie when the troop being followed-
up is fighting someone besides the one doing the following. The
current wording definitely reads the oppoiste of what you indicated
the actual rule is (until you saw the old clarification) so this is
an obvious spot that needs re-writing.

(Remember from the whole HtH replacement topic? Which, in its
entirety, would be my #2 - greatly in need of elaboration and
example that shows how all the "first contact" and other terms are
applied for support shots, weapon choices and ranks fighting as well
as tactical mods like the above - the current two sentences or
whatever are way not enough for this very complex topic)

In fact, if these topics were themselves somehow clarified better in
writing then maybe this would not be as necessary, but that would be
topic #3 so I am over my limit, doh!

Take it easy & see ya in a week or so now,
John

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 7/15/2004 2:47:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time, "John"
<jjmurphy@...> writes:

>My A#1 -
>
>Follow-up +1, who exactly gets it, ie when the troop being followed-
>up is fighting someone besides the one doing the following.>>

Just to be clear, you do not think this section of 9.42 does the trick?

"A unit adds 1 against the units that they are following-up against or are
pursuing only. If they become involved in a combat
with some other unit during the follow-up or pursuit the plus 1 is not figured
against that enemy."

Jon

[Todd Schneider]

Maybe it needs to be in both places?

Todd

--- JonCleaves@... wrote:

---------------------------------
In a message dated 7/15/2004 2:47:34 PM Eastern
Daylight Time, "John" <jjmurphy@...> writes:

>My A#1 -
>
>Follow-up +1, who exactly gets it, ie when the troop
being followed-
>up is fighting someone besides the one doing the
following.>>

Just to be clear, you do not think this section of
9.42 does the trick?

"A unit adds 1 against the units that they are
following-up against or are pursuing only. If they
become involved in a combat
with some other unit during the follow-up or pursuit
the plus 1 is not figured against that enemy."

Jon

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

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

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

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Jon,

Could this include continuity issues in list books. For instance, as edited
in the Feudal Spanish, Andalusian troops cannot be used with HK as their
alliance with Christian Spanish forces were before the use of HK. In the
Andalusian list, you are allowed 2 - 12 HK because a contradicting source says
you can. It seems to me that things like this occur and could be tightened up a
little bit. This is not to knock Scott or Bill as they have done wonderful work.
My thought on this is that nothing is perfect and improvement is always a
welcome thing. And continuity of army lists certainly could improve.
Additionally, would it be possible to have future army lists that are published
with a bibliography that was used with each list? I sometimes like to read about
my "favorite" army that I'm working on and think this would be worth the extra
cost as a person who loves to read history. Is this possibe?

kelly

JonCleaves@... wrote:
Ok, now if this isn't pandora's box, I do not know what is...lol

If you have a particular section of the Warrior rulebook the wording of which
just drives you mad, please nominate it here to me. You may, if you like,
include alternate wording, but you don't need to.

For those going to HCon, you may want to keep a record of issues that come up
duirng your games, if any, that are centered on poor wording - which I freely
admit is in there.

This is not, I say again NOT, a call for proposed rules changes. Any such, as
always, will be ignored without historical backing and playtest reports on its
use. It is also NOT a call for recommended changes to the points system. The
only thing being looked at there are temporary fortifications, and we already
have a plan.

I make no promise except that I will read and save all requests for review of
poor wording when I get to that section.

I am driving headlong into this project when I get back from HCon, so it would
be best if you had any recommendations concerning 6.0 to me by the end of the
month.

You may mention sections to me verbally at HCon, but I will smile and nod and
then promptly forget them. Please post here so I have a record.

Limit 1-2 areas per customer, except Don Coon who may have three.

let slip, etc...

Jon



Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

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

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



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!

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

[John Murphy]

The text below is fine but it is buried in the text paragraphs on an
entirely different non-facing page rather than in the list of
modifiers which folks refer to. I might point out it was
sufficiently unlcear as a result that you yourself in a moment of
fatigue (your reward for supporting your rules so well) made the
mistake during our extended HtH example of mis-applying the +1 for
follow-up despite the presence of this text passage in the rulebook.

So while the text below is perfect, the placement is not good.

I would suspect this is a trap waiting to happen for the remainder
of the 9.42 text section on that flipped page as well. Move as much
of that as you can into the bullets or at least create a seperate
sub-section (9.421) or sub-sections and call it out in the bullets
so people know there are more rules to look at than just the list.

That is just me though, sticks out in my mind because a lot of
confusion arose over that whole topic.

And certainly my #2 item about who gets to support shoot, use
certain weapons, or fight from rear ranks in a more complicated than
straight-up HtH situation such as HtH replacement or simply even a
two-turn combination - all that really needs a more ink and a good
example showing why one does or does not apply all the criteria.

And further, while not a function of the rulebook per se, that kind
of tactical example to explain a rule would encourage new players to
think in those combinational terms rather than strictly rock-
scissors-paper.

FHE could probably make a mint off a book like "Zen Tactical Secrets
of the Warrior Master Gurus"! <g>

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 7/15/2004 2:47:34 PM Eastern Daylight
Time, "John" <jjmurphy@s...> writes:
> Just to be clear, you do not think this section of 9.42 does the
trick?
> "A unit adds 1 against the units that they are following-up
against or are pursuing only. If they become involved in a combat
> with some other unit during the follow-up or pursuit the plus 1 is
not figured against that enemy."

[Todd Schneider]

My next Winter project was going to be a 1200 point
example battle in powerpoint, like the sample battle I
did.

However, as a newer player myself, I had been jotting
down some Ideas for a "Warrior Tactics 101"
presentation.

Heres what I have on the list of things to include so
far. Each example will also have a page thats a
"reader excercise", in which you determine the issue
at hand (Charging, Support, etc...):

Support - With a couple of diagrams on what is and
what isn't supported.

Shooting - With diagrams on which elements are able to
shoot and why, and which elements are unable to shoot
and why.

Charging - With Diagrams on what is and isn't a legal
charge, and how to resolve evade, breaking off and
rout moves.

Troops support - With diagrams on how and why certain
units support each other better than others, with some
basic agreed upon tenets (IE, No LC in front of your
troops unless really neccessary). It would also
include a section on which matchups are generally
better than others.

I was going to stay away from tactics for a couple of
reasons:

1. I haven't played enough to begin to master all of
them, let alone recognize some of them.
2. Tactics are subjective at best. What might work
out best for someone like Frank Gilson may not be Dave
Markowitz style. IMO a lot of that thpugh is very
"List Indicative" in that the way I want to run Late
imperial Romans is different than the way someone else
might want to run them. That being said, if theres a
way to present a couple of tactical situations and get
multiple feedback on it, I would certainly include
them.

That being said, if someone out there has an example
they would like to see included or addressed, please
send it to me at Thresh1642@... and I'll do
my best to include it. It might not survive the
editing process though.

Chances are this project isn't going to be finished
until early next year, but other than that I am more
than willing to re-do what I started to accomodate
things.

Todd



--- John <jjmurphy@...> wrote:

----

FHE could probably make a mint off a book like "Zen
Tactical Secrets
of the Warrior Master Gurus"! <g>

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> Ok, now if this isn't pandora's box, I do not know what is...lol
>
> If you have a particular section of the Warrior rulebook the
wording of which just drives you mad, please nominate it here to me.
You may, if you like, include alternate wording, but you don't need
to.
>

Something that I would love to see included, if practical, with the
new edition of the rules would be some sort of Warrior Tactica.
Speaking as a rank newcomer, I think this would be very helpful in
addition to only the relatively dry recitation that a ruleset must
be. I have had the recent advantage of getting a few games under my
belt with very experienced players, and that has given me, I think, a
rudimentary grasp of the game mechanics (a basic mastery of tactics
and serious gameplay is still quite a ways off, I fear). I can't
imagine how difficult it would be to pick up the game if I was trying
to learn it simultaneously with a group of guys without the guidance
of any experienced players. I few thoughts of the kind of topics that
could be included in such a tactica would be:

The strength and weaknesses of troop types and how to use them in
combination.

Using a light infantry screen.

Effective missile fire.

Proper positioning of troops (e.g. how far back to keep the main
battle line from your screen, and how to set up troops for evades and
recalls through the main battle line.)

The proper use of light cavalry

Effective deployment and the use of terrain.

Setting up charges

I'm sure that there are many more topics that would be of interest to
newcomers. I know that this stuff is most likely extremely obvious
to all the old hands out there, but I think it would be extremely
valuable to people trying Warrior out for the first time.

[joncleaves]

>
>Something that I would love to see included, if practical, with the
>new edition of the rules would be some sort of Warrior Tactica. >>

This is a great idea and we will do something of this type, either on our own or
approving something a player has done or some combination. But it will not be
in the rulebook due to space.

on the other hand - it will be free...lol

Jon

[Mark Stone]

Jon,

Here are my two areas that I'd like to see clarification, and then a couple of
other minor comments on things to be cleaned up.

Choice #1: Chariots with LI on the base.
While I applaud the idea of having chariot escorts optionally be mounted on the
base of the chariot -- a nice parallel with elephants -- this raises a number
of issues that don't come up with elephants. Elephants don't skirmish, whereas
some chariots can. Elephants are in a different "charge group" than chariots,
according to Section 6.163, "Declaring Charges", specifically the subsection
titled "Cancelled Charges".

So here's what I'd like to see: My understanding is that a 3 rank deep
skirmishing chariot unit with LI on the base of each chariot model would count
the following figures as eligible for shooting:
- front rank chariots: full effect.
- front rank LI on chariot bases: half effect.
- second rank chariots: half effect.
- second rank LI on chariot bases: half effect.
- third rank chariots: half effect.
- third rank LI on chariot bases: no effect.

This needs to be stated and explained somewhere. Currently the only
documentation on this point is in an email exchange on this list about a month
ago.

On a somewhat related point: Currently, per 6.163 "Declaring Charges/Cancelled
Charges", it says that "A body's charge is canceled if it contains
non-impetuous foot that have a charge declared on them by impetuous or mounted
troops." It also says that "A body's charge is canceled if it contains
non-impetuous foot and a separate impetous or mounted body not of elephants
declares a charge against the same enemy body."

This could mean a couple of things with respect to chariots. First, it could
mean that if a body of impetuous foot declares a charge on my non-impetuous
chariots who have LI on the base, then any charge the chariots have declared is
canceled. I don't think it works this way, however, because I'm not aware that
we play elephants that way.

Second, it could mean that if my chariots have a non-impetuous charge declared
on something that I'm also charging with a unit of HC, then my chariots have
their charge cancelled. Here I have no idea what the correct interpretation is.
If, in the prior example, elephants with LI on the base do _not_ have their
charge cancelled by impetuous foot, then presumably chariots with LI on the
base do not either. But if chariots do not have their charge cancelled in that
case, they probably shouldn't have it cancelled in this case eitiher. Or maybe
they do. Or maybe we should have been playing all along that elephants have
their charge cancelled if they have LI on the base and are charged by impetuous
foot.

In any case, there are a number of issues opened up by allowed LI on bases with
chariots that need to be clarified.

Choice #2: Timing of prompts.
Under 4.3 "Prompts", it says that "A prompt must be communicated (4.4). It is
made at the appropriate point in the sequence of play." I have no idea what
"appropriate point" is.

Let me give an example. I have a general who has expended 13 prompt points this
bound prior to the charge declaration phase. I can see that a body will be
within charge range of an enemy next bound, but not this bound. Knowing that
the communication will not arrive until next bound, can I prompt the unit this
bound to charge, even though at present it has no eligible charge target? Charge
declarations is the "appropriate point" to be prompting charges.

Similar example. During march moves, I have a general who has expended 13 prompt
points this bound already. He has a unit that is within 240p of an enemy body,
but it's an enemy body in rout and is 200p away from the friendly unit in
question, so there is no reason to think that next bound there will be enemy
within 240p. Can the general prompt the unit to march, knowing that (a) the
unit isn't eligible to march right now, (b) the prompt won't arrive until next
bound, and (c) next bound the unit should be eligible to march?

I'm hoping the answer to both the examples is "yes". It seems to me that part of
good generalship is being able to anticipate future events, and that if you can
do so successfully you should be able to take advantage of whatever command and
control tools are at your disposal to take advantage of successful anticipation.

Again, though, the rules as written provide no real guidance on what the answer
is here.

So those are my two wishes for clarification. If you're interested, I also point
out that the following needs clarification: There are several places in the
rules where eligibility for a benefit or requirement to suffer a penalty is
worded in terms of entire body, when in fact I think the eligibility
requirements are really intended to be determined only on the basis of front
rank. Here are a couple of examples:
5.52 "Waver Test Causes". Suppose I have a chariot unit with a detachment of
foot chariot runners (LMI) attached to the rear of the unit. Presumably I
_don't_ take a waver test for being frontally charged by mounted (bullet #,
but I would take such a waver test if charged in the flank or rear.

Similarly the same chariot unit presumably _is_ eligible to counter-charge
mounted, even though it has a rear rank of LMI (6.166). Or is it? Anyway, some
clarification is in order.


-Mark Stone