Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

Ed Forbes · Centurion Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 1092

Hi Jon,

A question on Orb came up in last weeks game.

Basic Premiss:

6.41 Block: "It is one or more elements deep"

By definition under 6.41 Block:, line and column are blocks.

6.44 Orb:..."A unit must be in block"....."1/4 of outside figures fight
in each of the four directions counting as front rank and 1/4 of the
inner figures count as second rank."

Question:
If a 2 element deep by 4 element wide block converts to a Orb of the same
dimension, how do you count the figures for combat?

Same question for a block in line, one element deep.

The examples are clear for a 1 x 4 column, but not for other block
formations.

I get the impression that you had a different interp in mind as regards
to a block for Orb than as a block is defined in the rules.

Ed

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

joncleaves · Moderator Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447

In a message dated 4/26/2003 12:34:45 Central Daylight Time,
eforbes100@... writes:

> Question:
> If a 2 element deep by 4 element wide block converts to a Orb of the same
> dimension, how do you count the figures for combat?

The May clarifications to Warrior will say that a block must be the same or
more ranks deep as it is wide to be in orb. It's our fault, as it's obvious
to us from the math that it is insane to be in any other type formation and
call yourself an orb since you so significantly reduce your fighting power
there is no real fighting advantage to the formation. But, apparently, folks
are putting long lines of MI in 'orb' to count as shielded to shooting after
they have been outmaneuvered which, unfortunately, is possible the way the
rule is written. <sigh>

>
> Same question for a block in line, one element deep.

This won't be possible either, of course.

>
> The examples are clear for a 1 x 4 column, but not for other block
> formations.
>
> I get the impression that you had a different interp in mind as regards
> to a block for Orb than as a block is defined in the rules.
>
>

Well, I don't 'interp' what I write, since I am the author, but I know what
you mean. Again, it is my fault - the loophole was inadvertantly left due to
an incorrect assumption about the players who might use orb - I should know
better and I am sorry for any confusion.

Jon

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

Chris Bump · Legate Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 1625

In a message dated 4/29/2003 12:49:33 AM Central Standard Time,
JonCleaves@... writes:

> Well, I don't 'interp' what I write, since I am the author, but I know what
> you mean. Again, it is my fault - the loophole was inadvertantly left due
> to
> an incorrect assumption about the players who might use orb - I should know
>
> better and I am sorry for any confusion.
>
> Jon
>

Ahhhhhh,
What light yonder breaks on Jon's brow? Starting to see why you get such
ubiquitous questions from the Southwest?
Big bites, you may figure it out yet! <G>
Chris

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

Greg Regets · Imperator Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 2988

Lets try not to turn this into yet another accusation of 'loophole finding.'
I'm sure the people using it, whom ever they are, were just reading what they
saw in the rules and applying it on the table.

If there is a problem with that, stop giving us rule books!

The test is not the USE of such things, but rather, CORRECTING it after it is
found. What one person might call a 'loophole', just looks like 'tactics' to
the person that discovers it. No sense attaching the nefarious to something
that is probably not.

Besides, it really hurts recruiting efforts!

Greg

> <html><body>
>
>
> <tt>
> Hmmm...?! And I thought I was the other "DARK ONE!" 
> 
> JonCleaves@... wrote:In a message dated 4/29/2003 8:44:54 AM Eastern
Standard Time,
cncbump writes: 
> 
> > Starting to see why you get such 
> > ubiquitous questions from the Southwest?>> 
> 
> Oh, I know *why* - just can't talk about it in polite company... 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
> 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!? 
> The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] 
> 
> </tt>
>
> 
>
> 
>
> <table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2>
> <tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC>
> <td align=center>Yahoo! Groups
Sponsor</td>
> </tr>
> <tr bgcolor=#FFFFFF>
> <td align=center width=470><a
href="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=232617.3212172.4524785.2595810/D=egroupweb/S=1705059
080:HM/A=1555962/R=0/*http://shop.store.yahoo.com/cgi-bin/clink?
1800flowers2+shopping:dmad/M=232617.3212172.4524785.2595810/D=egroupweb/S=170505
9080:HM/A=1555962/R=1/1051632019+http://us.rmi.yahoo.com/rmi/http://www.1800flow
ers.com/rmi-framed-url/http://www.1800flowers.com/cgi-
bin/flowers/product.pl/MD01e84aF3GROUPSHMYH/1202"><img
src="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/18/1800flowers/MD01e84aF3.gif" alt=""
width="300"
height="250" border="0"></a></td>
> </tr>
> <tr><td><img alt="" width=1 height=1
src="http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?
M=232617.3212172.4524785.2595810/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1555962/rand=356491507"></
td></tr>

> </table>
>
> 
>
>
> 
> <tt>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: 
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com 
> 
> </tt>
> 
>
> 
> <tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms of Service</a>.</tt>
> 
>
> </body></html>
>

joncleaves · Moderator Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447

In a message dated 4/29/2003 8:44:54 AM Eastern Standard Time, cncbump writes:

> Starting to see why you get such
> ubiquitous questions from the Southwest?>>

Oh, I know *why* - just can't talk about it in polite company...

Kelly Wilkinson · Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2003 7:00 pm Post subject: Re: Orb?

Hmmm...?! And I thought I was the other "DARK ONE!"

JonCleaves@... wrote:In a message dated 4/29/2003 8:44:54 AM Eastern
Standard Time, cncbump writes:

> Starting to see why you get such
> ubiquitous questions from the Southwest?>>

Oh, I know *why* - just can't talk about it in polite company...

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
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!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

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

joncleaves · Moderator Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 16447

Oh geez Greg...I was just being light hearted. Don't be so thin skinned...lol

scott holder · Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2003 7:45 pm Post subject: RE: Orb?

The orb thingie is a good example of just how complex these rules are and how,
despite our best efforts, things that we intended to correct/make clear from TOG
didn't make it into the final copy because we were tracking a bazillion little
things at once. The orb "concept" as Jon is indicating it will end up is
something I'd instituted in TOG and fully intended to carry over into WARRIOR.
But since we're juggling so much stuff, it just didn't happen. This isn't a
finger pointing exercise, it's more a reflection on the fact that the four of
us, sadly, have day jobs. This situation is akin to something that Bill and I
are desperately trying to avoid in the army lists, namely, the same troop types
in one list can do one thing that they can't do in another. This type of thing
was chronic in the old lists. Now, in some instances, it's called for but most
of the time, it ain't.

Lemme give you a recent, unpublished example. In FeudWar, Italian "urban"
infantry of certain types can mix, specifically close order dudes with Sp and Pa
can mix with close order dudes with CB (and Pa if the CBmen choose to have it).
Okay, first list out of the chute like this is Communal Italian (#4). Here we
are, fully 5 months after starting the writing process and during the last draft
process, I found a number of Italians in other lists contemporary to the one
we're talking about and no indication that they can mix. Heh heh, caught that
one but that was after at least six people have had a crack at the draft. In
some ways, that's what takes so long with these, ensuring consistency.

So, this is why some of these things occur. As a rule, I certainly don't think
players are looking for loopholes, well, 99% of the time I don't Smile

And I'm
glad they get pointed out to us (Jon) so that we can step back and go "duh, we
certainly didn't want that".

Scott
Orb Ho

Recruit Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 167

we here in the southwest know what a sensitive and
delicate guy our greg can be. however, he does read
the rules.

--- JonCleaves@... wrote:
> Oh geez Greg...I was just being light hearted.
> Don't be so thin skinned...lol
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com

Don Coon · Imperator Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 2742

Yea because it was me! I sure was not looking for a loophole. I honestly
had no idea how to apply orb to my 4X2 formation.

Don

> Lets try not to turn this into yet another accusation of 'loophole
finding.'
> I'm sure the people using it, whom ever they are, were just reading what
they
> saw in the rules and applying it on the table.
>
> If there is a problem with that, stop giving us rule books!
>
> The test is not the USE of such things, but rather, CORRECTING it after it
is
> found. What one person might call a 'loophole', just looks like 'tactics'
to
> the person that discovers it. No sense attaching the nefarious to
something
> that is probably not.